Grant turning out to be a good guy ruined the whole movie and made this movie a one big RED HERRING..It can be compressed into one single scene..Never a movie material and one of Hitchcock's worst movie.
Imo the movie would have been much better if they had shown everything the same except in a final shot while they are driving back we see Joan rest against Grant's shoulder feeling relieved and then we see Grant smiling in a suspicious way.
I was fine with it but I know a lot of people who agree with you.
shareI know that Hitchcock was strong-armed into a "Hollywood ending," but I have no doubt that the subtext was that Johnnie was guilty. Every clue in the movie leads to this... the movie almost makes no sense without it. The leitmotiv in the film is Lina's suspicions--and then Johnnie finding a way to comfort her. Then he goes on to deceive her again. Why should the ending be any different?
When they stop the car she's the one who breathlessly rattles off all the ideas -- that he was going to kill himself using the poison, etc. My take is that he sees an opportunity here--and decides to go along with the tragic notions of his distraught and desperate wife. He knows just how to play her.
If he *had* actually asked the crime writer about the poison in order to kill himself, why would he have cared that it was "undetectable"? Makes no sense. I see everything falling into place for him again at the end. The scene shot from above -- when he makes that final U-turn-- gives the whole thing a calculated air; almost cold, menacing, and clinical. And the way he put his arm around her at the end -- very stylized, creepy, and reptilian -- I have no doubt that he's drawn her back into his web.
He's guilty in the book; he even killed her father in the book. I can't help but think that he's guilty here too -- and that Hitchcock orchestrated things so that this is suggested, if not explicit, due to his agreement with the studio to not present Grant as a killer.
Again we have here an argument that because a film deviates in some manner from the written source material, that he changes are somehow illegitimate. Even the fight supposedly between Hitch and the studio is really irrelevant. The film they made is the film they made, and if the film made is not plausible, then of course that is a problem. But it is not a problem that it differs from the source if it nonetheless works.
The tension that exists in a story where Johnny in fact is a killer is how Lina's suspicions point to that, and may be eventually confirmed, but meanwhile this creates a dynamic tension between her love for him and her need to trust him.
But that is not the film that was made here. This film is about how morally dubious behavior on the husband's part leads the wife to wonder just how far he goes and can go, and that leads her to be suspicious of him. The dynamic here is how that in turn affects and colors her perception of events and behavior that it turns out has a different explanation.
This is a film that deserved to be made. It says something about how Johnny's actual bad behavior, even if short of his being a murderer which is treated as a positive and happy revelation, still undercut his marriage and caused great upset and heartbreak to his wife. And while the ending was happier than one where he killed her, I certainly did not see it as a kind of fairy tale happily ever after kind of ending.
What makes this film so great is how it examines the way we in being with others have to sort out the meaning of good and bad behavior. No one is perfect, and yet we still love imperfect people. Even can love people who let us down at times.
Lina had to learn how to separate what was truly bad in Johnny from that which was not. I found that very illuminating and valuable.
Again we have here an argument that because a film deviates in some manner from the written source material, that he changes are somehow illegitimate.
I couldn't care less that you don't like my "tone" because I don't like yours, either. My point is a listing of how a film deviates from a source material is not an indictment of the film. Certainly not a persuasive one, and as for opinions I would say most people would agree with that central point.
shareMy point is a listing of how a film deviates from a source material is not an indictment of the film.
Kenny, you're a douche.
shareNo. There are so many films where it turns out the husband wants to murder the wife, or drive her crazy or something, I thought it made a nice change to have one where he turns out to be innocent.
shareTotally agree. Felt like a cop out to build up all the poison stuff and then have him saying it was so he could kill himself. Don't think it is Hitch's worst film as it's very involving for much of its running time. I got an oddly similar feeling from Fincher's The Game - gripping all the way through then lousy ending.
shareI don't think it "ruined" the movie. The movie still has a lot of things going for it, and I do like it. However, the ending was a big letdown for me--not because I just *wanted* Grant to be a bad guy, but because it would have made much more sense given all the buildup and clues.
shareYes, it most definitely ruined it. It could've been one of Hitchcock's best.
shareIt seems any kind of ending would've been better than the one we got. If Carey really HAD to be innocent, then they should've let them accidentally drive off the cliff while Joan realizes he is innocent during an argument in the car. At least it would've given the ending some punch.
share