MovieChat Forums > Strangers on a Train (1951) Discussion > Great film but the Carousel?

Great film but the Carousel?

posted 13 years ago by JoseyWales
30 replies | jump to latest

Great film but the Carousel?

BEWARE! MAJOR ENDING SPOILER.
Don't read this if you haven't seen the movie and are planning to watch it.

I watched this again recently after many years and was totally enthralled until the ending sorta spoiled it for me. I have looked at quite a few other posts and it doesn't seem to be mentioned.
The whole Carousel scene was great (although the pay off where, it seems, the only person to get killed was the bad guy was all a bit too convenient). But, putting that aside, the bit that really spoiled it for me was when Guy jumps onto the Carousel and a cop fires a shot at him and kills the ride operator, thereby setting the scene for the final climax. OK, spin back there -the cop fires a shot at a Carousel loaded with people, which naturally included loads of kids? Even with the best will (and aim) in the world, this was a ridiculous thing to do. Surely cops were more responsible than that, even back in the fifties? And surely, Hitch, with his devious and inventive mind, could have engineered a better plot device than that.

It's strange that when I make posts like this, I think to myself: 'What am I saying. Who the hell do I think I am to question the film making or plots of an undoubted and celebrated Master of suspense and film making in general? How many blockbuster movies have I made?'

But, the fact remains: I thought that plot device was very annoying and unsatisfactory, trying to choose my words carefully with regard to the above comments.

My wife suggested that audiences were less sophisticated back then. So how the hell did they enjoy or cope with All About Eve, just one example of many cerebral and 'sophisticated' movies of its day?

There can be no true beauty without decay.

[–] BobbyBenny 13 years ago

It was based on a real life incident a year or two before, where a cop fired at someone on a Carousel.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

No, that´s nonsense - the audiences were not "less sophisticated" back then (or "more sophisticated", for that matter), they just weren´t as obsessed with the supposed "realism" and not that liable to make a big deal out of seeing things in film that wouldn´t or couldn´t happen in real life.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] JoseyWales 12 years ago

Um, if 'they just weren´t as obsessed with the supposed "realism" and not that liable to make a big deal out of seeing things in film that wouldn´t or couldn´t happen in real life', then doesn't that make them less sophisticated?

As for obsession and realism:
I am certainly not obsessed about the issue, I just made what I thought was a reasonable post based on what I saw in the movie.
If I am watching Batman, Conan, Star Wars, tongue in cheek action movies etc, then sure, I accept that it is fantasy or not meant to be taken too seriously and suspend disbelief accordingly. But Strangers on a Train is surely supposed to be a more realistic study of love, marriage, guilt, murder, the workings of the human mind in general and consequent actions. A film about real people with real problems. In this kind of film I expect a certain realism, yes.

I think the real issue is more about whether I am being too naive or misjudging human nature in general, with regard to the previous post about a similar incident actually happening. I realise now that I was possibly wrong to be annoyed at something that I thought was unrealistic. In the real world, under pressure or just acting stupidly or without thought, people DO do things that are totally incomprehensible to an outsider after the event.

There can be no true beauty without decay.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"Doesn´t that make them less sophisticated?"

"Less sophisticated" would mean here that they either failed to recognize the stylized, more artificial qualities of the film or that they didn´t know to ask for better... except that "naturalism" isn´t synonymous with "sophistication" or necessarily "better".

"But Strangers On A Train is surely supposed to be a more realistic study of love, marriage, guilt, murder, the workings of a human mind".

While I wouldn´t necessarily go second guessing Hitchcock here as far as his intentions are concerned, I do agree that in some cases, the character psychology in his films is indeed rather questionable. And that definitely does qualify a flaw in my eyes - unlike some plot contrivances or the like.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] Ironman54 12 years ago

Simple. As I keep trying to remind people on IMDB all the time concerning 'old' movies ... they were made to see once ! No VCRs, DVD players, Tivo etc. Fast paced thrillers didn't allow you the time to think about these things even if you did have a flash of 'WTF', it was quickly wiped away by the next scene. If you wanted to keep up with the movie (which, if it was any good at all, one did), you had to pay attention to what was happening in the here and now - no 'do overs' had you allowed yourself to ponder your 'flash', you became hopelessly lost with what was going on on the screen. And, a few days later, you were on to the next movie anyway. Having AADD, trust me, I know all about it !! Thankfully I can straighten things out now by re-watching on TV etc.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Scooby52 11 years ago

Sorry I don't see how it's Bruno's fault. He might have been trying to flee but he was unarmed, the police officer had no reason to shoot but did so anyway, making him the negligent one.

I'm writing this signature in bold so people know it's a signature

[–] bctelecom 12 years ago

The cop's poorly planned shot at the carousel reminds me of the cop shooting at Jimmy Stewart in 'It's a Wonderful Life'.
In that scene Jimmy is running down a crowded street and the cop (Ernie, I think) fires randomly at him.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JoseyWales 12 years ago

This is general comment to all contemporary movie board posters: before posting links, you should be sure that they are correct.
The link posted above is not for a specific review, but for a whole list of links to the film in question, with no way of knowing which was the intended 'target'.
I think everyone should be required to use links properly at the time of posting before they comment on IMDB.

There can be no true beauty without decay.

[–] seamonkey-fan 12 years ago

The link can be changed after the poster writes it here. Yes, having proper links would help but it's not always the fault of the poster.

[–] Trax-3 10 years ago

This is general comment to all contemporary movie board posters: before posting links, you should be sure that they are correct.
The link posted above is not for a specific review, but for a whole list of links to the film in question, with no way of knowing which was the intended 'target'.

here's a critical review by Bosley Crowther of New York Times who doesn't seem to think much of this film or Hitchcock's "touches" and "melodramatic tricks".

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9405E5D71F3EEF3BBC4C53DFB16683 8A649EDE

My long held belief is that Hitchcock disdained the people who went to see his pictures and threw in improbable situation after improbable situation just to see how much they would swallow.

Mr. Crowther seems to have thought the same.

From the slow, stalking murder of a loose girl in a tawdry amusement park to a "chase" and eventual calamity aboard a runaway merry-go-round, the nimble director keeps piling "touch" and stunt upon "touch." Indeed, his desire to produce them appears his main impulse in this film.

[–] Neuronhead 12 years ago

I was impressed by the power output of the carousel when it was on full. I'm surprised it didn't get airborne.

I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

Yeah, I snarked to my wife: "why do they even have that speed setting?"

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] JaneDough42 11 years ago

Lol, I thought the same thing - one would think that would be horrifying to the little kiddies but I noticed the kids all had smiles on their faces because it was going so fast.

"Made it, Ma! Top of the world!"

[–] rickyturner505 10 years ago

I always wondered why they didn't just unplug the GD thing. It isn't the WOPR.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

I wondered the same thing: firing into a crowded merry-go-round? Really? My wife said she felt Hitch tended to portray cops as clumsy idiots.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc

[–] ohwellokay 12 years ago

Laughed pretty hard at that scene, especially when you consider that the cop is firing blindly into a carousel to bring down someone he hasn't put under arrest and still has no evidence on. What made me laugh even harder was the random old carnie stepping out of the crowd like the hero of the film and then proceeding to destroy the carousel from the inside causing a giant wreck.

Great movie, but damn there were some funny moments.

[–] GuyOnTheLeft 12 years ago

Yeah, that was great too: seemed like stopping the thing was more violent than leaving it to spin! Good points.

--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc