MovieChat Forums > Suspicion (1941) Discussion > Superb Performance from Fontaine and it ...

Superb Performance from Fontaine and it has Hitchcock's signature

posted 11 years ago by RyanCShowers
7 replies | jump to latest

http://feelthefilms.wordpress.com/2013/07/29/suspicion/

Suspicion, one of Alfred Hitchcock's countless suspense driven dramas that holds a lot of effort put forth by the director. Sadly, it isn't flawless by any standpoint. The film's biggest liability is the jolted screenplay, it's sloppy and disfigured. The clarity that Hitchcock has in his better works isn't present here. Suspicion holds it's focal point from the audience until the third act (the mystery of Cary Grant possibly being a murder). The first act is pushed by the romance and the second act depicts the financial difficulties in a marriage. But when the third act finally comes out with the long awaited plot twist, it thankfully hits hard.

From the directorial standpoint, Suspicion never fails. Hitchcock knows the story he wants to tell (too bad the script didn't know the story it wanted to tell). With his films, Hitchcock always has an unusual control over a picture that never smothers it. He controls his storytelling world, but allows the actors and the technical professionals to put their own spin on his vision. The story is about doubt, Hitchcock creates just as much doubt in the film with Joan Fontaine's character as he creates for the viewer. We are on our toes once Cary Grant's actions become questionable. I was intertwined in just as much paranoia and psychological mystery as Joan Fontaine's character. The musical score is expectedly scorches your stomach inside out.

Joan Fontaine is darling, yet filled with doubt in her starring role. Fontaine owns the fact that this picture's success is on her shoulders. It's a character study of Lina, a self-destructive and distrusting woman. Fontaine's exquisite performance earned her an Academy Award, which many people pegged off as a being a "make-up" Oscar for not winning for Rebecca. Don't get me wrong, Rebecca is an excellent film and Fontaine is very good in it, but there so much more involved in the story with the source material, directing, and other actors in that film. In Suspicion, Fontaine has a lot more to make-up for with her performance. Cary Grant is wild and charismatic in his antagonistic role, too.

Suspicion is a atypical structured piece. The romance has life and the first act just fires passion through each breath. The second act is ahead of its time in commenting on problems in a marriage, making the union a financially-aggravated mess of distrust. Suspicion thrives in the third act, as our heads spin as fast as Fontaine's running mind. Suspicion would've benefited from an alternate ending, or at least a more explained one. To be successful with a story arc like they left us with, it had to be thoroughly told to the viewer, but instead its left with a sloppy wrap-up and a ambiguous final frame. Hitchcock famously denounced the studio's ending, I wish they would've went with Alfy's gut. Nonetheless, the superb performance from Fontaine and Hitchcock's reliable signature make Suspicion a solid entry in the director's filmography.

Rating: 8/10

Grade: A-

Feel the Films: A Blog by R.C.S. -> http://feelthefilms.wordpress.com/

[–] marhefka 11 years ago

@RCS.

Great comments and analysis. I enjoyed the movie but don't fully understand a couple of things.

1. Did Johnny really give her enough cause for the kind of fear she was exhibiting? First they talked about forming a corporation. Then Johnny said they should dissolve it but that Beaky need to look at the land with him early in the morning. This doesn't seem like enough cause to make her suspect Johnny of wanting to murder Beaky or for Lina to pass out.

2. I never understood the dissolving of the corporation. Apparently, this was Johnny's idea. Was it a ruse to get Beaky to go to Paris where he could "murder" him. At least, the plan was "murder" before they changed the ending.

3. Beaky died before the corporation was dissolved. So, doesn't this mean that Johnny's money problems should have been over? Obviously, they weren't.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

First of all I am not sure Johnnie killed Beaky, and in fact am skeptical. So i am not sure it was a ruse at all. I am not being naive here, i don't think, as the problem would be that if he in fact killed Beaky for that purpose, his then turning around and taking the company's money for some non-corporate purpose would be seen as a clear motive for having killed Beaky, lending greatly increased police attention to the matter. Johnnie took chances, but that would be too far, too risky, even for him.

As for Lina's fear it in fact from her perspective seemed justified if she thought Johnnie was willing to kill Beaky. As just noted she might think he had a motive. The film plays on ambiguities and possible motives, and in any event despite what i said in the previous paragraph is a matter of some conjecture, to be sure.

I hope that helps.

[–] marhefka 11 years ago

@Kenny.

I think that Hitchcock does it on purpose - the ambiguities that is. Maybe Johnny didn't kill Beaky, and maybe the Insurance Company question about Lina's death was just a coincidence. But, it's hard to rationalize the mystery writer's book being in his desk drawer and his almost neurotic interest in untraceable poisons.

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

marhefka,

I am virtually certain the ambiguity was intentional, to leave us off balance, feeling by identification why Lina feels the way she does. It is masterful. Lack of clarity was never put to better use. Heh.

As for the poisons interest, the added on ending led me to believe that Johnny was thinking of killing himself with such a poison, and for his own reasons wanted it to be untraceable. Just more ambiguity...

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

Fontaine owns the fact that this picture's success is on her shoulders.

Though I still find it difficult to see her as a dowdy spinster, she makes the film for me. Hitchcock could pick them.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 10 years ago

She was extremely charming as the leading lady. I loved her!

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] kenny-164 10 years ago

I am a huge fan of Joan Fontaine's. She was exceptionally beautiful in this film, gave a fantastic performance well deserving of the Oscar, and despite Grant's presence really carried the film. Grant has been well paired with a large number of great actresses serving as his leading ladies, from Constance Bennett to Grace Kelly to Eva Marie Saint to Audrey Hepburn. But Joan Fontaine was the equal or better than any of them opposite him.

Despite Joan's great beauty I think her ability to convey Lina's self doubts and even neurosis was utterly convincing. It took a few viewings until i noticed the very subtle way that some of her suspicions about Johnny took the form or came from a self doubting source. ANd of coures it is obvious that many women would not have stood for being married to Johnny, no matter how handsome, given his antics and financial dysfunction. In turn suggesting that Lina should not have, either, apart from her suspicions of Johnny's perhaps murderous intent. Joan made this inner conflict of Lina's quite believeable.

Fantastic performance. I know Joan Fontaine is not universally recognized as a great actress, but I cannot understand those who do not see it.