MovieChat Forums > Suspicion (1941) Discussion > How does Suspicion end?

How does Suspicion end?

posted 18 years ago by carla-42
22 replies | jump to latest

I've seen the movie a dozen times (including last evening on TCM but I fell asleep right as Cary Grant was walking up the steps with the glowing milk.) My husband asked me this morning how it ended but I CAN'T REMEMBER!

It seems I recall from previous viewings that even though Johnnie was cleared of any actual wrong-doings, there was still a touch of "suspicion" about his innocence.

To prevent spoiling the end for others, you can respond to my personal email at [email protected].

Thank you!

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

Johnnie is innocent in the end of Suspicion.

[–] pierric82 18 years ago

He provides satisfying explanations about the suspicious events of the movie. The reason why he was interested in the traceless poison is that he is depressed with his life (debts, possible prison because of the debts) and wants to take his own life. Lina begs him not to, but they drive away without him having changed his mind... so it's a half-way open end.

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

You are half-correct. But Johnnie did change his mind. That is why he turns the car and goes back to home with Lina. It is upto audience to find the actual intentions of Johnnie.

This is what I found out.

Johnnie was interested in the traceless poison, because he wanted to write a novel, so that he can make money and payback the money to Captain Melbeck.

But when he found out that Lina is trying to be away from him, he decided to use the poison on himself. He didn't want a life without Lina.

[–] BigGoon 18 years ago

I love the ending! It's very ambiguous and it's left to the audience to decided if Johnny is innocent or guilty. He convinced Lina he was innocent, but he convinced her of other lies before. The only indication of Johnny's innocence is what he says, and he's alredy proven himself to be a smooth-talking pathological liar. Personally, I don't believe him. Lina should keep her suspicions!

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

Well, I don't think Johnnie is a murderer.

[–] crimson_n_clover 18 years ago

According to Hitchcock's daughter not only was Johnny to murder her =before she drank the milk she asked him to mail a letter.The letter was Lina's accusation that Johnny murdered her and where the police could look for proof.I think the letter was addressed to the writer.After she's dead in the last scene you see him mailing the letter and whistling.That's the ending the studio didn't like.It wasn't Cary Grant so much as someone WAS seeming to get away with murder since who knows if the police would have caught him.

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

here is Hitchcock's ending.

'Hitchcock' by Francois Truffaut: pg 102

"Well, I'm not too pleased with the way _Suspicion_ ends. I had something else in mind. The scene I wanted, but it was never shot, was for Cary Grant to bring her a glass of milk that's been poisoned and Joan Fontaine has just finished a letter to her mother: 'Dear Mother, I'm desperately in love with him, but I don't want to live because he's a killer. Though I'd rather die, I think society should be protected from him.' Then, Cary Grant comes in with the fatal glass and she says, 'Will you mail this letter to Mother for me, dear?' She drinks the milk and dies. Fade out and fade in on one short shot: Cary Grant, whistling cheerfully, walks over to the mailbox and pops the letter in."

[–] crimson_n_clover 18 years ago

Well that cleared that up.Thanks.

[–] AmyLouise 18 years ago

In the original ending, Johnny is guilty. He was planning to murder his wife
all along - thoroughly bad.

But Hitchock was forced to change the ending, and re-shoot a new one, that
has a highly implausible and poorly scripted ending showing that he was really
a good man all along, just weak and sometimes foolish.

I've read different versions of the reason for change - one was that the
preview audience reacted badly to the original, and the other was that the
studio couldn't allow Cary Grant to play a murderer and demanded a script
change. Either way, I think the film would have been much stronger with the
original ending, and could have ended up as a classic of the genre.

If the original footage is still around in a studio vault somewhere, I wish
it could be restored.

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

Original Ending was never shot.

Actually, there is a difference in the story. Hitchcock had to not only change the ending, but also change some of the plots in the story like loan on Lina's insurance, addition of Johnnie the dog, and some other major parts of the story.

The story was forced to change, because the audience didn't liked Cary Grant being a murderer. So R.K.O and Hitchcock were forced to change the ending and some of the major parts of the story.

[–] BobbyPeru1 18 years ago

Maybe Robert Cummings should have played the role of Johnnie; the studio would have had no problem at all with Cummings being a murderer. When he had been casted for this role, the film could have had the original ending and some of the original plotlines. Then it might have become a true classic.

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

Actually Hitchcock's ending is pretty weak. That is why Samson Raphaelson told Hitchcock on changing the ending.

[–] joe_doody-1 18 years ago

Although Cary Grant's best moments in this film are when he is being menacing, in my opinion. It's a shame the studio wouldn't allow him to tarnish his image by following up the scenes like where he tells his wife off for meddling with something a bit braver. I agree that the final cut has a pretty feeble ending

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

Actually that wasn't the original ending.

'Hitchcock Interview' by Francois Truffaut: pg 102

"Well, I'm not too pleased with the way _Suspicion_ ends. I had something
else in mind. The scene I wanted, but it was never shot, was for Cary
Grant to bring her a glass of milik that's been poisoned and Joan Fontaine
has just finished a letter to her mother: 'Dear Mother, I'm desperately in
love with him, but I don't want to live because he's a killer. Though I'd
rather die, I think society should be protected from him.' Then, Cary
Grant comes in with the fatal glass and she says, 'Will you mail this
letter to Mother for me, dear?' She drinks the milk and dies. Fade out and
fade in on one short shot: Cary Grant, whistling cheerfully, walks over to
the mailbox and pops the letter in."

As for my opinion, I like the current ending far better than Hitchcock's ending.

[–] ajm2006 18 years ago

I don't really care for Hitchcock's ending either. It's not really a good ending for Hitchcock, I mean, you suspected that he was going to kill her all along, so not much suprise there. But I also don't really care for the filmed ending either. If I were to do it, I would have written an ending that was a happy medium. The film carries on with Joan Fontaine's character expecting Cary Grant to kill her. Then, she could write the note to her mother about expecting Johnnie to kill her, and then drinks the milk. She wakes up the next morning, realizes that she's still alive, and goes into the next room to find Johnnie dead, and a suicide note that explains that he killed himself because of his debts and his depression over not being there when he friend died to save him. It would be a surprise, and I would still think it was a good ending. I don't know though, maybe it's a bit too far fetched. And it probably wouldn't have happened anyway because the studios wouldn't want to kill off Cary Grant in anything.

"It's a nice face."

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

Well, I think Current ending is far better than Hitchcock's ending.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bashfulgrl19 18 years ago

I fully felt the ending was just not quite right.

The entire time they were on the cliff, just after he convinced her that he was innocent, I expected him to just push her off and then drive away....I was not expecting him to be a "good guy" and was somewhat disappointed when he was. lol.

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

It was all Lina's imagination. I thought the ending was far better than Hitchcock's ending. And the ending makes sense.

[–] hodie 11 years ago

Johnny's not a killer, but I still didn't like him. I would have preferred the ending Hitchcock had wanted. The film's ending just seems like a forced happy ending despite all the evidence in the film. If I was supposed to be watching from Monkeyface's POV, it wasn't evident to me.

Get me a bromide! And put some gin in it!

[–] npaxton-3 10 years ago

It is not a happy ending. At best, it is an ambiguous ending. Johnnie was a liar. His explanations for everything turned out not to be true. Why should we believe him now? One of the things he told Lina was how could she think he was in Paris with Beaky and not prevent him drinking the brandy. But that's exactly what he did when Beaky drank brandy in Lina's house earlier. Johnnie just stood there and said it could kill him someday. Thinking back to that scene, Johnnie must have filed that fact away to be used later on poor Beaky in Paris. Don't forget that the Parisian waiter thought the other man's name was Albean (Old Bean!) I guess most of the audiences in the 40's wanted to believe that Cary Grant was innocent and bought the ending at face value. Many contemporary audiences don't.