MovieChat Forums > Strangers on a Train (1951) Discussion > Bruno's a lunatic, sure! But Guy is a lo...

Bruno's a lunatic, sure! But Guy is a lousy heel! (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)


Okay, let's get this out if the way first: my sympathies lie with Guy, if it's a choice between him and Bruno, and Guy is not at fault for his wife's murder. That being said:

Where is his sorrow upon receiving news of Miriam's death? Yes, she was an adulterous and money-grabbing (rhymes-with-"witch") but it would still take a cold-hearted man to be more concerned about how his wife's murder would reflect on HIM than he is over the fact that someone whom he'd once loved had been choked to death by a madman only he could identify!

Bruno is sick and is what he is; Guy, on the other hand, is a sorry excuse for a human being and I predict a short-lived marriage for him and Anne, who will know soon enough what a self-centered jerk Guy really is.

Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!

reply

Any sorrow he feels about his wife's death is overshadowed by the mess of trouble he's in.

Not only is he the prime murderer suspect, he's expected to murder someone for real. And he's got a big tennis match coming up.

The way the character of the wife is written, we're not supposed to have sympathy for her. Has there ever been a trampier woman in classic cinema?

She's a married woman, pregnant with another man's child. She goes to the amusement park with not one but two men, and while there, makes come hither glances at at a third man.

If she wasn't this trampy in the novel, I can just see Hitchcock saying to himself, "lets have some fun with this character."


Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

reply


I agree about Guy. You could interpret him as a social climber who wants to get rid of his low-class wife from humbler days and marry a classy lady whose father can help his political career.

On the other hand, we're told that Miriam is trashy, but (because of 50s censorship?) she's never showed during anything really rotten. Just behaving like an overgrown teenager at an amusement park. And if she knows that Guy wants to dump her for a trophy wife, no wonder she wants to make things difficult for him.

Then Bruno comes up with a scheme to get rid of Miriam, and Guy fails to articulate his opposition. Surprise, surprise.

reply

You could interpret him as a social climber who wants to get rid of his low-class wife from humbler days and marry a classy lady whose father can help his political career.


You could. Except that you forget, Miriam was the one who initiated the divorce proceedings. Guy didn't even want the divorce (he says so in the film) even after she's made a "chump" of him by cheating on him! She wants to get away from him so badly, she spends a year pestering him for it!

Then when Guy's tennis matches begin paying off (she even says "If I'd known what all that tennis nonsense of yours was going to lead to, I wouldn't have run out on you."), she collects the money he gives, says she doesn't want a divorce and would rather lap up the luxuries as the big tennis player's wife, passing off her ex's baby as his.

This back and forth attitude and casualty of it is precisely what makes Guy angry. If anyone is a social climber, it's Miriam. Even if Guy did (in his mind) become a social climber, it didn't start off from his own volition.

reply

Well articulated, and I agree with all of your points.

Guy IS a sympathetic character who due to a random meeting with a psychopath finds himself in a real life situation worse than any nightmare. His character is certainly not perfect but your "everyman" type naturally has flaws.

He's essentially a decent individual that is trying to do the right things. In my opinion, despite his relationship with the Senator's daughter the film does not play up any social climbing angle.

As I understand in the novel from which the film is based the Guy character actually agrees to the compact and murders Bruno's father. This would have made for a very different film. As presented, Guy never takes Bruno's initial remarks about "criss-cross" murders at all seriously. When he realizes Anthony has gone ahead and killed his wife he's understandably horrified. He is carrying some measure of guilt for his remarks to Ann on the phone shortly after his encounter with Miriam. However, there's no way he would actually countenance her murder anymore than he would Mr. Anthony's.

reply

First of all I totally agree with Forlorn's excellent post regarding Miriam's character. She went beyond immoral to shockingly evil. One might argue whether someone even feeling exactly as she did would have gone so far as to fully articulate her intentions. But she probably felt why not, and so she did. Within the context of her marriage it is hard to imagine a less attractive character.

And hence unsympathetic.

But back to the OP and an assessment of Guy's character.

I don't think in general we are supposed to see Guy as particularly admirable. Despite his celebrity status he's more of an Everyman sort who happens to have a difficult domestic situation. But on a moral level he's a stand in for the viewer.

So, when he hears of Miriam's death, he is already aware that he will be seen as having a motive for it. Compounding that is we see him have it sink in realy in two stages, the first when Bruno tells him what he did, the second in front of Anne's family. In the first is his reaction is very much compounded by the realization of the bizarre enormity of what Bruno did and what it means for how Guy will be dealing with him going forward. In Anne's house he hears their reactions to the news as a kind of Greek chorus, showing him how other people will react to the news.

And of course all this is complicated by his own feelings about her, and how the surprise and even the however minimal sorrow that she died are, in fact, compounded by a relief.

But not too much relief given his exposure and questions how to manage Bruno.

I think that all comes together.

reply

Another way of looking at it though is that if he had reacted with sorrow it would have just been for show, since he himself had wanted to strangle her the day before. In consequence, viewers wouldn't be able to trust anything he did or said from that point onward since his sincerity would always be in doubt.

On a related note, i found it odd when they discussed how he should continue going about his normal activities (such as playing in the tennis tournament) or else it would look suspicious. But wouldn't skipping a tennis match out of respect to a recently murdered wife seem like a natural thing to do? Especially since most people wouldn't have known that he had actually loathed his wife?

But in any event, my overall impression is that he was intended to be seen as basically a decent guy. When watching a movie (or reading a book) i try to take into account how a character is intrinsically meant be even if at times he does or says things that goes to the contrary. Take for instance a brilliant detective who fails to notice an obvious clue. It's not that he is to be suddenly seen as stupid, it's just that at that point in time the script needed him to be oblivious to the obvious. A fault perhaps in the script but not something that should alter how the character is to be taken.

Similarly, there are things that could make Guy seem not all that great of a person but i don't think that's the impression Hitchcock intended to leave since overall he is shown in a favorable light. Some examples that come to mind: he didn't go to Bruno's house with the intent of killing the father or even of killing Bruno; when confronted by Anne he didn't lie to her, as i imagine many people would do instinctively out of fear for how she might react, but instead he told her the truth; Anne's kid sister and father like him and trust him (in movies that i've seen kid sisters usually have an uncanny knack for divining the character of an older sister's boyfriend); and, finally, despite his good looks and athleticism he never comes across as conceited but instead is usually very polite and friendly.

His more negative aspects i mostly put down to plot devices. For instance, him yelling at and threatening his wife was to build suspense by raising expectations that he might actually go along with the plan, and of course to place him in a bind afterward by making him look like someone angry enough to have contracted a hitman to knock her off.

I really didn't think i could come up with a good signature, but happily i thought of this one.

reply

Simple. His wife was a lying manipulative whore. And thats not me insulting her. I mean the tet a tet between the 2 of them when he returns is shocking even in our modern desensitized morees. I mean she slept with another guy, she was carrying his baby, she told him she was going to get a divorce, then she comes back and says shes going to stay married and tell everybody its his baby and theres nothing he can do. She took his money he had intended to cover her divorce costs!!! Straight pocketed it. And then the chick continues playing the field with other guys on dates after. She is just sickeningly disgusting and I wouldnt cry for 1 minute if she died. Oh and she was ugly too. Heh Usually I wouldnt say that, but for that piece of work she deserves that and 100 other insults.

reply

Where is his sorrow upon receiving news of Miriam's death?


You've never been through an ugly protracted divorce, have you? As the old saying goes...thin line between love and hate.

reply

Can't believe this thread...Miriam was a disgusting pig, the worst kind of opportunist, completely indifferent to any suffering she causes Guy. If I was Guy, my thinking would've been, Sure, I didn't WANT Bruno to kill her, but since she is already dead, Good Riddance....now how do I stay out of jail?

Takes two to tumble it takes two to tango
Speak up don't mumble when you're in the combo

reply