MovieChat Forums > Suspicion (1941) Discussion > Joan Fontaine's Oscar

Joan Fontaine's Oscar


The general consensus seems to be that Joan Fontaine's Academy Award was actually belated recognition for her performance in REBECCA, but I have to say that I think her work in SUSPICION is just as impressive. An Oscar for either performance would be well-deserved in my opinion.

reply

I liked Joan Fontaine's performance in Suspicion. She deserved the Oscar. very underrated Hitchcockian actress.

reply

[deleted]

Fontaine's OK in Suspicion, but she really impressed me in Rebecca. Joan should have won the Oscar for that film.

"Watch me run a 50-yard dash with my legs cut off!"

reply

What I liked about Suspicion was Fontaine played the character Lina exactly like the character "Lina" in the novel.

reply

She becomes the character quite well in Suspicion- I feel she would have had an excellent chance of winning whether she had been in Rebecca or not...

reply

[deleted]


Well, she did played Lina exactly like the character in the novel.

reply

[deleted]

Considering that for Suspicion she also won the New York Film Critics Circle best actress award and the National Board of Review best acting award for Rebecca AND Suspicion, I don’t think the Academy Award can be dismissed so lightly.

reply

She deserved the oscar for Rebecca. But shes good in this to.

reply

I can see why someone might think that Joan Fontaine shouldn't have won for Suspicion, though I disagree. But calling it "one of the lamest wins ever" sounds like hyperbole or delusion. Or delusional hyperbole.

Janet! Donkeys!

reply

Interestingly, Fontaine's is the only acting Academy Award to come out of a picture directed by Hitchcock.

reply

Anyone know which country Suspicion was filmed in please?

reply

...but I have to say that I think her work in SUSPICION is just as impressive. An Oscar for either performance would be well-deserved in my opinion.

In my opinion, Suspicion was the better of the two performances. The Academy may have given it to her as compensation for Rebecca, which might have been their reason but that doesn't change the evidence available on screen.

Joan Fontaine's work with Hitchcock on these two films is among the most multi-faceted work done by an actress in his films. In both these films, she plays women who's natures are in conflict with their surroundings, their emotional states and in both these films it's not spelt out to the audience, much of it is suggested through her performance.

Suspicion is even more intriguing in that it deals with the insecurities of an adult woman in a very mature way. And the reason why the film is a great film is due to the reality of her performance and work in the film. She also did the one thing no other actress did, she made Cary Grant an object of fear and menace. Cary's character is so suave, charming and perfect that you wouldn't ever suspect him for anything and yet his perfect nature is what makes him so creepy to her and to us.



"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes

reply

I agree that Suspicion is the better of the two, although I also enjoyed her performance in Rebecca.

Fontaine impressed me in Suspicion with her flawless portrayals of Lina, first as an awkward spinster, and then made a dignified transition into overjoyed newlywed, and shortly thereafter, the lady of the house who has found her footing both as a "grown woman" and "wife" (in terms of the time period), and then to the last third of the film, where her nerves begin tearing her apart and she becomes morbidly relenting, at times, to what she believes to be the inevitability of her death.

Fontaine played all of these aspect of Lina wonderfully!

You also make an excellent point about the appeal of her character: Suspicion is even more intriguing in that it deals with the insecurities of an adult woman in a very mature way.

reply

Fontaine was okay in SUSPICION, but she was up against Barbara Stanwyck for BALL OF FIRE and Bette Davis for THE LITTLE FOXES -- two far superior performances.

reply

^^ I have to agree. I much preferred Joan's performance in Rebecca and found her poses and delivery in Suspicion to be obvious and forced at times, especially in the earlier half of the film. After seeing Little Foxes recently as well, I prefer Davis that year. Perhaps this was the first of the academy's long trend towards rewarding a later performance for someone's better earlier performance which we have seen quite often. (Al Pacino, Jessica Lange)

reply

[deleted]

Add to the list of nominees, Olivia deHavilland for Hold Back The Dawn. Fontaine's win caused a rift between the two that has lasted a lifetime.
If Fontaine had rightfully won in 1940 for Rebecca, and deHavilland had won in 1941 for Hold Back The Dawn, would that rift have been averted? Who knows.
And on the subject, HOW did Ginger Rogers win over all the better performances that were given in 1940?

reply

I think Rogers won in '40 because the vote was split between the 2 standout performances that year: Fontaine's in Rebecca & Hepburn's in Philadelphia Story. Also, thanks to her '30s musicals & comedies, Rogers was an enormously popular star, so there was some desire to recognize her for her "dramatic" turn in Kitty Foyle.

reply

Well the more I watch the movie, the more I believe it really is an Oscar worthy performance. Rebecca was as well, but I think what Joan did with this character was pretty exceptional. It was not just a re-hash of her performance in 'Rebecca,' she really differentiated the characters even though she could have played the characters the same. I thought she was excellent, particularly towards the end as her suspicion grows even deeper. I really love the scene where she finds out Johnnie has stolen all the money.

Never, never, never, never, never

reply

Given the close proximity that Suspicion followed Rebecca, and some obvious similarities between Lina and the second Mrs. de Winter (lack of self confidence in some general sense being one, but not in the specifics, but I digress), it is inevitable to compare the performances. But there are more differences than similarities.

Age is one. Despite being only a year older, the character portrayed so convincingly by Ms. Fontaine in this film seems more like a decade older. Joan does it without makeup, instead putting aside the somewhat girlish manner of the second Mrs. de Winter for a manner of one approaching 30 or so, with no hint of that girlishness. It is not as if she does it by portraying a more learned self confidence, either, since Lina to be sure has her self doubts. But those are more about her standing in the world as a spinster, than about whether she can control a social situation.

Another is in the portrayal of her character's anxieties. The second Mrs. de Winter certainly has her moments where the challenges she faces confuse her, but mostly she portrays her anxieties as inducing outward emotions, some crying, lashing out. Lina on the other hand directs her emotions more inwardly, hiding for example her reactions seeing the chairs in the window from Isobel, or even when outward in challenging people such as Beaky.

I could go on and on, but suffice to say there is no real merit to anyone's suggsting that Joan's portrayal here is some kind of rehash of her role in Rebecca.

reply

While I think she deserved the Oscar more for Rebecca, she was just as good here, very beautiful and somewhat vulnerable too.






"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]