Do you think the strangling scene Bruno was involved in after discussing murder with the upper class woman was completely unrealistic. Surely she would have made some sound to indicate discomfort well before she was choking. As well, her friend was there. Why did she not raise the alarm. What do you think?
Thanks.
Miriam was kind of a ho so she was enjoying the attention of this handsome stranger, who seemed to be following her around the amusement park. When he wrapped his hands around her neck, he cut off her vocal chords so she could no longer make any discernible sound. And, since they were at an amusement park, I doubt anyone would take notice or really wonder about any screams or shrieks she might have made. Next time you go to a fair or an amusement park and listen to all the sounds, you may wonder if one of them is the sound of somebody being murdered.
shareThanks for the reply. but the person I was referring to was the actress by the name of Norma Varden (who played Mrs. Cunningham).
shareMrs. Cunningham does make noises. Pay attention to the soundtrack.
shareWell it would have probably taken her longer to die and she would have probably dug her nails into his hands or face but maybe she had no nails? If you ever see a man with unexplained scratches or nail marks...he is probably guilty of rape or murder.
share"If you ever see a man with unexplained scratches or nail marks...he is probably guilty of rape or murder."
That's the most absurd comment I'm likely to read or hear today, or all week. I hope you've become more rational in the ensuing seven years.
Of course, if you insert a few words: -unexplained scratches or nail marks (in a movie)...he is probably guilty of rape or murder.- This is true.
She does gurgle some. But also, the whole point of what he was doing was to demonstrate to her that you can strangle someone in a way that prevents them making a noise that could draw attention.
sharePlus, it only took about thirty seconds to kill her by strangulation. Normally (as I have read about) it would take a few minutes.
-Nam
I am on the road less traveled...
She could have become unconscious in half a minute from compression of her carotid artery, combined with lack of air. If he crushed her windpipe she might have continued to suffocate even after he dropped her on the ground and walked away.
shareActually I thought everything in this movie was unrealistic and ridiculous. I know it's supposed to be a classic or suspense, but I found it very stupid and some parts downright hilarious when they were supposed to be serious.
sharewell, aren't you sumpthin!
shareShe could have become unconscious in half a minute from compression of her carotid artery, combined with lack of air. If he crushed her windpipe she might have continued to suffocate even after he dropped her on the ground and walked away
---
This second "near miss" strangling perhaps illustrates that to REALLY strangle a victim to death...it takes a long time. I think some criminologists and/or doctors have clocked the killing time to an agonizing 7 minutes (and exactly HOW did they reach that conclusion? Watching someone get strangled? Calculating how long a person can live without oxygen based on other factors.)
The "successful" strangling of Miriam at the fairgrounds was actually pretty brutal to start, but 1951 censorship and Hitchcock's own great sense of style combine to "cut away" during the strangling so that it was distorted and reflected in the lenses of Miriam's fallen eyeglasses. "A great Hitchcock shot."
19 years after "Strangers on a Train" in a newly uncensorsed Hollywood(and London, where he made the picture) Hitchcock pictured the strangulation of a female victim in Frenzy and made it as disturbing as hell by LINGERING for many long seconds on the woman struggling, gurgling, losing consciousness and dying even as he cross-cut to the psychotic male killer's sweaty, sexually aroused face. That strangulation was more "personal" and lingering that the quick cut shock stabbings in Psycho...audiences were disturbed, not scared. (The 1972 R rating also allowed for the strangler to rape the victim first, though Hitchocck was rather careful not to show too much.)
And yet, the Frenzy strangling STILL didn't take as long as a real one would. We didn't need to see THAT.
Actually I thought everything in this movie was unrealistic and ridiculous. I know it's supposed to be a classic or suspense, but I found it very stupid and some parts downright hilarious when they were supposed to be serious.
---
Take a time machine back to 1951, watch it again, and get back to us!