Yes but the glasses wouldn’t break landing on the grass

Hitchcock personally chose Bruno's tie with the 'strangling claws'.

@@poetcomic1 I did not know that; thanks for telling us.

That’s a Hitchcock-level twist! Fair warning that next week’s episode looks like it may be about Bye Bye Birdie... just in case you’re looking for something to watch next weekend.

sweet...great video btw, you've earned my sub!

I just saw it yesterday but didn't realize the doubles thing. 🤔 Interesting!

Thanks. I'll take another look at Shadow of a Doubt.

Glad you liked it. To be fair, others have pointed out this motif as well. All I did was try to document the ones I could find.

thats actually a good symbolism i never thought of that, Hitchcock films are 10x better than movies today. the 50's looked so good

@@Gencturk92 totally agree, any random movie from those times is much better than a good movie today, although there are exceptions. Good luck!

@@nicolarralde this was a really good film and very underrated, i've been a Hitchcock fan for long time but i never saw this before, my favorite films were rear window, psycho, dial m for murder but after watching strangers on a train 3 years ago its now up there on my list. Rear window, dial m for murder and strangers on a train is brilliant, the 50's just looks so great it makes me want to live in those days. The way people are dressed, talking, people were polite, girls would talk to men I mean I dont know it looks like life was simple then

@@Gencturk92 I agree, Strangers on a Train is one of my favorite movies and an underrated Hitchcock movie. Things back then seemed to be nicer, but also think that we see this through movies!

Can you watch the whole movie here?

Thanks!

Not sure about that (I thought he was just in the rubble), but I was more impressed by the ride operator crawling under the moving carousel. I’ve heard a few times that that was the guy who normally operated the carousel (not an actor or stuntman). Not sure if that’s true, but would be a great stunt for an amateur to have done.

@@AMillionMovies They had special effects back then that were very clever like back/rear projection. Obviously CGI came about in mid 1980s.

Great movie. Throw Mama from the train.

That’s a good idea. I’ve touched on The Apartment and Sunset Boulevard in other videos, but I haven’t done one solely about a Wilder film. Double Indemnity is one of my favorites, so that might be a good one to dig in to.

Lost also alluded very heavily and cleverly to "North By Northwest" -- for instance, by compass heading 325 -- and to "Psycho". And to who knows how much other Hitchcockiana I missed?

Thanks for watching. I appreciate it.

There have been tons of TV shows and several movies that have borrowed this plot. “Throw Mamma from the Train” is one that comes to mind.

A Million Movies Oh heavens! Lol! I never saw that! Wow! Amazing the “borrowing” that goes on! Thank you! 😁

Truffaut had a great relationship with Hitchcock. I’ll look for that other film.

It may be a bit of both, but Hitchcock did this sort of thing very often in his movies. I’m sure that much of it was intentional.

I think it may be a coincidence if it happens once, but it happens in all of his movies and a lot of times in this one. You also have to take into account that these things are related, they are not just things that are repeated, they have a purpose, for example they both look at the time and think about hands at the same moment, as shown and explained in the video. Also the whole purpose of repeating things in a movie (symmetry) is to show that they are not just a coincidence. Good luck!

Possibly, but Hitchcock movies are filled with little extras that help convey a theme or reinforce a meaning. You can read his movies almost like literature that way.

@@AMillionMovies Thanks for the reply. I also enjoyed F. Granger in Hitchcock's "Rope".

@@sutherland9 i didn't like rope found it boring, but strangers on a train is brilliant, rear window and dial m for murder

@@AMillionMovies all movies usually have symbolism's or something, titanic does

Hitchcock used lots of symbolism in his movies. There are a million decisions a director makes during a production, and I’d bet some of these were planned and others were just things that fell into place that continued his theme.

Check out the heavy (in some cases heavy-handed) visual symbolism on a single motif in the movie adaptation of "The Mothman Prophecies". (BTW, I got friendly with John Keel in his later years.) The motif was of dual red lights, and that symbolically encoded a contributing factor to why the Silver Bridge collapsed when it did: traffic lights stuck on red on both ends of the bridge. The book and the movie seemed to all be about mystical causes of the collapse, but there the movie was encoding something to say it wasn't so mysterious after all. (In fairness, Keel's book mentioned that too.) The structural weakness of the bridge has been well documented.

I totally get that. In some movies, they can feel too subtle or even too in your face, and it’s hard to see how they improve the movie. For me, they give me a better understanding of what the director is trying to communicate beyond the entertainment value of the movie. Modern directors use them too. For example, Edgar Wright’s movies are loaded with them.

@@AMillionMovies I’m currently taking a cinema course in university, after a few lectures I’m starting to appreciate cinematography better from a more analytical prospective. This was one of the first films we watched and I think we didn’t get to talk a lot about when I wrote down this comment. I do now notice a lot more of the choices made by film directors. Thank you for the reply.

*Rolls eyes*

Definitely, wrote a paper on this film years ago, about the obvious homoeroticism and homosexual subtext in the film and the sexual tension between the two men.Back then, everything was subtext, nothing was stated or shown overty, but it was heavily implied and masterfully hinted at with symbols, storytelling and filming techniques, lines, etc. Hitchcock was especially masterful and making things clear while still being able to get past the censors. Every scene is masterfully crafted to say a thousand more words than what is said and shown. Take for example, the very first scene. Like you noticed, literally in that first scene they meet by playing footsies, with Bruno probably purposefully positioning his feet that way because he saw Guy walking towards his table...so right from the beginning there is that heavy subtext and clues. Bruno is openly gay, while Guy is more repressed about his attraction to other men. Bruno doesn't fit into society, partly because he is so eccentric but also because he doesn't hide or repress his homosexuality. Guy on the other hand, fits in to society like the boy-next-door, precisely because he chooses to deny and represses his homosexuality. Bruno from the beginning shows an obvious attraction towards Guy, and is openly flirtatious towards him. Bruno isn't just attracted or romantically interested in Guy, he's absolutely infatuated, enamored with and even becomes obsessed, and starts basically stalking him. Guy's feelings towards Bruno are conflicted, he wants him gone, but at the same time he cares about him, he thinks he's crazy, but at the same time he loves him. On one hand he's bewildered by this new relationship with this sometimes motionally abusive man that exhibits stalker-like behavior, and is clearly obsessed with him. On the other hand, he finds it exciting, intriguing, enthralling. He likes being the object of Bruno's desire, enjoys Bruno's pursuit of him, deep down he likes the fact that Bruno is obsessed with him, even though part of him is afraid of that obsession. Guy is effectively seduced, finds himself tangled in the web of Bruno's charm and guile, enamored with Bruno but also aware that he's caught in this bond with him and he can't escape it. There's the duality of the differences in the two men's personalities, but also how in some ways they were very similar. The murder scheme (a secret they share) is almost a metaphor for the even bigger secret they share: their homosexual relationship, and the struggles of being homosexual in the time period in which they lived (a common theme in Highsmith's stories).

Been a bit since I’ve seen it, but I think he asked her for the divorce when they were in the record store. I think she threatened to say the baby was his and that he was abandoning her.