ET 17: STRANGERS ON A TRAIN: FREUD

Strangers On A Train is an American psychological thriller, directed by none other than the late Alfred Hitchcock himself. Its revolves around the fateful meeting of Guy Haines, amateur tennis player and aspiring politician, and Bruno Anthony, deranged and neurotic man. Now, this post isn't about narrating the film, so I'll cut right to the chase.

We first see Freudian elements in the film as early as the meeting of Guy and Bruno for the first time in the train. In their cabin, we see Bruno constantly spouting phrases like " We should try everything while we're alive" and "All that money and he wants me to work my way to the top. I hate him. I even want to kill him !" . All that aggression and the need for satisfaction RIGHT NOW is all very similar to Freud's theory of the ID. At the same time, Guy is constantly rationalizing and discouraging Bruno from carrying out his plans. " I want to kill him !" "You don't know what you want, Bruno." Again this is eerily reminiscent to our super-ego. Freud once said that the super-ego acts as the conscience, maintaining our sense of morality and the prohibition of taboos. Which is exactly what Guy is doing right now. In my opinion, what we're seeing, is actually a conflict between the id and the super ego of the human psyche

We also see some hints of psychosexual development (or rather, lack thereof). Notice how Bruno smokes constantly? And how he talks constantly ? And how, right before he murders Miriam, he's constantly chewing on popcorn? It would seem he screwed up in the oral stage of psychosexual development (breast-feeding), hence the constant need for his mouth do something. But it isn't just Bruno. Even Guy shows some forms of defect in his psychosexual development, more specifically, the anal stage (controlling bowel movement). Notice how uptight he is the first time we see him? He doesn't smoke, he doesn't drink and he's kinda stuck up (refusing to lunch with Bruno). We call this kind of people anally retentive.

Why does Bruno want to kill his father so badly? Is it really because he doesn't want to punch a card everyday? Freudian theory suggests otherwise. According to Feud, this situation is known as the Oedipal Conflict. In parts of the film, we see that Bruno is very close to his mother. Now, the Oedipal conflict states that the boy identifies with the father: subconsciously, he wishes to possess his mother and take his father’s place. The ID wishes to destroy the father. Now, previously, I mentioned Bruno being a metaphor for the ID of the human psyche. So that would explain why Bruno wants to kill his dad so bad. Does everyone feel this way? Yes, but thankfully our ID is kept in check by the EGO, therefore we don't run around sticking knives into our father's back the moment he's not looking.

Now, the only reason Bruno would kill Miriam is because he was under the impression that Guy had agreed to the plan. Remember, when Bruno asked him " So you think this is a good plan right?" as Guy was leaving the cabin? Guy could have replied with something along the lines of "If you even mention the word murder again, God help me, I'm going to hit you so hard, your name will be knocked out of the phone book " . Instead, he chooses to lead him on by saying "Sure, Bruno, sure". Of course, Guy didn't know Bruno was a madman. But that's beside the point. The point was, Guy's unconscious might have something to do with that. According to Freud, the unconscious contains all the material we cannot think or express. It is full of powerful drives and instincts. It is the locked basement — full of violent demons and forbidden urges. It is not improbable to think that, hidden somewhere in Guy's unconscious, is the desire to murder Miriam. It is also this unconscious desire that caused him to lead Bruno on, instead of cutting Bruno off. This would also explain the guilt he felt, every time he caught sight of Bruno stalking him. Logically, he knows he isn't at fault. But, he is aware, on an unconscious level, that he is partly responsible for Miriam's death.

While there are really many other interesting themes to this film, including that of duality, and of the darker, more subtle homoerotic undercurrent, viewing this film from a Freudian point of view really does make a nice change of scenery.With this masterpiece of a film, Hitchcock has once again proven why he is the undisputed master of psychological thrillers.