Opening: Her name is Nan Adams. She’s twenty-seven years old. Her occupation: buyer at a New York department store. At present on vacation, driving cross-country to Los Angeles, California from Manhattan. โฆ Minor incident on Highway 11 in Pennsylvania. Perhaps, to be filed away under “accidents you walk away from.” But from this moment on, Nan Adams’ companion on a trip to California will be terror. Her route: fear. Her destination: quite unknown.
When I was growing up, my parents had audio cassette tapes of old radio thrillers like Suspense, Lights Out, and Escape, and we would listen to them on long car trips. Some of my favorite childhood memories involve sitting in the backseat, riding through the dark, listening to episodes like โSorry, Wrong Numberโ and โThree Skeleton Key.โ My sister and I used to try to draw illustrations for them.
โThe Hitch-Hiker,โ starring Orson Welles, was always a personal favorite, and so for years, I was so attached to the original radio play that I assumed the TV adaptation would leave me slightly cold.
In fact, I think TZโs version is slightly betterโand considering the original radio drama really is a classic, thatโs saying something. The story benefits from the switch to a female protagonist: Nan Adams (Inger Stevens1) is vulnerable in ways Ronald Adams isnโt, and both she and the audience are aware of that vulnerability and attuned to it.
The hitchhiker (Leonard Strong2) is as desexualized as the episode can make him, because the emphasis needs to be on Nanโs instinctive, subconscious fear of what he represents: death. If heโs too clearly a sexual threat, then the focus is on that and not on the uncannyโwe need Nan to be immediately disturbed and repulsed by him for reasons she canโt initially identify.
But while โThe Hitch-Hikerโ defuses what would otherwise be the central sexual menace, it uses our overhanging awareness of Nanโs sexual vulnerability in dark and interesting ways. It inflects the whole conversation she has with the gas station attendant, whoโs so dismissive of this obviously terrified woman who is pleading for help because a man is following her; when Nan scrambles for some sort of way to make the inchoate threat of the hitchhiker concrete, she says he might rob her, and here โrobโ stands in for โrapeโ the way โhe killed meโ stands in for it in the Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode โRevenge.โ We understand it immediately, the original 1960 audience would have understood it immediately, and certainly the gas station attendant understands it immediately. He just doesnโt care. She can come back when the guy does rob her, he saysโwhich is, of course, a familiar refrain in stalking cases. Talk to us when heโs done something.
The unspoken subtext is especially well-used in Nanโs encounter with the sailor (Adam Williams3). He enters the scene by putting his hand on her shoulder in the dark, and she starts, horrifiedโbut sheโs instantly, overwhelmingly relieved when she sees heโs not the hitchhiker, just a strange man sheโs alone with at night. He could still be a threat, but heโs at least a human one. Whatever danger he represents feels like nothing compared to the beckoning figure who lured her onto the train tracks.
The sailor badgers the gas station attendant into opening up for themโof course he opens up for the irate man and not the terrified womanโand then Nan almost begs for the opportunity to give him a ride.
At first, his presence steadies and rejuvenates Nan, and we get a little more of the personality and humor we saw at the start of the episode, before fear ground her down into a jumpy mess. Sheโs still on-edgeโand her tension is subtly off-putting to the sailor, who, understandably enough, can only read her as giving off red flagsโbut sheโs able to make jokes and get him to relax into what, at first, seems like an extraordinary bit of luck. He even goes along with her baffling quasi-word problem about whether or not it would be at all possible for an ordinary hitchhiker to continue to outpace a driver. (Again, it says something that at this point Nan would be relieved to simply have the man stalking her be human and bound by the laws of physics.)
When Nan swerves to try to kill the hitchhiker, her dangerous driving alarms the sailorโwho didnโt even see anyone there. He rallies at first, simply saying that maybe she should let him drive, but then she admits how deliberate the swerve was: โI thought maybe if I could kill him, I could make him stop.โ
Thatโs a bridge too far for the sailor, who no longer cares how attractive she isโhe wants to get out of the car and as far away from her as possible. The kicker comes when Nan tries desperately to seduce him into staying with her, and we see how utterly panicked she now is at the thought of being alone. Itโs maybe the best moment of Inger Stevensโs consistently great performance: the terror of a hunted creature never leaves her eyes even as she frantically tries to find some coded, faux-normal way to appeal to him. In this moment, being sexually exploited by an opportunistic hitchhiker is the better option for her; what would have been nightmarish at the start of her trip has become a lifeline. Sheโll choose any human, comprehensible risk over the inevitable unknown.
But she doesnโt get that option. No matter what kind of offer is on the table, the sailor is no longer willing to take his chances: his โgift of fearโ has finally kicked in. He leaves, and she weepsโthis is Nan at the end of her rope, and the story wisely moves immediately on to the climax.
Before we get to that, I want to mention some other standout bits of this episodeโones not as tied to gender shift and terrific lead performance.
There are a lot of good shots in this episode. I have to give the MVP award to Stevens, but director Alvin Ganzer also deserves a nod for making such a visually distinctive experience out of what used to be a purely auditory one. (The storyโs audio origins are preserved via an ongoing inner monologue from Nanโunusual for the show but necessary here, since we need it to convey Nanโs growing fear and disquiet.) From listening to the Blu-ray commentary, I understand that the oncoming train shot was the hardest one to pull off, but my favorite is Nan coming through the tunnel and seeing the light at the end of it interrupted by the dark stain of the hitchhikerโs silhouette.
Thereโs also another scene I would rank right up there with Nanโs encounter with the sailor, and thatโs when Nan has to pull over because of construction. The hitchhiker catches up with her, and sheโs forced to simply sit there, exposed, and let him approach her. Thereโs something almost grotesque about how he hunkers down to speak to her through the window; itโs like a spider looming over a fly. โGoing west?โ he says, and Nanโagain, another sharp observation hereโfeels like she has to be polite. Thereโs barely contained panic in her voice as she stammers out that no, sheโs โjust going down the road a little waysโโand then sheโs so rattled that she speeds away despite the construction, breaking the social rules she just pressed herself to the limit trying to uphold. Itโs magnificently done.
All this speaks to Rod Serlingโs adaptation of Lucille Fletcherโs original play, tooโitโs impressive how thoroughly he thought through the different ways the story would play out with a female protagonist. Per SyFy, Fletcher4 apparently didnโt care for the change, feeling that it โminimizedโ the dramatic effect: I think Iโd agree if the threat the hitchhiker posed had felt more plausibly human because of it, but as Iโve said, I think the episode does a great job emphasizing his uncanniness by contrasting him with the more ordinary threats she could face.
Ganzer also nails the in-between nature of roads and journeyingโthe diner owner calls it โlonely country,โ and it looks like it. Thereโs a surreal blankness to Nanโs journey and its endless stretches of highway. We see her stop for food but never for the night, as if thereโs only one kind of rest she needs now.
If she had never realized the nature of her accident back in Pennsylvania, would she have ever reached California? Or would she have simply kept driving forever, always on her way to a destination that is no longer within her reach? Thereโs an intuitive sense that the road is where you could encounter a spirit in transition, where Nanโs haunting could be particularly solid and she could have more luck convincing herself that she was still alive.5
Ganzer also does a great job highlighting the unsettling horror of the hitchhiker. Right from the start, he puts us in Nanโs shoesโGanzer has the hitchhiker step in front of the camera, look directly at us, and smile. Itโs a real jolt, and itโs a meaningful oneโit tells us that heโs far more than he seems. The Twilight Zone often presents a humanized Death as a gentler figure: an impatient bureaucrat who could develop a serious soft spot for a friendly pitchman or a young, tender Robert Redford. This Death isnโt like that at all, and Ganzer doesnโt even shoot him like heโs a neutral, inevitable force. Thereโs a dark humor to him. Even after the revelation, I donโt feel like heโs patiently reappearing and reappearing until Nan realizes the truth, I feel like heโs hunting her and enjoying himself.
That leads to the chilling, ambiguous endingโanother instance in which the TV version has a leg up on the radio original. The radio drama ends on the moment of clarity just after Ronaldโs phone call, where he discovers that he died several days ago. He knows heโll encounter the hitchhiker again and that this time, it will come with a revelationโthat heโll know who the hitchhiker is and who he is. The Twilight Zone episode presses that moment a little further.
Nan has the same phone call. (As familiar as this story is, I get actual goosebumps at Mrs. Whitney saying, โWell, itโs all taken place since the death of her daughter.โ) She has the same sense of free-floating clarity: โThe fear has left me now. Iโm numb, I have no feeling.โ She describes herself as a โcold shell,โ exquisitely conscious of her vast surroundings and the force thatโs waiting for her somewhere there.
โIโll find out what he wants,โ she says. โThough just now, for the first time, looking out at the night, I think I know.โ
She gets back in the car, at a cold kind of peace that comes from acceptance without any sense of comfort. She adjusts her rearview mirrorโand the hitchhiker sits in her backseat. He smiles.
โI believe youโre going my way?โ he says.
The camera pulls back and backโand we leave them there, with Nan in her cold shell, given no reassurance, handed over to a figure of Death that we donโt trust. Maybe itโs crucial that in both โOne for the Angelsโ and โNothing in the Dark,โ the characters are dying natural deaths that they have to accept. This feels more like being accosted.
She doesnโt even get to embrace her fate to the extent of letting him into the car; he was already there. Heโs just a force she collided with, and while she got away for a little while, he finally caught up with her. Sheโs in the driverโs seat, but heโs in control.
Itโs a haunting ending with a lingering chill to it, and while Iโm glad that the series usually provides us with a little more warmth than this, I still think this hits. It’s a fable, which means it’s a little simple and a little obvious, but it’s always left a mark on me.
Closing: Nan Adams, age twenty-seven. She was driving to California; to Los Angeles. She didn’t make it. There was a detour… through the Twilight Zone.
About the writer
Lauren James
Lauren James is a writer who wears many different hats (and pen names). She lives in Connecticut with her wife and two cats.
Lauren Jamesโs ProfileTags for this article
More articles by Lauren James
Anthologized
A solid punchline (but not enough punch).
Anthologized
Tune in to a world on the brink.
Department of
Conversation
I didn’t pick up most of that. Certainly none of the sexual element. I think basically I was “yeah, she’s already dead” and it just lost me. I don’t deny there is subtext here, but it just wasn’t going to resonate with me. And the narration didn’t help either because it was very much tell and don’t show. So yeah, we are really not on the same page at all for once. I think, however, I am in the minority on this.
There is one weird thing here: maybe it’s real or maybe it’s just the present intruding, but Inger Stevens reminded me of Hayden Panettiere. Two talented actresses whose lives were complicated and who left the world too soon.
It is a very familiar kind of tale, so I can see how realizing what was going on immediately could make one check out: I think oddly, having the specifics of this one be so familiar to me since childhood made me more inclined to just go along for the ride and observe how Serling rang the changes on it.
That’s a good and very sad point about the timing of this connecting Inger Stevens with Hayden Panettiere.