The ending does Not ruin the film

I think most of the objections are due to the fact that it goes against the original novel in which Johnnie is a killer - even though his wife sort of contributes by drinking what she knows is poison.

On the other hand, the fact that he turns out to be innocent (even though everything points to him being the worst kind of black sheep, thief and even a killer) provides something of a neat twist and there is a good chance that he is prepared to be more responsible in future. The death of his best friend Beaky may have been something of a warning that he had to pull himself together and lead a better life.

Yes, one can hate the studio bosses for forcing such a change in the story, but on the other hand I happen to think that it is very well handled.

There is no question that Johnnie is a freakin' murderer. Grant plays it that way throughout the film. While he is a rogue and charmer, he deserves to get his just desserts, i.e. death, for being such a wicked, evil person that he is. Johnnie should have lost control of the car and gone over the cliff and Lina was saved miraculously! Money and living the good life drove him to it. Owing Captain Melbeck finally drove him over the edge.

[deleted]

i loved the ending.

grant plays a textbook psychopath and in the end he is still undiscovered (as happens with the vast majority of real psychopaths)

the movie gives a perfect illustration of what it is like to be in a relationship with a psychopath.

(remember: most psychopaths are nonviolent)

I don't have to hate the ending because Hitch did. Once a director births a film it's the right of everyone watching it to determine in which way it is a good or poor attempt at film making. I liked the ending. I think it works. Just because Hitch didn't makes no difference to me at all. He can be wrong sometimes :-) - not all his movies were genius. He did, however, make an excellent movie when he made this one - ending and all.

It is no surprise Hitchcock would have said at some point that he did not like the ending, given that he was forced to make a change from his original intention. Under the circumstances though the change he decided on could hardly have been bettered. I say this with the assumption that it was consciously ambiguous as it seems unlikely that Hitchcock would have expected the entire audience to swallow it as a straight happy ending. The book 'The Alfred Hitchcock Story' by Ken Mogg points out that there is some evidence earlier in the movie to suggest that Johnnie may still be lying: he tells Lena he was in Liverpool to deal with the insurance business, but the letter he received from the company shows it as having a London address. Mogg also mentions that it fits nicely with Beaky's earlier statement that Johnnie can lie his way out of anything.

Its a pity the Hitchcock version of the ending he envisaged isnt available . We could judge for ourselves .

It would have been nice to see Grant in one or two more darker roles

RKO ( Studio ) forced the director to to have a positive ending to "Protect Cary Grants image"

It wasn't just that. Hitch wanted Grant to be a killer, and when he showed it that way to test audiences, they simply would not accept Cary Grant as a murderer. They just wouldn't have it, so the ending was changed.

A funny bit from Robert Osborne-
He talked about how Grant's motive was supposed to be that his wife had cheated on him. The female contigent thought that was outrageous-the very idea that any woman would cheat on Cary Grant! That had to be nixed too.

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

I read somewhere that actually it wasn't particular to Grant. In general the producers were very uncomfortable about any of their major stars portraying murderers. And on some later films Hitchcock faced similar difficulties in persuading them to allow a lead actor be a murderer.

Although I tend to think the ending does always leave a slight sour taste in the mouth, because everything is just explained away so quickly, part of me is privately glad they didn't have Grant be the killer. Because he's just so brilliantly menacing throughout the film, and frankly sinister and plausible as a sociopath, that it might have been very worrying watching him in anything light afterwards.

I think she trusted him, because he gave her the strong impression that he was saving her rather killing her by pushing her.

Unlike the book, the film is far more ambiguous about Johnnie being a murderer. So I like the film's current ending, because it leaves us to have our own interpretation. In the book, we can easily conclude that Johnnie is a murderer.

But in the film, it is questionable.

Unlike the novel "Before the fact", the film focuses much more on the psychology of Lina. For example, the Anagram scene in the film isn't in the novel. Another example is where the atmosphere becomes very dark when Lina reaches the house after visiting the land Johnnie and Beaky decided for their corporation. When Lina finds out that Beaky is alive, the atmosphere becomes a bright and joyful atmosphere while Vienna Blood waltz is playing in the background.

Unlike the book, the film also focuses on the inner conflict of Lina. For Example, the scene where Lina talks to her father's portrait - "He didn't go to Paris. He didn't go to Paris I tell you."

Beaky was a good friend of Johnnie since his childhood. And Johnnie was broken all of his life financially. Lina's suspicion starts only after their marriage.

We even see Lina saying this in the beginning of the movie "Oh, I know you didn't marry me for my money. You could have done much better elsewhere."

As for the testimony of the waiter, it isn't clear if Johnnie is the murderer. This is because French waiter only has a slight understanding of English. So its also highly possible that Beaky was talking about Old Bean, but not talking to Old Bean. French Waiter says "Old Beam or Holby" referring to "Old Bean." So we know how much he understood the conversation.

Konway is right, the film and book are a lot different. The book is a nasty tale of lies, murder and abuse. Johnnie is a terrible man and Lina is in a web, doesn't seem or want to get out of. The film however is left up for debate, you can look at Johnnie as a conman who loves Lina, but can't change his ways or he is a terrible man hell bent on murder and financial gain. It is left up to the viewer, but you have to remember the time frame when this movie was made and Cary Grant appeal and popularly. Lots of films of that era when left up to your imagination and not clearly plotted, do to restriction for morality and ratings. Grant also was a beloved man with his appeal being more toward comedy and drama, not a charming murderer. Lina in the film has more backbone than the one in the book, but she is still easily controlled, that is why it focuses on her father at the beginning to give an idea of why she is so easily falls for Johnnie and his manipulation. Lina the book was like a doormat in my opinion and I spend a great deal of time yell at it.