Errington's reference to Lina's paranoia, which should I think be more properly referred to as possible paranoia (or as the old saying goes, just because you are paranoid does not mean that people are not really out to get you), is a reminder that to some extent Johnny's responsiblity, or not, for Beaky's death and an intent to kill Lina is really secondary to the main subject of the film. Which is why Lina stays with Johnny, is attracted to him despite his flaws. To be sure the extent of his flaws is the open question, and in real life as in this film it is obvious that the question is how severe and significant are those flaws in relation to the question of how much sense Lina's character makes. After all, this film is really Lina's story, told through her perspective.
As the viewer, we see all events through Lina's eyes. Joan Fontaine is in nearly every shot. But as viewers we also see her character, and whether it makes sense or not.
Errington describes the context as one of psychology, and there is certainly an element of that to the film. But I think it would be a mistake to think of it only in psychological terms. After all there is little covered in the film in the way of shall we say peculiarities of Lina, other than the somewhat contradictory early images of her, first as a bookish, quiet, even mousy woman of almost indeterminate age, then on her horse flashing a smile of great beauty and an overall look of confidence. These are followed by the almost too obvious overhearing of her parents referring to her as a spinster, and the personal qualities also mentioned. Well, this may make for enough to understand what motivates her, as it does I think, but not much to work with in terms of some sort of psychological pathology. In short whatever paranoia she ends up with I don't think is intended to be seen as peculiar to her personality. Instead it arises from the context.
It is of course noteworthy that the romance between Johnny and Lina is extremely brief prior to the wedding. This to some extent serves as a plot device, since it explains why Lina comes to know so little about Johnny's affairs and situation. Before their meeting after a week's absence, we see Lina making phone calls and inquiries, attempting to find Johnny, with a slight suggestion that she may be doing so as some kind of stalking. But that suggestion seems later to be discounted, as her surprising (or is it really?) overt statement of love is not at all unrequited. No, Johnny more or less feels the same as Lina. Or seems to.
It is ironic that Lina's approach can and perhaps should be seen as a gamble, a throwing down of a stake in the outcome of a bet, which of course parallels one of Johnny's big vices. In that sense Johnny can be seen as Lina's long shot, when her only other bet seemed to be to fold, which is a metaphor for spinsterhood. As Johnny noted early in the film, those eligible bachelors in those parts were a rarity.
Perhaps today it is not socially acceptable in some quarters to see remaining single as something to be strenuously avoided. But Lina I think in her own mind sees quite clearly that it would mean a stultifying existence, remaining in her parents' home, bored to death. Johnny is certainly not boring, whatever other faults he may have. In effect Lina rejects that which at least others close to her see as her nature to pursue the challenging life she sees having with Johnny.
Engagement with the world versus the relatively cloistered life - what leads some to choose the former, despite the uncertainty and risks and even fear of the potential negatives? Perhaps I need another viewing or two of this excellent film to better address that question.
reply
share