Dissecting a Scene (or How to Reduce Something Beautiful to a Meandering Splodge of Dull)

Film is primarily a visual form, no matter how loud Michael Bay feels he has to make it, and the best of them speak in images - not just in a beautifully composed, or sumptuously rendered single image, but through an interplay of multiple, linked images. Strangers on a Train (Alfred Hitchcock, 1951) does just that and if you'll indulge me I'll tell why I think this and how I think it goes about it. I'll do this using my (scant) powers of semiotic understanding on the opening 2 minutes and 17 seconds of this pant-wettingly lovely offering from Mr. Hitchcock, which arguably shows us very little but, hopefully just as arguable tells us everything because that's the plan.

(Assuming you watched the link or have seen it before) Fantastic, isn't it? Now let me ruin it - I mean explore it. Let's explore it. Ok, a real quick introduction to semiotics as I understand it. Semiotics is interested in signs, not what they mean necessarily but how they mean; denotation is the literal meaning, connotation a deeper, more personal or socially derived meaning. This is signification (signifiers move readers to a signified). Signifiers are can take any form and are presented in various ways; they can be arranged syntagmatically (like on a horizontal plane; think words in a sentence or shots in a scene) from a paradigmatic (like a vertical range; other words that could construct the sentence or shots that could construct the scene) range of choices. Heeeellllllooooooooooo! Still there? Good. Let's do this.

A film's opening sequences generally function as anchorage in setting (period and place) and character; or in narrative terms, the normality. Hitchcock perhaps anchors us here by allowing us the freedom to read the scene, asking us to piece together the setting and characters for ourselves through a process of signification (or bullying us into it whatever), and to draw complex conclusions about the characters in a wonderfully succinct way that saves folk having to talk.

The sequence essentially consists of alternating shots between two characters. The shots of each character are practically the same in framing/composition, action, rhythm and duration: Taxi door opens – taxi door opens. Luggage removed – luggage removed, character steps out – character steps out, trousers and shoes – trousers and shoes, walking – walking. This is all signified on screen by the iconic signifiers presented and placed, in very simple terms, into this syntagmatic order that denotes the arrival of two men at the same destination. In other words...it looks like that.

Syntagmatically the consistency of these shots might denote a parallel between the two characters. The denotation of events on screen is created by the use of very similar signifiers signifying two very similar signifieds: Two men, dressed, arriving somewhere and walking. Good stuff. Scintillating cinema – absolutely riveting. But I have already gotten ahead of myself: Two men, how do I know that? Well to be honest I don’t. But in terms of the process of signification, men have been connoted to me through the signifiers on screen and my cultural association between men and trousers, women do wear trousers, but in 1951 and in public this may be less likely.

But this possible semiotic faux pas on my part may bring me to the crux of the scene. What I actually think I see are two completely different men arriving at a train station at pretty much the same time. The men are different in every way, appearance, social background, attitude and lifestyle. Why am I saying this? How on Hitchcock’s bulging jowls can I possibly make this claim? Do I have any right to make these outlandish assertions based on what literally appears on screen? Well, yes. Yes I do, and whether you like it or not I’m going to tell you why, because that’s what semiotics (and structuralism more generally) gives a flying, hairy fig for – not trousers, not walking and most certainly not taxis.

First, the men and all their bloody connotations. A taxi pulls to a stop at the kerb (from now on lets just assume that the iconic representations of things on screen have already signified real things and actions to us otherwise this will take forever...c'mon help me out) the taxi is seen onscreen driving from left to right into a close up. The taxi door opens and luggage is removed, a man exits and pays the driver (Connoted by his brief pause at the door in front, through which I read as housing a driver - sorry!). A second taxi pulls up, also from the left, and its inhabitant performs almost exactly the same actions. The luggage reinforces the connotations of a train station, travel, holidays perhaps, at the very least a liberal dose of not-at-home-ness. I also read these men to have arrived, not only at the same place but, at pretty much the same time as the edit between the two is very sharp, the shots are short and connected by an abrupt cut, signifying little or no time passing and also, as described before, the sequence progresses as a series of alternating shots of each man. The parallels are obvious, the syntagmatic relationship between the similar shots and actions arguably signifying a similarity between the two men, both are wearing trousers (thankfully) and shoes, arrive by taxi and have luggage. But, as Ferdinand de Saussure, said that a signifier relies on difference from other signifiers to create meaning, and so as Hitchcock arguably draws parallels between the two men through the similarity of the signifiers and the rhythm of the presentation of this syntagmatic relationship, perhaps he forces the audience to examining the differences that exist between them to reveal more.

Now to the taxis, both doors open but both doors open in opposite directions: The first door opens hinged at the back, 'suicide' doors, and swinging from the right of screen to the left. The second door opens in a more conventional manner, pivoting from the front, left to right. Back to the men, who start their walk, the first on screen from right to left, the other left to right, the same direction as each man’s respective taxi door opened. The two men then enter the same shot at slightly different times, one entering the frame from the right, the other from the left, this shot also anchors the train station setting for us through the denotation of uniformed employees and ‘Track 10’ written overhead, as well as the reading that they have arrived at a the same time. After a transitional shot (which we will look at in a bit) the first man, again framed in low-level medium shot, continues to walk right to left along a train carriage, denoted by the assumption that he has gone to the train station for the conventional reasons, and then cut to our other man walking again left to right. The on screen denotation of two men heading towards the same place from two different directions, perhaps gives a fairly obvious reading of coming from different starting points. This could then further connote that they come from completely different places or different social backgrounds or further that the men may have different personalities, priorities and/or outlooks on life. The syntagmatic relationship of the shots featuring the two men, and the relatively brief duration of the shots, arguably brings the contrast into focus. The connotations of which are perhaps further underlined if we look more analytically at the men’s dress.

The first man wears two-tone shoes, white and black, and pinstripe trousers. The connotations of this outfit are arguably pointing to a man who is perhaps flamboyant, vain and possibly eager to create an impression or at least make a statement. The two-tone of both the shoes and the trousers may further connote a duality in the man him self, as the connotations of these colours are as oppositional as the colours themselves. White at one end of the spectrum, all colour frequencies in balance, having the connotations of innocence, purity and of good; and black the other end of the spectrum, an absence of colour, and its connotations of evil and mystery. The other man is dressed in a much less flashy manner. Solid looking sensible shoes and trousers that seem more functional than stylish, the connotations of this individual are again in contrast to the first, this man blends in and avoids making a statement or at least shouting one. More monochromatic, and so perhaps connoting a more balanced (or just bland) individual. How both men walk seems to be in contrast too, the first man light and swift, the second seems steadier, more deliberate. Finally the two men are accompanied by a non-diegetic music track, the same tune but markedly different. The music accompanying the first man is higher, and connotes frivolity and the second deeper and more serious; the music, like the shots, arguably highlighting the contrasts by creating parallels. Everything in this scene may suggest these men are opposites.

I mentioned earlier a transitional scene between…well…just…sort of…outside walking and inside walking, and this too may signify beyond the superficially iconic nature of its signifier. The transitional scene consists of a shot seemingly from the front of the train, showing the tracks passing underneath as the train begins to move. So what? It’s just train tracks! Shut up or get to a car chase! I hear you cry. Well I’m not going to. The train moving over the tracks and the slow dissolve between this to the interior of the train might connote a passage of time, in contrast to the abrupt cuts featured earlier in the sequence. Beyond this though, I think there is a case for it to signify more. Hitchcock could easily have had the second unit go and shoot some train tracks, any old train tracks – It’s easy! Hell I’d do it now if I weren’t decades too late and it wasn’t so cold out – but this is a particular shot, featuring particular train tracks; a single track yielding to a complex mishmash of junctions and points. The train first appears to follow one single track but is then swept off in another direction as it navigates the junctions. Perhaps the connotation is that everything is about to change, perhaps normality will be disrupted as the direction of our characters (who are on the train) is literally altered. There is then a dissolve to some more oppositional walking type behaviour ending in contact between the two men. The inevitability that the two men will meet is perhaps connoted by the previous sequence where the two men seemingly walk ‘towards’ each other but the connotation that this meeting will be pivotal to film is perhaps underlined by this three shot sequence and, importantly, the dissolves.

Dissolve to...

...this...

The first dissolve into the shot of the tracks is a mix of the second man (Guy) walking towards the train platform and the dissolve from the shot of the tracks is to the first man (Bruno) walking along the train carriage. 

...which becomes this...

...and then this dissolves...

...to this

Denotation through this syntagmatic arrangement of signifiers is sequenced (Guy, tracks, Bruno), the connotations might work on several levels, and imply different things about the men, time, and narrative trajectory, but for me: Guy’s straight forward, planned, absolute future is about to switch track, be altered, be thrown out of kilter, by the arrival of Bruno.

Lastly, lets have some fun with paradigmatics. The train track analysis above features a paradigmatic choice by the filmmakers. The same shot, in terms of size, depth and duration, and content, could have been made from the platform and shown the layout of the tracks quite clearly, but the shot choice here emphasises that it is the direction of the train, and therefore the characters, that is important, they are being affected by this particular track layout. It may also allow for greater impact from the preceding and following shots with the track features that they relate to syntagmatically, the connotations of these shots and their relationship could have been greatly effected by shooting the tracks in any other manner. The single track, straight and fixed might connote things heading in one direction literally and figuratively, whereas the mass of train tracks denoted has the potential to send the men, and us the audience, in any direction. The largest paradigmatic choice in this sequence might be with our characters, it is a fairly unusual choice to introduce characters by focusing on their shoes. But what would have been the difference if Hitchcock had had them get out of the taxis and walk into the station all from the perspective of one static, long shot? Well for a start, there might not have been the same focus on our two characters, a wider shot would have presented their movements, actions and dress as just one set of things among many more; perhaps we would shift our focus to the porters, or the set, or the rather dashing man with waxed, orange moustache and bright green pantaloons that brushes past Farley Granger just as he pays for his taxi. Secondly, the contrasts of their movement and dress would conceivably be less pronounced, as the two men arriving at roughly the same time would be competing for our attention and, in long shot, lack detail. Lastly and perhaps most importantly, we would see more of them, and so might wonder less. It is perhaps the unconventional nature of the opening shots and their originality as an introduction that forces us to ask questions and to discern meaning where we can. It demands action from us, the audience, and I think it is a great credit to all involved in its production that such a short sequence manages to convey such a strong, coherent and consistent message. It is sequences like this that make me love film. What is the message? Well to me, two men with very different personalities and from very different backgrounds converging on the same spot and about have an effect on one another. Could probably have guessed that given the type of film and the filmmakers previous, but you don't have to because he puts it right there in front of you in a beautifully complex and delicate sequence.

Despite what I've written here and how (un)thrilling I've made the whole thing sound, it really is a thunderingly fabulous film, perhaps my favourite of Hitchcock's (whatever that's worth) and I implore you to see it if you haven't already (and to see it again if you have), please don't let me put you off. If you have a cracked, malfunctioning head and are interested in semiotics then you could do a hell of lot worse (and if you've read this in its entirety you already have) than look to Daniel Chandler's lovely website. At any rate, next time you watch something have a wee think about how you think stuff. Why does a film excite you? It might be obvious, it might be subtile, but you might also see a difference between filmmakers that take the time to let you in and those that don't. Ta, J