Other Stuff
The aforementioned trip to the library took place after we went golfing, which was the first nice course I've been to this year. I had a Best Buy gift card sitting around, so I used it to buy 50,000 Fall Fans Can't Be Wrong: 39 Golden Greats. I forgot how hard it is to find music at Best Buy. I thought they might have the second M83 album or the last Pedro the Lion album or maybe the Juan Maclean album if that's out yet (which upon further review it isn't), but they didn't so I finally got the Fall compilation, which I've wanted for a while but just never gotten around to purchasing.
There were lots of awesome movies at the library, and I didn't have to wait several days for them like if they'd been on Netflix. Last night we watched Strangers on a Train. I liked the beginning, but the plot devices seemed too obvious near the end and somehow didn't work for me, like we were at the middle and needed to get to the climax, but there wasn't any truly compelling way to do so. What really struck me, though, is that it looks like Hitchcock basically cast two of the actors because they could be body doubles for Cary Grant (Robert Walker) and Ingrid Bergman (Ruth Roman). I think he probably wanted Farley Granger, since they'd worked together before, but both Walker and Roman struck me as playing their roles as they might be played by Grant and Bergman. They might have been cast due to age, since both "replacements" were about a decade younger than the icons they imitated. Roman's character was fairly boring, but Walker was exciting at times as the bizarre and murder-obsessed guy with both strong gay and oedipal overtones (he seems to be in love with both Granger's character and with his mother, and plans to kill his father and Granger's wife).
Also, I'm not sure when exactly I'll be settled enough in Seattle to start going to rock shows (probably closer to October), but I'll throw a few up on the side just for fun.
There were lots of awesome movies at the library, and I didn't have to wait several days for them like if they'd been on Netflix. Last night we watched Strangers on a Train. I liked the beginning, but the plot devices seemed too obvious near the end and somehow didn't work for me, like we were at the middle and needed to get to the climax, but there wasn't any truly compelling way to do so. What really struck me, though, is that it looks like Hitchcock basically cast two of the actors because they could be body doubles for Cary Grant (Robert Walker) and Ingrid Bergman (Ruth Roman). I think he probably wanted Farley Granger, since they'd worked together before, but both Walker and Roman struck me as playing their roles as they might be played by Grant and Bergman. They might have been cast due to age, since both "replacements" were about a decade younger than the icons they imitated. Roman's character was fairly boring, but Walker was exciting at times as the bizarre and murder-obsessed guy with both strong gay and oedipal overtones (he seems to be in love with both Granger's character and with his mother, and plans to kill his father and Granger's wife).
Also, I'm not sure when exactly I'll be settled enough in Seattle to start going to rock shows (probably closer to October), but I'll throw a few up on the side just for fun.
Posted on Friday, July 08, 2005
3 Comment(s):
Are you going to be in town for Bumbershoot, September 2nd - 5th? If so, can I crash on your floor?
--Charles
I've just started reading some Carleton blogs because I'm bored (not that yours is boring, of course!). But anyway, re: Strangers on a Train:
I know for a fact that Hitchcock did not want Ruth Roman in that role and apparently treated her badly. I think he was forced to have her in the picture because of studio politics, or something to that effect. But yeah, Bergman would likely have brought more to the part - even though there's honestly not that much to it. If only she'd been 10 years younger ... and available (this being probably post-Rossellini scandal?)
You're probably right about Granger, especially considering the nature of his role in Rope, which adds an interesting subtext to Strangers.
As for Robert Walker (an underrated actor), I can definitely see some of the physical Cary Grant similarities. However, I'm not sure I quite agree that he plays Bruno as the latter might have. It seems (to me, anyway) that Grant always brought a certain touch of charm, smoothness and the debonair to all of his roles. And while there is certainly some of that in Walker's performance, I think that Walker is ultimately more neurotic, vulnerable, etc than Grant likely would have been; and besides that, he has less of the very-masculine image bit going for him (wish I had a better way to describe it).
At any rate, sorry to randomly insinuate myself here. I just found the Strangers topic interesting.
- Emily
I think I just read that Bergman had started her temporary decline around 1950, so you're right that she probably wouldn't have been "available" for the film. That's interesting about Ruth Roman.
You're also totally right about Grant/Walker. As I was watching I kept thinking that I could see Cary Grant in the role, but only in the less crazy parts. Walker could probably only get away with sucking up to the Granger character on the train because he wasn't a huge star; Grant may have been too masculine or just too much of an established presence.
Your comment was much appreciated, by the way.
Post a Comment