MovieChat Forums > Strangers on a Train (1951) Discussion > The Big Problem with the Criss-Cross Sch...

The Big Problem with the Criss-Cross Scheme

posted a year ago by roger1 (4046)
17 replies | jump to latest

(aka ecarle.)

Many critics (including Pauline Kael) have praised Strangers on a Train for its "great" criss-cross murder scheme -- two strangers kill the other's "victim" so that nothing will trace back to the killer.

I think Kael wrote: "Its amazing that this scheme isn't used more often in real life."

Well, maybe yes, maybe no but...the whole PLOT of Strangers on a Train is what happens when (a) the murder actually takes place and (b) the "natural suspect" has no alibi.

Both parts of that equation are problematic. First of all, all signs point to Guy as the killer of his estranged, cheating, pregnant-by-another-man wife (especially when he wants to marry a Senator's daughter) so the police NATURALLY come to him.

But (b) is worse. Bruno's plan only works if Guy is seen by witnesses AWAY from the murder scene(this is how Ray Milland sets up HIS murder in Dial M for Murder -- he's at a stag party while his accomplice sets out to strangle his wife.)

Bruno didn't think through his plan.. He didn't make sure that Guy had an alibi and witnesses.

And I say: maybe Bruno NEVER INTENDED that.

Maybe Bruno -- deep down inside -- KNEW that if he killed Guy's victim, he WOULD implicate Guy...and force Guy to kill Bruno's father.

Its a "perfect crime" that goes wrong from the get-go. Criss-cross ain't so easy, after all.

[–] daveyh (641) a year ago

"Maybe Bruno -- deep down inside -- KNEW that if he killed Guy's victim, he WOULD implicate Guy...and force Guy to kill Bruno's father."

That was my thinking too - like a really elaborate blackmail plot

[–] Melton (5549) a year ago

Kael’s right, criss-cross murders is a genius idea. It’s a shame we don’t see it played out by two people who both agree to it.

I suspect the Hayes code required a morally decent protagonist, so the film becomes an innocent man being stalked by a psycho story instead.

It feels like a missed opportunity given the awesome power of its premise.

EDIT: Just read the synopsis of the novel it was based on, as I suspected it’s much darker and our ‘hero’ goes through with his murder.

[–] roger1 (4046) a year ago

EDIT: Just read the synopsis of the novel it was based on, as I suspected it’s much darker and our ‘hero’ goes through with his murder.

---

I have read that synopsis too(likely a different synopsis in a different place) and indeed, in 1951, the Hays Code forbade Hitchcock from filming that version,so we get the one we get..which doesn't so much betray the original book as tells a DIFFERENT...but equally suspenseful version of it, to wit: the "innocent man" is implicated in the murder because the mad man carries it out, and the mad man commits the murder when the innocent man has no real alibi(the drunk professor on the train is a great suspense plot mechnism -- he can't help Guy.)

Truth be told, I'm not sure I would personally enjoy watching a version where Guy DOES kill the father. The 70's were awash in downbeat endings where the hero lost(Chinatown maybe at the top) and modernly, we have all these shows where bad guys pretty much get away with a lot of death and destruction (one called The Americans was the worst offender to me -- they killed all sorts of innocent, nice people and got away with it. ) I guess I'm must old fashioned. I like the good guys to win.

Anyway, key to a "better" use of the Strangers on a Train criss-cross would be if the story was about two people evil from the get go(Guy evidently "turns" in the book) agreeing to that plot and making sure that each one has an alibi when the other commits the murder.

I think a Law and Order episode gave us that version -- TWO bad women used Strangers on a Train -- and the cops KNEW of the movie Strangers on a Train, and caught them.

And of course, there's the not-so-immortal "Throw Mama from the Train" which actually uses CLIPS from Strangers on a Train to illustrate Danny De Vito's Bruno implicating Billy Crystal's Guy(not the same names or characters.)

[–] MCguy (1346) a year ago

Perhaps the criss-cross murder scheme has worked. If it worked, we wouldn't know, would we?

[–] roger1 (4046) 4 months ago

Perhaps the criss-cross murder scheme has worked. If it worked, we wouldn't know, would we?

---
Ha. Yes, I'm willing to bet the criss-cross HAS been used, and HAS worked, in real life. Figure since 1951 when the movie came out(let alone earlier when the book came out)...the idea was planted for many people to use.

But my OP point remains: Bruno's EXECUTION of the criss-cross is all wrong -- Guy has no idea the murder of Miriam is being carried out "for real," and -- worse for Guy -- Guy has NO alibi less the drunken professor in the train car(I don't know if that was in the book, but it is a classic Hitchcock suspense twist in the movie.)

Still and yet...LOTS of very evil people (two per plot) HAVE probably carried out the criss-cross.

But...Guy would still be suspected of SOMETHING, cuz he had the motive...

[–] WandererFromYs (2404) 4 months ago

It’s a great idea in theory, I think a major flaw is that whoever goes first is now at the mercy of the other person holding up their end of the bargain. It also makes it more difficult for the second person to carry out their part even if they are willing. The reason for the swap is that they are automatically going to be considered a suspect, so it’s hard for them to go off an commit a murder while there is an active investigation against them. We saw both of these problems pop up in the movie.

The biggest problem in this movie is Bruno himself. The idea is brilliant, because there is no connection between the 2 people. But in the movie Bruno shows up, calls, introduces himself to Guys friends and family, with his full name. He’s no longer a stranger on a train, he is an associate, and there are a ton of people that could link them together.

[–] roger1 (4046) 4 months ago

It’s a great idea in theory, I think a major flaw is that whoever goes first is now at the mercy of the other person holding up their end of the bargain.

----

Yep. One would almost have to agree to use a stopwatch and a hidden cell phone camera(modernly) ha, to make sure tht the two murders are committed at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME.

--

It also makes it more difficult for the second person to carry out their part even if they are willing. The reason for the swap is that they are automatically going to be considered a suspect, so it’s hard for them to go off an commit a murder while there is an active investigation against them.

---

Perfect! I had not thought of that. All the more reason for the two murders to need to happen simultaneously.

---

We saw both of these problems pop up in the movie.

---

Yes. Guy had to give his cop tails "the slip" to sneak off to Bruno's mansion to "kill papa."

---

The biggest problem in this movie is Bruno himself.

---

Absolutely. A great plan executed by a madman.

---

The idea is brilliant, because there is no connection between the 2 people. But in the movie Bruno shows up, calls, introduces himself to Guys friends and family, with his full name. He’s no longer a stranger on a train, he is an associate, and there are a ton of people that could link them together.

---
Yet another great thought I had not considered. Its a mark of his madness, really. He invades Guy's life principally to FORCE Guy to commit the father murder. And...he's just plain nuts.

And maybe a sadist.

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 4 months ago

again: ...And maybe a sadist.

19 years after Psycho, Hitchcock made one last great film(two from the end): Frenzy.

The villain in frenzy is a psycho -- not just like Norman Bates, but just like ..Bruno Anthony.

And the plots of Strangers on a Train and Frenzy have great parallels and one great difference:

Strangers on a Train: Psychopath strangles to death (with his gloved hands) a troublesome "estranged wife"(not EX yet). The husband is stalked by the police as "the wrong man."

Frenzy: Psychopath strangles to death(with a necktie) a NON-troublesome EX-wife. The ex-husband i hunted by the police.

The difference: in Strangers on a Train, Guy KNOWS that Bruno committed the murder. In Frenzy, the hero("Richard Blaney") DOES NOT KNOW that his best friend ("Bob Rusk") committed the murder. So in Frenzy, the suspense is doubled because the hero seeks help from the real murderer.

And the real murderer FRAMES Blaney for the killing of the ex-wife (and other women.)

One senses some sadism on the part of Rusk: he is sadistic in his kililng of women, he is sadistic in sending up Blaney to prison.

SO: who is to say that Bruno Anthony doesn't have some sadism in himself, too -- "jumping the gun" on the criss-cross murders, pointing the cops at Guy, invading Guy's life.

On the other hand, in Frenzy, a Scotland Yard inspector opining on the unknown "Necktie Killer" says something that applies to ALL psychopaths: "Discretion isn't the strong suit of the psychopath."

Bruno Anthony doesn't have much discretion...

[–] SamNoyoun (6012) 4 months ago

That is the flaw for sure, and Bruno's execution of the plan is definitely less than stellar... I'm thinking all this talk of the movie today might just inspire me to fire it up!

[–] roger1 (4046) 4 months ago

That is the flaw for sure, and Bruno's execution of the plan is definitely less than stellar... I'm thinking all this talk of the movie today might just inspire me to fire it up!

---

Its always worth watching..."plot flaws" and all.

Remember that Hitchcock always complained about people like us -- he called them/us "the plausibilists" -- people who looked for plot holes when maybe the movie COULD play out if they just went with the flow.

The criss-cross idea is just plausible ENOUGH that when Bruno pretty much screws it all up...there's the suspense.

Plus, Hitchcock was on record as preferring "style over content" -- over plot, over dialogue. So Strangers on a Train is JUST AS MUCH about Bruno's boat entering the Tunnel of Love and creating a shadow, or Miriam's murder being committed "in the funhouse mirror of her fallen eyeglasses" or Bruno's head not moving as everyone else does during a tennis match, or that glorious berserk carousel climax...as it is about "the plot."

[–] SamNoyoun (6012) 4 months ago

Remember that Hitchcock always complained about people like us

Ha! I don't doubt that for a minute...

[–] roger1 (4046) 4 months ago

Remember that Hitchcock always complained about people like us

Ha! I don't doubt that for a minute...

---

...and he ALMOST had no idea that we would have cable TV and VHS tapes and DVDs and streaming to watch his films over and over, every little detail. I wrote ALMOST because...Hitchcock was gifted by MCA-Universal chief Lew Wasserman with one of the first VCRs with VHS(before they were sold to the public) and Hitchcock ("the great technician of film") couldn't run it. Ha.

Honestly, he was banking on audiences to barely remember the plot as it moved along in a single viewing -- unable to rewind and never to see it again. And he STILL "hated the plausibles".

[–] WandererFromYs (2404) 4 months ago

Remember that Hitchcock always complained about people like us -- he called them/us "the plausibilists" -- people who looked for plot holes when maybe the movie COULD play out if they just went with the flow.

He also made movies in an era when you only got to watch them once straight through, unless you bought a second ticket, or the movie was rereleased. I would imagine he wasn't keen on the home movie era that was just starting around the time he died. Where people could no rewatch, pause, rewind at any time they want. Let alone the modern era where everything is high definition, and we freely share ideas with each. Plausiblilsts are now the default.

[–] roger1 (4046) 4 months ago

He also made movies in an era when you only got to watch them once straight through, unless you bought a second ticket, or the movie was rereleased.

---

That's right. "On a first watch," people were basically trying to 'get the story straight enough" to follow it through and rarely saw it a second time.

---

I would imagine he wasn't keen on the home movie era that was just starting around the time he died.

---

It seems he just missed it. "Home VCRs and VHS" were already available among Hollywood insiders(like Hitchcock) in the 70s, but didn't start coming out big for "everybody" until around 1982. Hitchcock died in 1980.

And so suddenly, as you say:

---

Where people could no rewatch, pause, rewind at any time they want.

---

Let alone the modern era where everything is high definition, and we freely share ideas with each. Plausiblilsts are now the default.

--

"Plausibilists are now the default" -- a great phrase, a true one, and most of the message boards here at moviechat -- as once at IMDb -- are PRIMARILY about picking apart plots and debating them for plausibility. Sometimes, the movie WINS -- the plot points ARE plausible -- but it takes some debate to get there.

And I suppose that screenwriters and moviemakers have become much more focussed ON plausibility, on writing and shooting scripts that make enough sense as possible.

That said, we are in "the age of the Marvel movie" in which "plausibility" pretty much ceases to exist because everything is played out in a "fantastical way" with its own set of rules, like "Wolverine can come back to life in an alternative part of the multiverse."

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 4 months ago

I've also noted this: in Hitchcock's time, the famous term "MacGuffin" -- coined by Hitchcock himself -- applied to an object or writing that "everyone is fighting for" -- a key, a map, a cigarette lighter, a wine bottle filled with uranium sand. In North by Northwest, its microfilm in the belly of a small statue -- not to mention, as the CIA "Professor" says, Commie villain Philip Vandamm (James Mason) is an importer-exporter of government secrets.

Modernly, it seems that movie studios contract with computer programmers, biomedical scientists and enginners to develop INCREDIBLY detailed and scientific MacGuffins. Though I've found that a standard MacGuffin -- in several films is "a disc with names of all undercover agents" who will be killed if it is captured.

Hitchcock had this exchange with his interviewer, director Francois Truffaut in their book together:

Truffaut: You have said that Shadow of a Doubt is your favorite among your films.
Hitchcock: If I've given that impression, it is because here is a film that our friends, the plausibilists, can complain the least about.

Hitch goes on to say that since Shadow of a Doubt is based on identifiable human characters and their dilemmas...plausible. And yet, here is a movie where a "psychic connection" of sorts is described as existing between villain Uncle Charlie and heroine Young Charlie.

For "non-plausibility," how about Vandamm's "Expensive house behind Mount Rushmore" in North by Northwest. There was no such house, there IS no such house, there COULD NOT BE such a house -- but Hitchocck had it created because...he wanted to have a climax scene ON Mount Rushmore. Hence, Hitchcock called NXNW "a complete fantasy" and added "I practice absurdity quite religiously."

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 4 months ago

One of the most plausible Hitchcock films to me, is one of his best: Psycho. Here is a plot of utter simplicity upon which one can easily lay thematic and symbolic interpretations:

A beautiful young woman, driving an American highway, single and alone, is forced by a rainstorm to stop at an isolated backwater motel. The Bates Motel. She meets the shy and handsome young proprietor, Norman Bates, speaks to him, learns of his aging mother. Leaves the young man, goes into her motel room, takes a late night shower -- and is stabbed to death by the old mother.

Plausible.

Turns out that the young woman was on the road to get to her boyfriend (who lives near the motel) because she has embezzled 40,000 from her employer and hoped to use it to make a new life with the boyfriend.

But..her employer has hired a private detective to trail her to the boyfriend's town and retrieve the money.

Plausible.

The detective scans motels and boarding houses in the area until he finds the Bates Motel. Interrogates Norman finds out that Marion was there "but left", is turned away -- calls this information into the boyfriend and Marion's sister(who has travelled to the boyfriend's home to find her sister, too.) All plausible.

The detective returns to the motel goes up to the house behind it and is killed by the mother. Plausible. The boyfriend and sister follow the trail(based on the detective's call in) to follow him. PLAUSIBLE.

A great strength of Psycho is that BECAUSE the woman who gets killed in the shower stole money from her employer, a DETECTIVE shows up who finds things out a lot faster than the boyfriend and the sister would. PLAUSIBLE.

Themes? How about "you only come to the Bates Motel if you've taken the wrong road." How about "we all go a little mad sometimes" (Marion's mad attempt to steal money and get away with it; Norman/Mother's murders.) And the power of the past over the present. And voyeurism(those stuffed birds on the wall.)

CONT

[–] roger1 (4046) 4 months ago

Yes, Psycho uses a very plausible story to tell a very thematic fable.

Meanwhile, what some have called not only HItchcock's greatest movie, but THE greatest movie(I disagree) is Vertigo and THAT one seems implausible as all hell. As someone put it simply "NO husband would plot THAT way of murdering his wife." I leave the analysis of THAT one to the plausibilists but truly, Vertigo isn't about the plot at all(the villain gets away) it is about the themes of lonlieness, romantic obsession, men putting women on a pedestal until they don't, and the inability to recapture the past.

Unanswerable question: Could Hitchocck have worked in this era of plausibles? I suppose so -- if he made Marvel movies.