From reading and watching both Strangers on a Train and The 39 Steps, it is evident that Hitchcock is a director that can take an idea conceptualized by someone else and make it into his own work. One element that Hitchcock toys with in both of these films is the introduction of main characters. In Strangers on Train, Guy is in his seat when a “young man opposite of him seemed to debate whether to start a conversation…the grey bloodshot eyes were looking at him and the soft smile came back.” This man is evidently Bruno in the book. In The 39 Steps, Scudder bum rushes Hannay in the hallway. He is jumpy and nervous and needs Hannay’s help. Hitchcock sticks to the basic plot of both of these introductions but he has altered them to make them his own. Bruno in Strangers is more straightforward. He immediately recognizes Guy and begins to talk to him incessantly, even though Guy is trying to read a book. In the book, Bruno seems to be fighting the urge to talk to him. He is also described with a large pimple in the middle of his forehead, this image producing a much scummier version of Bruno than we see in the movie. Hitchcock’s Bruno seems more approachable and even though he is more intrusive, he seems friendlier than the books makes him out to be.
Hitchcock completely remodeled the introduction to The 39 Steps. Scudder is no longer a man but now an attractive woman. This gender change, making the character a mysterious love interest changes the mood of characters interactions. Instead of it being a man bored to death and looking for excitement, leading him to help this man on the run, it is now a sexually fueled back and forth between a man and a woman who plans on spending the night.
Bruno, in the book, already has an odd relationship with his mother. The introduction to chapter 10 is Bruno cleaning the dry face cream from her face the next morning. Honestly, that is so odd to me and it creeped me out. In the movie, his mother is even more obsessive over him. In the scene where she is filing her nails, the only mood I could describe in her was manic. Every time she talks to Bruno, she ends it with a question about taking care of himself and how well he’s doing it. She’s completely obsessive. When Anne goes to talk to her about what Bruno has done, her only response is to laugh. Every other word out of her mouth ends with a chuckle as if the thought of Bruno killing anyone is too hilarious to think of. Hitchcock took an already awkward mother/son relationship and made it worse. It became that classis Hitchcock trademark.
Hitchcock changed both of the endings to the books, too. Honestly, I thought that was a great idea because I didn’t like either one of them. Adding a love interest to Steps made the storyline a lot more humorous and easier to watch. The addition of Mr. Memory also made the story line a lot more interesting. Finding out that “the 39 steps” wasn’t a crazy, government operated scheme at the end of the novel was a huge disappointment. Hitchcock’s added Mcguffin and intrigue made the storyline a lot more promising.
The way he turned Guy into more of the All American Hero was also a nice touch. Like Jimmy Stewart’s character in Vertigo, Guy is a reluctant hero. He does not want to play along with Bruno’s game but for the sake of her reputation he will. He then sets up a trap in order to catch Bruno and stop him from framing Guy-which works. All in all, Hitchcock adapted these films, putting his own spin on them but he also retained the classic storyline and the author’s originality.
I think your points about the introduction of the main characters are very interesting. You are right that the movie's Bruno seems more friendly and approachable, however this may be simply a feature of this being a movie. In order to conserve time, Bruno and Guy must exchange the relevant information and set up the plot more quickly.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that making Guy an All American hero was a good choice. It robs the complexity of the original and turns the story into a more straightforward hero-villain dynamic. Also, if the end of the book was unsatisfyingly vague, the ending of the movie was too neatly tied up in a way that feels very contrived.
I definitely agree with your thoughts on the endings. Although there tends to be a fuss about movies that don't stay 100% true to the novel's their depicting, Hitchcock's changes created a whole different possibility. It's almost like he added these alternate endings to the novels that give the viewer/reader a whole new concept to think about. Hitchcock tends to think more about the actual story of the movie and what the movie portrays instead of the looking for the popularity vote.
ReplyDeleteA_Murphy: Although I agree with your idea about Hitchcock's ending robbing the movie of the complex story line, I don't agree that it was a bad choice. In my eyes, Hitchcock changing the ending the way he did put his stamp on the movie. Like Hannah said, there is always a lot of criticism when the movie is not one hundred percent faithful to the book. But a lot of directors change these things to make these movies synonymous with their names. Hitchcock making this change did just that and from the movie viewer's standpoint, I feel that it was a smart change.
ReplyDelete