Body of Evidence

 

This is my entry in the Master of Suspense Blogathon hosted by Classic Film and TV Corner

 

 

 

I think there is something wrong with me. But if there is, it's a good bet I'm not alone in the world. 

In that I mean that I absolutely enjoy when a movie takes a despicable act of real life, and turning it into a dynamic tension filled drama on the big screen, without any apparent apologies from the makers for what they are perpetrating on the public. In the case of Rope it was the real story of the murder of a boy by two of his "friends". In 1924 two college students, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb, had killed an associate of theirs, Bobby Franks.

For the time (the 1940's), it would seem that the basic background story would have been controversial to put to film. Not the murder itself... Everyone knows that murder was a subject that was always a useful and entertaining subject for film, dating back to the early days of cinema. (The Great Train Robbery from 1903 is sometimes credited as the first film to ever depict someone actually being killed on screen). And murder had happened countless times in films since then. So, by 1948 it wouldn't have been outlandish to see someone killed in a movie.  

The part that was controversial, and the part the makers of Rope had to work around, was the homosexuality of the two main characters. In 1948 it was still taboo to come right out and say anyone was homosexual in a movie. This despite the fact that a character had been established as such elsewhere. (I am always intrigued by the fact that Joel Cairo, one of the villains of Dashiell Hammett's original novel version of The Maltese Falcon, is unabashedly designated as one, but when it came time to film the Humphrey Bogart version of the story the producers had to tread a very thin line when portraying him).

In Rope, the main characters are very much supposed to be lovers, but the Hays Code that was in effect at the time forbade anything that might outright establish this relationship. Again, this despite the fact that the characters they were based on, Leopold and Loeb, were indeed in that kind of relationship. Now, even though Hitchcock couldn't come right out and state that the two were gay, there were several scenes throughout that could hint at this relationship. But under no circumstances was it allowed that the audience could definitively say "yeah, those two are lovers". At least overtly.

There are hints, to be sure. At one point the two murderers are discussing the murder (at least that's what the implication of the scene is supposed to convey):

 

Phillip: "How did it feel... during it?"

Brandon: "I don't remember feeling very much of anything... until his body went limp and I knew it was over. I felt tremendously exhilarated. How did you feel?"

Hitchcock got away with quite a bit in that respect. 

Arthur Laurentz, the screenplay writer. in an interview of a documentary, The Celluloid Closet, says :

"I don't think the censors at that time realized this was about gay people. They didn't have a clue what was and what wasn't, that's how it got by." 

It is interesting to note that Cary Grant and Montgomery Clift were both considered for parts in the film, but both turned down the roles because they didn't want to play characters that may or may not be homosexuals, even though both had reputations within the Hollywood community as having an affinity for that kind of relationship. (The original character of Cadell had had a relationship with one of the boys prior to the events in the film in the original play, but that relationship was removed when Stewart took over the role). 

There is another subtext that may or may not be all that obvious, at least to modern audiences. The characters of Brandon and Phillip feel that they are above the law because they consider themselves superior to the common man, on an intellectual level. Therefore they consider the act of murder at least condonable because their victim is less than superior. Thus Brandon and Phillip could almost be seen as mirrors of the Nazi ideology of a superior or "master race". I also think that there is some hint at the Russian red communistic ideal that replaced the aristocratic bourgeoisie with the intellectual bourgeoisie to them.

And in fact, during the denouement of the film, Stewart's Cadell attaches much of the Nazi ideology (via Nietzche's Man and Superman philosophy)  to Brandon and Phillip:

"By what right do you dare say that there's a superior few to which you belong? By what right did you dare decide that, that boy in there was inferior and therefore could be killed? Did you think you were God, Brandon? Is that what you thought when you choked the life out of him? Is that what you thought when you served food from his grave? I don't know what you thought or what you are, but I know what you've done. You've murdered!" 

 

 

 

Rope: (1948):

Where is Hitch?: In almost every Hitchcock movie Alfred Hitchcock managed to make an appearance. Since 99% of the film takes place inside Brandon and Phillip's apartment, Hitch's cameo came during the opening credits. You can see him walking on the sidewalk just outside the apartment building.

 

The movie itself opens with the murder, as Phillip (Farley Granger) does the dirty work of strangling David (Dick Hogan) as Brandon (John Dall) watches with undisguised glee.

The two hide the body, along with the rope in a trunk in the living room, and proceed to prepare for a dinner party they are going to host. Despite Phillip's objection Brandon insists that they convert the trunk into the serving table for the party. Brandon has a macabre sense of humor, to say the least.

 

In fact, not only are the guests to include David's parents and David's fiancee, Janet (Joan Chandler), but Brandon has also invited Kenneth (Douglas Dick). Kenneth was a former lover of Janet, but the two are no longer an item, since Janet left him for David. This, of course, creates a bit of an uncomfortable situation for Janet and Kenneth. But being the essence of a person who lacks the scruples of polite society, Brandon finds the situation enthusing.

 

 

Also invited, unbeknownst to Phillip, is their former schoolteacher, Rupert Cadell (James Stewart). It was because of some very controversial opinions of Cadell that Brandon and Phillip initiated their experiment with murder in the first place.

 

The situation gradually starts to come apart mainly because Phillip has regained some of his conscience and feels guilt as well as fear of exposure while Brandon continues to hold on to his intellectual superiority. It's not hard to tell which one is going to crack.

 

The whole coverup really starts to fall apart as Cadell realizes that David's continued absence is not because David, all of a sudden, has developed a change of approach to his usual habits. David would not have, by Cadell's, (as well as his fiancee's and his parents') way of thinking just not show up for a scheduled date. And Cadell realizes that the way to get at the truth is to work on the insecure Phillip.

 

Eventually the part breaks up, but Cadell, whose suspicions have forced him to reach a conclusion that the pair have committed some unorthodox  actions comes back, under a ruse that he left his cigarette case behind. He confronts the two. The emotionally fragile Phillip eventually breaks, but the solid and "intellectually superior" Brandon holds onto his convictions; that some are just superior to others and have the right to do and act as they please. 

 

Cadell is not without sin in the matter itself. Earlier in the movie he had carried on a conversation with the guests about the benefits of committing murder. Only Cadell is speaking only intellectually, he is only proposing his ideas for a philosophical discussion. The problem is that by proposing the ideas he has inadvertently given Brandon and Phillip a "justification" for their actions. And words, despite what some people might believe, can be just as damaging as actions.

 

"Brandon, till this very moment, this world and the people in it have always been dark and incomprehensible to me. I've tried to clear my way with logic and superior intellect. And you've thrown my own words right back in my face, Brandon. You were right, too. If nothing else, a man should stand by his words. But you've given my words a meaning that i never dreamed of! And you've tried to twist them into a cold, logical excuse for your ugly murder! Well, they never were that Brandon, and you cant make them that. There must of been something deep inside you from the very start that let you do this thing, but there's always been something deep inside me, that would never let me do it - and would never let me be a party to it now." 

 

You know, for the most part I thought, like other reviewers I read, that Stewart was miscast in the role of Cadell. He never really came across as the cynical professor that the part seemed to indicate that he was. It is only in that final confrontation that I think Stewart really shines. Granger and Dahl. on the other hand, really came across as the characters whose roles they inhabited. Especially Dahl. I couldn't help but feel pity for Phillip because he seemed to be ripe for domination from Brandon, but Brandon was basically the essence of Machiavellian, and Dahl probably was the best available actor in Hollywood at the time to pull it off.

Rope was not a huge hit. It was Hitchcock's first film without a studio backing him (he had created Transatlantic Pictures for the sole purpose of producing films his way, and this was his first foray). It barely made back it's cost in terms of box office receipts. What may have had an effect on it's commercial viability may have been that whole "gay subtext", but I also think that what might have affected it's success is there is not much really going on in it. You get the murder in the first 2 minutes and then the rest of the film is just a bunch of people rambling on. It's essentially a stage play. And Hitchcock didn't help matters, in my opinion, by making every effort to hide the fact that it was a movie (making it intentionally look like a stage play, in other words).

Rope is no where near the worst of Hitchcock's output. (That would be Mr. and Mrs. Smith, in my opinion). But on the other hand, it's not one of his best either. The thing that really hampers the film in my opinion is the subpar cast of characters other than Granger and Dahl. Even Stewart really doesn't shine until the final 5 minutes of the film. To be fair the rest of the cast are just there as set decoration for the story, but none of them really make their characters seem like real people.

I think Rope is worth a watch, to be sure. But if I had a choice between it and a half dozen other Hitchcock films, (and you get to pick which ones those other five would be), I would probably choose at least 2 of the others in the choices over Rope. 

Well folks, time to get this old Plymouth back to the garage. And despite the rumors floating around, there is no dead body in the trunk. Really.

Quiggy

  

 

  

 

 

Semiquincecentennial Movie Project #14: The Trouble with Harry

 

 

The Semiquincentennial  Movie Project is an ongoing celebration of the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. During the course of this project your humble blogger is choosing a movie a week to represent each of the 50 states in the Union, as well as a movie scheduled for 4th of July weekend that will represent the nation's capitol, Washington D.C. The order of the weekly entries will coincide with the order of each state's entry into the fold (although, not necessarily coinciding with the date of their entry into said fold).

 

Week #14: Vermont -

 

The state of Vermont was established on March 4, 1791

Details about Vermont:

State bird: hermit thrush

State flower: red clover

State tree: sugar maple

Additional historical trivia:

Vermont is the home of the hippie's favorite ice cream, Ben & Jerry's.

The first postage stamp in the US was printed in Brattleboro.

The state was the last holdout to allow the Evil Empire (Wal-Mart) to open up a store in it's boundaries. They didn't get one until 1996...

There are more covered bridges in Vermont than any other state. Only about 8.000 people. But even the most populous city only has about 50,000 residents.

Vermont was the first state to outlaw slavery.

You won't find billboards in Vermont. It was the first state to outlaw them. 

Montpelier, the capital of Vermont, is the least populated capital city in the Union. 

Famous people born in Vermont: Calvin Coolidge and Chester A. Arthur (US Presidents), John Deere, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (founders of the Mormon church), and Bill Wilson (founder of Alcoholics Anonymous, and, yes, I included him because I am a member of the recovery group...).

 

The Trouble with Harry (1955): 

Where is Hitch?: In almost every Hitchcock movie Alfred Hitchcock managed to make a cameo appearance. Hitch appears about 22 minutes into the film as one of the customers browsing the art work on display.

 

The Trouble with Harry was a rarity in the oeuvre of Alfred Hitchcock, in that it was more of a comedy than a thriller. And the film is populated with some of the most oddball characters you'll see this side of Arsenic and Old Lace. 

The production of the film had as much oddball quirks as the characters in the movie itself. For one thing, when the production company showed up in Vermont to start shooting the film, they were expecting the trees to still be sporting the fall colors of just beginning to hibernate foliage. But the trees were almost bare of leaves... So the solution? Why, they glued leaves to the trees, of course... (As ridiculous as it sounds, they didn't do all that bad a job of it...)

The production team was also plagued with torrential rain. Some of the scenes actually had to be filmed in a rented gym. And the rain played hell with the production there, too. There was some extensive redubbing because the rain interfered with the sound. And, on top of that, a camera fell from the ceiling and almost hit Hitchcock. The good thing about all that rain; even though there was some local flooding, which was bad, the revenue from the film was donated to locals who had been affected by the flooding.

The Trouble with Harry had some fairly big names associated with it. It was the first movie that Shirley MacLaine was ever cast. It was also an early screen premiere for Jerry Mathers, who just a few years later would be cast for the lead in the TV series Leave it to Beaver. Also appearing in the film were Edmund Gwenn (Kris Kringle in the classic Miracle on 34th Street), John Forsythe (probably most well-remembered as the voice of "Charlie" on the TV series Charlie's Angels or Blake Carrington on Dynasty), two-time Oscar winner Mildred Dunnock (Death of a Salesman and Baby Doll) and Royal Dano (a familiar face to many people, like my sister, who watched those old TV westerns.)

The movie opens with young Arnie Rogers (Jerry Mathers) hiking through the woods with his toy gun when he stumbles upon a body. The body is that of Harry Worp (the body was played by Philip Truex, whose father. Ernest Truex, appeared in two classic Twilight Zone episodes). 

Arnie runs off to tell his mom of his discovery, but in the meantime, Captain Wiles (Edmund Gwenn) comes across the body. He thinks that Harry is the victim of an accident, having been shot by Wiles while he was out hunting rabbits.

Wiles has plans to hide the body, but he is discovered by Miss Gravely (Mildred Natwick). Miss Gravely is not entirely in shock, as you might expect. Instead she agrees to keep the body a secret, provided that the captain drops by her house for a social engagement. But when the captain tries to continue his plan to hide the body he runs into problems. The woods seem to be populated as much as the local town. Everybody and their mother stumbles upon the body (while the captain hides and mutters that he might as well have sold tickets to view the body.

Everyone who stumbles upon the body is likewise as unperturbed as Miss Gravely. It turns out that several people know who Harry is, and that they themselves are complicit in the death of the poor man.  This is the black comedy part of the film. (Yes, it's a black comedy. What other kind of comedy could we expect from the master of the macabre...?) 

Among those who drop in on the corpse are a tramp (Barry Macollum) who steals the corpse's shoes,

and Jennifer Rogers (Shirley MacLaine), Arnie's mom, who, instead of shock, exhibits what amounts to relief. 

Harry, you see, was her estranged husband and she had hit him with  milk bottle earlier and thinks that is probably what killed him.  And Miss Gravely? She is not so innocent as she appears. She, too, thinks that she was implicit in the death of Harry. It seems the only person in town that does not think her or she was involved in Harry's death is little Arnie.

Meanwhile, back in town, we meet a few more of the screwy residents. Mrs. Wiggs (Mildred Dunnock), who runs a local dry goods store and is the local postmaster to boot, confers with local artist, Sam Marlowe (John Forsythe). 

Sam has commissioned her to sell some of his paintings, but she hasn't had much success. It seems tourists don't stop by as often as would be useful. (I'm not entirely sure if there EVER ARE any tourists dropping by, but be that as it may...) Local sheriff Calvin Wiggs (Royal Dano) comes on the scene asking about some shooting he heard. The sheriff had previously posted a "No shooting" ordinance and wants to know who was doing some shooting. The sheriff, by the way, is the son of the postmaster/dry goods store owner.

Of course, into the scene comes a potential customer for the decidedly odd paintings, but he may have a bit of trouble in succeeding in his quest since it seems everyone else is preoccupied with other small town events. Later, when Sam goes out into the woods to do a little drawing he too stumbles across the body, as well as the captain who is still fretting over his supposed complicity in the exit of Harry. Sam agrees to help the captain bury the body.  And unbury it... And bury it again... And unbury it... And bury it again... This part of the film is ne of the funnier parts of the film as they try to decide what to do about Harry.

In the meantime a relationship between Sam and Jennifer develops. And, as can usual happen in such a comedy of errors, Sam wants to marry Jennifer. But she is still married to Harry.  And if it can't be proven that Harry is dead, they would have to wait until the requisite 7 years for Harry to be declared officially missing... So now Harry is going to have to be "found" by the officials and declared dead, if they don't want to wait it out.

The Trouble with Harry was not particularly well received by the critics.  Bosley Crowther, a critic for The New York Times wrote that it is not a particularly witty or clever script" and that Hitchcock's direction did not "make it spin". But he did compliment the way the cast was able to pull it off with some panache in the form of it's comedy. Another critic, John McCarten for The New Yorker, claimed that "Alfred Hitchcock, whose work has been going steadily downhill ever since he arrived in Hollywood, skids to preposterous depths."

It was not a big hit at the box office either, although it did manage to bring in a profit; $3 million in sales against a budget of $1 million. Despite that, Rotten Tomatoes ranks it as 88% Fresh. And, really, if you have an open enough mind to accept Hitchcock as a comedic director, it's pretty good. Note "laugh out loud" funny, like, say Blazing Saddles, or, if you want to go the black comedy route, Arsenic and Old Lace, but I did find myself snickering on several occasions. Peopled as it is with such oddball characters, it carried itself well.

Black comedy is, by nature, not for everyone. If you have trouble accepting a dead body as a source of comedy, then I suggest you leave this one alone. But if you are like me, and appreciate a jaunt into the outré, then by al means, set up the DVD player. Maybe even make it a double feature with the aforementioned Arsenic and Old Lace...

Until, next time, drive safely, folks.

Quiggy

Too Much Knowledge

This is my entry in the Doris Day Blogathon hosted by Love Letters to Old Hollywood.

My earliest memories of Doris Day were when she had a TV show back in the 60's.  I don't really remember anything from those days except that she sang the song "Que Sera, Sera" in the opening credits. But I can still recall the song, which is significant since I probably haven't even heard it done since those days.  (Not including the watching of the Alfred Hitchcock movie The Man Who Knew Too Much recently, which I found out is where the song originally appeared onscreen...)

An interesting side note about the song.  Hitchcock was not particularly agreeable to having a song in his film, but the production company, Paramount, insisted that there had to be one.  (Probably due to the fact that Doris Day had been cast for the film.)  Hitchcock approached the writing team of Jay Livingston and Ray Evans stating that he needed a song, but he didn't know hat he wanted.  After hearing what the duo came up with he told them that that was exactly what he wanted.  So what may or may not be Doris Day's signature song was the result of a happy turn of events necessitated by a production company's insistence on having a song.

Hitchcock had wanted Doris Day for the role all along, but associate producer Herbert Coleman states in an interview on the commentary of my DVD that he had some misgivings.  He didn't think Day could pull off the dramatic scenes in the movie, especially the pivotal emotional breakdown after finding out about the fate of her son.  But Hitch, as always, got his way, and in retrospect Coleman admitted he was wrong and that she was perfect for the role.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956):

Where is Hitch?: In almost every Hitchcock movie Alred Hitchcock managed to insert himself in the movie. He's the guy on the bottom left here.

Married couple Ben and Jo McKenna  (James Stewart, Doris Day) are on vacation in north Africa with their son, Hank (Christopher Olsen).

  They encounter a Frenchman, Louis Bernard (Daniel Gelin) who is very inquisitive about them, arousing Jo's suspicions.

Upon arrival in Marrakesh, Bernard offers to take them to dinner, but cancels out after a mysterious man (Reggie Nalder) appears at their door. 

Instead the go to dinner alone, where they meet Edward and Lucy Drayton (Bernard Miles, Brenda de Banzie).  The four end up eating together and arranging to go sightseeing the next day.

While in the marketplace, a man in Arabian attire is murdered.  It turns out to be Bernard in disguise.  He whispers to Ben, just before he dies, that a foreign dignitary is going to be murdered in London and tells Ben to find "Ambrose Chapell".  When Ben and Jo are questioned by the authorities about the murder they discover that Bernard was an agent of the French secret service (a spy).

But before Ben can tell the authorities what happened he receives a mysterious call telling him that Hank has been kidnapped and will be killed if he, Ben, reveals what he knows.  Thus, Ben's driving force is to find out where his son is and save him.  To such measures he is even willing to let the events play out with the assassination if only he can retrieve his son safely.

Thus begins the frantic search which leads the two to London.  A fruitless attempt to track down Ambrose Chapell reveals that Ben and Jo are on the wrong track. 

And that people are not all whom they claim to be.  Of course, the fact that the Draytons obviously are involved because they were the last ones to be with Hank is not entirely surprising, but there is much more involved in the political intrigue.

Even after the assassination attempt is foiled, the two still have to track down and rescue Hank.  Which leads them to the embassy of the foreign dignitary.

The Man who Knew too Much was a remake of a 1934 film Hitchcock had mad with Peter Lorre, but much of the plot was changed so seeing both films together makes for an entertaining evening.  Hitchcock himself describes the first film as having been made by talented amateur and the second as having been made by a professional.

One should note a few recognizable faces in the film.  Reggie Nalder may look familiar.  He was the vampire in the 1979 TV version of Salem's Lot as well as Zoltan, The Hound of Dracula's master.  And Carolyn Jones, best known as Morticia Addams in the TV show The Addams Family is also recognizable, despite the fact that she is decked out in very short cropped red hair.  And look for Walter Gotell, a familiar Russian agent from James Bond movies in a brief role as a Scotland Yard policeman.

Time to fire up the Plymouth.  Drive safely, folks.
Quiggy

Momma and the Strangers Take the Train

This is my entry in the 3rd Alfred Hitchcock Blogathon hosted by Maddy Loves Her Classic Films

Alfred Hitchcock was one of the most influential film makers of his time.  Over a career of some 50 years, he directed around 70 or so movies and TV shows, and a lot of his stuff ends up on the list of best suspense films of all time.  He had a knack for throwing in red herrings that would fool audiences into going in the opposite direction of the eventual climax.  In a decently fair world he would have won an Oscar or two for his films,   but despite being nominated five times, he came away winless all five times.  (To be fair, Rebecca did win an Oscar for Best Picture, however).

Strangers on a Train (1951):

Where is Hitch?: In almost every Hitchcock movie Alfred Hitchcock managed to insert himself into the movie. Here he is shown getting on board the titular train with a huge bass. He is also on the cover of a book that Guy is reading, but I couldn't find a photo for the blog...

 

Did your mother ever tell you "don't talk to strangers"?  Perhaps she had someone in mind like Bruno Anthony (Robert Walker).  Bruno is just a wee bit off-kilter.  (OK, so he's pretty much full bull goose loony..)  Bruno is a psychopath and extremely malicious sort.  He's the sort of guy who would pop a child's balloon, just for the hell of it.

On a train, Bruno meets Guy Haines (Farley Granger) and starts up a conversation with him.  (Given that Bruno knows a hell of a lot about Guy and his private life, it's probably a good deduction that the meeting wasn't a coincidence.)  Bruno proceeds to tell Guy that he has a father that is extremely unsympathetic to Bruno's wants and desires and that he, Bruno, wishes his father were dead.  He also notes that Guy has a wife that is promiscuous and unfaithful to Guy and that Guy wants to divorce her so he can marry a senator's daughter.

Bruno has an idea that he thinks just might work out to the benefit of them both.  Each would murder the other's victim.  Any normal person would probably run screaming for the exit, but Guy is a bit naive.  He just thinks Bruno is a bit off, but not necessarily a danger and just humors Bruno.  But Bruno is dead serious.  And he thinks he has a deal with Guy just on those terms of swapping murders.  And it doesn't help matters when Guy is overheard threatening his wife

Bruno proceeds to tail the wife,  Miriam (Laura Elliot, who has also performed under the name Kasey Rogers), and corners her in a dark corner of a carnival where he strangles her.  Then he informs Guy that now he, Guy, must reciprocate on the deal and kill Bruno's father.

Although suspicion for Miriam's murder falls on him, no one really believes that Guy is guilty, but his alibi is a little faulty.  Mainly because he was on a train, but the one witness who can confirm their meeting on the train was drunk and can't remember a thing.   The police decide that without the alibi, there was plenty of time for Guy to have taken a different train and still have murdered his wife.  And of course, Bruno isn't going to confess.  Not only that but Bruno continues to show up in places where Guy is or calls him, in order to try to convince him or intimidate him into following through with what Bruno considers a deal.

If you have never seen a Hitchcock movie,  you are in for a treat.  Walker is excellent and Granger does a pretty decent job as the harassed victim of Bruno's insanity.  Strangers on a Train is in my top 5 Hitchcock films along with Rope, Vertigo, Rear Window and Psycho (not necessarily in that order.)   Strangers on a Train also inspired the next movie in our double feature.

Throw Momma from the Train (1987):

A twist on the old Hitchcock story, Larry Donner (Billy Crystal) is a creative writing teacher and frustrated writer.  Frustrated because he is suffering from writer's block.  The writer's block stems directly from the fact that his ex-wife, Margaret (Kate Mulgrew) stole his book, the one he had spent several months writing, claiming it as her own and having it published in her name.

Owen Lift (Danny DeVito) is also a frustrated writer.  But writer is a generous designation, because apparently he can't write worth a crap.  He takes Larry's creative writing class, but he must either be as dense as a brick, or else he really has no talent whatsoever.  Owen is a bachelor who lives with his widowed mother (Anne Ramsey), a harridan who makes Owen's life miserable.

Owen keeps bugging Larry for advice, and just to get rid of him, Larry tells him to go study Hitchcock  (Alfred Hitchcock, who just happens to have a revival of one of his movies playing at the theater, Strangers on a Train).  Owen gets the idea that Larry is hinting at using the plot of the movie to solve his own problem with his mother and for Larry with his ex-wife, whom Larry has been heard shouting vociferously "I wish she were dead!".

Shades of Hitchcock!  Owen goes to Hawaii, where Margaret is now living and manages to apparently push her overboard on a cruise ship, then returns to tell Larry that he has completed his part of the bargain and now Larry must reciprocate by killing Owen's mother.  Since Margaret has disappeared, it seems apparent that Owen has indeed killed her, but suspicion falls on Larry, who has no real alibi, since he spent the entire not on the beach on a rock, with no witnesses.




Although Larry tries to get Owen to fess up, Owen is more than a bit dim-witted.  And child-like.  (One of the most revealing scenes in the character of Owen is when he shares with Larry his coin-collection.  Only the coins have no intrinsic value.  They are just coins that his father gave him when they went out together when he was a kid.)

At one point, however, Larry becomes frustrated enough that he decides to help Owen kill his mother.  Which leads to the hilarious scenes where they try to "throw momma from the train."  (Come on.  That can't be a spoiler... go back and read the title of the movie...)

Anne Ramsey deservedly was nominated for an Oscar for her performance in the movie, which she lost to Olympia Dukakis for Moonstruck.  She was also nominated for a Golden Globe, which she also lost to Dukakis.  She did however win a Saturn Award for the role.  (She also won the same award for her role in The Goonies and if you haven't seen that you are missing out...)

The concept of "swapping murders" may not be entirely sound as a plot, but damn, it sure does make for a thrilling concept for a movie, whether done in all seriousness as Hitchcock did, or as a black comedy, as done by DeVito et.al.  (DeVito, by the way, has been hit or miss in his career, being nominated for both good awards and Razzies [on different occasions], but Throw Momma from the Train desrves a look, no matter how you feel about his other stuff.)


Well, folks, it's not a train, and I don't intend on riding with any psychopaths or dimwits, but it's time to fire up the old Plymouth.  Drive safely, folks.


Quiggy