The problem when approaching any of the major Hitchcock’s are, that they will overwhelm one to such a degree, that they overshadow any other film and one almost instinctively thinks “the best”. The amount of details, the care for them, the perfection in direction, the playfulness, the structure of the narrative, the depth of even the simplest characters, are but few of the elements, which still today, over a half of a century later, makes his film so breathtaking and inviting. One can revisit them countless times, yet they never grow old nor boring, quiet the opposite, the more you watch, the more you want to watch. While being simple suspense thrillers on the surface, each of them posses an intelligent literary thematic depth, which makes them timeless classics.

One of these is “Strangers on a Train”, based upon the novel by Patricia Highsmith, telling the story about Guy, who meets the eccentric Bruno by accident on a train, hence the title. Over lunch they talk about, amongst other things, what stands in their way for happiness. In the case of Guy, its his wife, who he wants to divorce in order to marry the woman he loves, in the case of Bruno, its his dominating father. Bruno then explains Guy his idea of the perfect murder: two strangers, who both want someone out of their lives simply swap murders. Guy dismisses the idea, but when Bruno goes forward with the idea and kills Guy’s wife, and then later blackmails Guy into doing his part of the deal, Guy is caught.

Hitchcock’s version differs somewhat from Highsmiths. In the book Guy is an architect, in the film, he is a tennis-pro. In the film, Guy doesn’t kill Bruno’s father, in the book he does and stands trial for the murder. Finally, where the item for bonding in the film is Guy’s lighter, it’s a mere book, in the book. Hitchcock wasn’t so much interested in the story, than the elements of the story. Thus he took the idea for the double murders – crisscross, a term that today is universal recognizable – and the sub motif of homosexuality. The nature of the crisscross was to Hitchcock a game, where the ball, metaphorically, is in either's court, hence the change of Guy from architect to tennis-pro.

The central theme in “Strangers on a Train” is the doppelganger, the double. There are two (potential) murders, two women with glasses (Miriam and Barbara), Miriam has two boys, Guy has two women (Miriam and Ann), there are two rich matrons at the party, there are two carousel sequences and in the final release version, Hitchcock ends the film with a second random meeting caused by shoes hitting each other, here with a minister, suggesting another meeting of “strangers” as Ann and Guy are about to be married. Furthermore, Hitchcock plays with the word itself and uses it time and time again: “I suppose you are going to Southampton for the doubles”, “two drinks – doubles”. And to top it all off, Hitchcock is carrying a bass in his cameo, doubling his shape.

It is also in “Strangers on a Train” we see the most ingenious structure of suspense of any Hitchcock film. As Bruno is on his way to the fairground to plant the lighter, Hitchcock can’t resist the temptation of having Guy playing a tennis match and by having the score change time and time again, increase the tension, as Guy has to intercept Bruno. A simple stretching of time mechanism, but in the hands of the master of suspense, it literary becomes a match of life and death.

Today, “Strangers on a Train” still is amongst the most discussed, analyzed and celebrated films of Alfred Hitchcock. Likewise, it is amongst his most flawless structured and most suspenseful films. It is timeless and will forever be one of the best films ever made.

Henrik Sylow