I read recently in a collection of interviews by Peter Bogdanovich that he was not happy with picking Farley Granger as the foil in "Strangers on a Train." I would agree. However, the character of Bruno is so dominant and Robert Walker so insidious, I don't think it matters. Like most Hitchcock films, it's the camera. His mind's eye. The use of the women with glasses.
The overhead shots. The threatening shadows. The merry go round. The lighter that slips into the storm drain. Hitchcock even said that the old man that goes under the merry-go-round didn't realize that he actually was in grave danger. Had he raised up for a second, the thing would have taken his head off. Those scenes are vintage Hitchcock. I don't know if it is vintage Hitchcock, but it's better than about 95% of the movies being made today.
The man who somehow finds himself in an untenable position through no fault of his own and then must find out enough about it so he can survive is the benchmark of many of the films. The weakest part of the movie is the relationship of Granger's character with the people he knows. Somehow, I never really felt the suspense.
The overhead shots. The threatening shadows. The merry go round. The lighter that slips into the storm drain. Hitchcock even said that the old man that goes under the merry-go-round didn't realize that he actually was in grave danger. Had he raised up for a second, the thing would have taken his head off. Those scenes are vintage Hitchcock. I don't know if it is vintage Hitchcock, but it's better than about 95% of the movies being made today.
The man who somehow finds himself in an untenable position through no fault of his own and then must find out enough about it so he can survive is the benchmark of many of the films. The weakest part of the movie is the relationship of Granger's character with the people he knows. Somehow, I never really felt the suspense.