criss-cross
by Douglas Messerli
Czenzi Ormonde (screenplay, listed
with Raymond Chandler, whose contributions were never used, based on an
adaptation by Whitfield Cook of Patricia Highsmith's novel) Alfred Hitchcock
(director) Strangers on a Train / 1951
Strangers on a Train has long been one of my favorite Hitchcock films, and with
the news yesterday of the death of one of the film's stars, Farley Granger, I
felt it was time I wrote about this work.
One of Farley Granger's earliest performances was in a play by Lillian
Hellman, a friend of Djuna Barnes whom she helped support in Barnes' later
years, by slipping envelopes of money under her door. I had met and interviewed
Barnes in 1973, a few years before her death. Three separations.
In his autobiography West Side Story librettist Arthur Laurents
writes of his affair with Farley Granger while working on Hitchcock's film Rope.
Tony in the film version of West Side Story was played by Richard
Beymer, who attended my literary salons several times. Three separations.
Another of Granger's lovers was composer-director Leonard Bernstein who
personally encouraged my friend Charlie Wine to become a composer. Three
separations again!
The year after Strangers on a Train, actress Ruth Roman—who in
this work plays Granger’s love interest, Anne Morton—played in Young Man
with Ideas with Nina Foch, who taught acting to and befriended Howard's
Aunt Lillian (who've I met several times). Three separations.
My parents once reported that they, too, had met Nina Foch in a 1956
visit to Los Angeles, when she was at work on The Ten Commandments
(although I have no idea, how and why this meeting took place). One of the
stars of The Ten Commandments was Yul Brynner, whose Swiss aunt I once
met. Three separations!
In any event, this linking could go and on, although if one must ask, to
what purpose? I suspect that my desire to interconnect this way has something
to do with the structure of Strangers on the Train, where several
different individuals cross paths, echoing and effecting one another. Indeed,
in the case of the two major figures of the film, Guy Haines (Farley Granger)
and Bruno Anthony, there is no separation. Once Anthony has recognized Haines
on the train, intruding upon the famed tennis player, ("I beg your pardon,
but aren't you Guy Haines?") the two become almost inseparable, dining
together in Anthony's small train compartment, and conversing about all things
from tennis to Anthony's strange philosophical views ("I have a theory
that you should do everything before you die.").
Although we know from the beginning that Haines is dating and hoping to
marry the lovely senator's daughter, Anne Morton (Roman) as soon as he can
divorce his wife, Hitchcock plays out this strange encounter as a kind of gay
pickup, clearly toying with Granger's real-life bisexuality and his
astonishingly good looks. Why else would Guy allow himself to be literally
swept-up by the foppish, mama's boy Bruno (who in some scenes, looks nearly as
handsome as Guy), who ultimately consumes him into the vertigo of his murderous
intents. Before Guy can even display his discomfort, Bruno has outlined a plan
whereby he will kill guy's wife if Guy will kill Bruno's father, the ingenious
game he describes as "criss-cross."
Guy's inadequate response—"I may be old-fashioned, but I thought
murder was against the law."—reveals both his inability to comprehend this
absurdity and suggests a darker possibility, that he is not at all adverse to
the idea.
In Highsmith's novel, Guy does go through with his part of the crime,
and is imprisoned; in an earlier script by Raymond Chandler, a script which
Hitchcock hated and tossed into the wastebasket while holding his nose, the
film ended with Haines in a straight-jacket. So the doppelganger aspects of
Haines and Anthony appear to be innately within the structure of the work,
suggesting a kind of fused being with a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde personality.
From the moment of Guy's and Bruno's meeting, there is no escaping each
other, reiterated when Haines meets up with his wife, who refuses to grant him
a divorce. Haines' fury as he calls back to Anne Morton in Washington, D.C.,
again points up a kind of receptivity to Bruno's mania: "I could kill
her!"
Bruno's acquisition of Guy's lighter along with his murder of Guy's
selfish wife doom the tennis player to be entrapped within Bruno's perverted
universe. Suddenly Bruno is everywhere, talking to Guy's friends at the tennis
courts and even attending the senator's parties, where we truly experience
Bruno's madness:
bruno (to the Senator): How do you do, sir? I'd like to talk with
you sometime, sir, and tell you about my idea for harnessing the life force.
It'll make atomic power look like the horse and buggy. I'm already developing
my faculty for seeming millions of miles.
By the end of the evening, he has almost unintentionally strangled one
of the senator's guests, making his daughter Anne suspicious that there is a
link between her lover and the interloper, which she expresses to Guy almost as
in a jealous anger:
anne: How did you get him to do it?
guy: I get him to do it?
anne: Bruno Anthony. He killed Miriam, didn't he? It wasn't you,
it was him
guy: Yes...
anne: Tell me the truth, how did you get Mr. Anthony to do it?
The "doing" obviously is murder, but it suggests another
"doing," the sexual act, (con)fusing the two. By film's end, Guy is
forever wed to Bruno. What he says of the detective following him might also be
said of his "double": "He sticks so close he's beginning to grow
on me—like a fungus."
It is as if Bruno is a kind of whirlwind force that sucks all those
whose paths he crosses into his insanity. Accordingly, it is no accident that,
in his attempt to implicate Guy in the murder of his wife by planting his
lighter at the scene of the act, he and Guy are swept away in a battle upon a
carousel, whirling out of control, where innocent children are hurt and
possibly killed as well.
Even as he lays dying, Bruno will not give up the evidence of the
lighter or the truth, keeping like a fetish the links he still has to Guy
Haines' identity. Only in death will he free his "other."
For good or bad, this movie reveals, we
are all intricately intertwined. Is it any wonder, in the final moment of the
film when another stranger asks of the tennis player, "Aren't you Guy
Haines?", he and Anne get up and move away. Perhaps, teases Hitchcock,
it's better not to know your neighbors, issues this director will take up again
in his 1954 movie, Rear Window.
At the same time, to be accused of something you did not do merely
through association brings up issues that were boiling over in the public
sector when Strangers on a Train was made, namely what was later
described as the "Red Scare," including the arrests of Julius and
Ethel Rosenberg in 1950, and, that same year a governmental connection of
homosexuals and communists laid out in the government-published report, Employment
of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government—issues Hitchcock would
explore in his 1956 film, The Wrong Man.
Los Angeles, March 30, 2011
Reprinted from World Cinema
Review (March 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment