Whatever merits this film has as art, I've always hated watching it for the shameless, demeaning abuse Cary Grant heaps on Joan throughout the film.
This must qualify as the great-granddaddy of all those Lifetime Movies for Women, where a vulnerable, naive woman stays in a pathetic relationship with an abusive, manipulative man who's just out to use her.
No matter how many times he humiliates and mistreats her, mentally, emotionally and psychologically abuses her she inexplicably takes him back -even when it's obvious how guilty he is.
The man has absolutely no redeeming qualities other than being handsome. He's a liar, thief, killer and abusive. he doesn't even grant her the humanity of using her name; he continually de-humanizes her by calling her "Monkey Face," -a name he gave her originally as an insult.
WHY does she stay with him?
"If you don't know the answer -change the question."
Wow...odd reactions some people are having to this post.
Among other things, we see Lina being called an old maid by her parents in the beginning of the film. Just minute before she's literally fighting Johnny off when they're standing silouetted on the hill. But when Lina hears the hurtful (and true) words spoken by her parents, saying they'll probably have to take care of her for the rest of her life, she grabs Johnny and kisses him.
The prospect of being an old maid would have been completely horrifying and unacceptable, as would the possibility later be for her to crawl back to her parents if she left Johhny (especially when her father already intuited and heard gossip about what kind of man Johnny was). Lina would have ended up the sad single daughter with her aging parents, having fallen in love only once and that one time to a total creep whose charm she couldn't see beyond.
"monkeyface" could be a number of things -- it's a term of endearment, but when he coined it originally it did have an edge, as you say. It's almost like an early test of how much she would take from him, vs stand up for herself. It's teasing, but the degree to which its endearing vs sort of keeping her in her place is equivocal, ambivalent, like most of Cary Grant's words and actions.
She doesn't have other options with other men. She doesn't want to be alone, either as a spinster or divorcee, and she's willing to **hope** that Johnny is rules by his better nature.
The prospect of severe social shame of a woman perceived to be undesirable, abandoned, or hoodwinked, compromised, and used in that culture would have been enormous. Even the lowest of the low (i.e., the "Bottoms" who she accompanies to church) would be able to scorn her.
And as others have mentioned divorce *was* still a scandal in 1941, in that society. Lina would have been looked down on as a failure as a woman who could not handle her husband, or as a woman so utterly foolish as to marry clearly an inappropriate person and would be blamed for that.
So...in light of all those realities, what choices does Lina have? she can leave him and not only have lost at the one love she dared go for, but also experience social ostracism and shame (for her and her family) OR try to deny to herself what was happening, the way he was treating her, what he was clearly like, the level of deep disrespect he had for her, and to choose instead to make the best of it, hope she was wrong, hope she was imagining it.
People say the original ending is made too much of. I had no idea about the original ending when I watched Suspicion for the first time, last night. But when that ending came around it was obvious it had been grafted on---and that something had gone very wrong with this film. In fact said to my friend: "What was THAT? that's BS!!" Because that is not where the plot was going.
Where the plot was headed was this---and which refers to the OP's observations about Lina and Johnny---the last person to speak to Lina, other than Johnny, was Isobel the author. Isobel says to Lina: "Have you *ever* been able to deny Johnny anything he's wanted?" to which Lina wistfully replies "No...no, I haven't," and in that moment we are to know that she will let Johnny go ahead with his plan to poison her, because she would rather die believing his love for her was real and she would rather NOT be around to live if in fact he's as awful as she suspects he might be. She would rather do his bidding and preserve the illusion of reciprocal love and respect, than see in the light of day that she has always been the target of a grotesque cold-blooded plot to marry wealthy, get rid of everyone between him and her money, and live the life of a perpetual playboy.
Excellent observations. Unfortunately, some people are viewing this film through he prism of modern day sensibilities. I don't think there was anything "abusive" about Johnny and Lena's relationship other than the fact that she was hopelessly in love with him. Because of her love for him, she wanted to believe that she could redeem him. Sheesh! It's an old fashioned romance movie. Lighten up!
Hitchcock´s films are riddled with submissive, fragile women with a guilt complex, utterly reliant on their man - Suspicion, Rebecca, Notorious, Under Capricorn... also Vertigo although there it of course made more sense since Judy had a very good reason to feel bad about herself and try and make it up to Scottie. Usually this submissiveness comes across as lazy, heavy handed writing though.
And Johnny´s abusiveness here is beyond doubt - as is the fact that everything leading up to the final scene points towards him being a murderer.
I don't think modern viewers can appreciate how much audiences of 1941 and '42 would have rejected this film if Grant had turned out to REALLY be a murderer. Thye probably would've reacted the same way to a Cooper, Gable, Stewart or Tyrone Power playing the same role. They probably would've been much more willing to go along with a tragic ending if Johnny had been played by the likes of George Sanders, Basil Rathbone or Humphrey Bogart ( I'm STILL frustrated by the fact Bogart & Hitchcock never worked together). "We're fighting for this woman's honor, which is more than she ever did."
Not sure if I'd label Johnnie as an abuser. But since you did, let's just go along with that for argument's sake. You actually answered your own question in the subject of your comment. I'm surprised no one else has made this point. The victim of abuse very often has a strong emotional attachment to the abuser. Lina even delivers a classic victim line at the end of the film when she declares that everything that happened was all her fault.
When they first meet Lina says that she believes she would be able to control Johnny if she had 'the bit between his teeth'; a riding analogy. Then when she uncovers his first lie, about owing money and wanting to live beyond his means, she describes him as a baby because she believes his psychology is to live without thinking of consequences and refusing to delay gratification. On this point I believe she's right.
The point of these two instances, and there are others, is that Lina believed she could control and change Johnny. This is part of the cement of their relationship and this is why she endures his moods and lies. She is as much a contributor to their dysfunctional relationship as is he.
As their relationship progresses, she keeps secrets and lies just as he does. It's quite fascinating.
while the specifics of the relationships are different, most obviously that the sexes of the of the types are reversed, this issue has an interesting parallel in Hitchcock's later work in Marnie. While Marnie's particular form of neurotic/antisocial behavior is different from Johnnie's, what is it that keeps Mark, eventually her husband, first interested in her and then married to her, despite several unfortunate events and circumstances related to and coming from Marnie's psychopathology?
The reversal of the sexes imo highlights at least the potential for differing views based on the sexual politics of the viewer, if you will. But at the same time I do not mean to say that should go too far, as in Mark's case he, as the husband, and also having the money and the house and even knowledge that can blackmail Marnie, has the upper hand in that relationship.
But the point does have merit up to a point, since even having the upper hand, Mark puts up with a great deal, and many spouses regardless of the sex involved would not put up with Marnie. But Mark does. How is his situation different from Lina's?
Part of what makes it similar, I think, is what Puppy refers to when Lina refers to having the bit between his teeth. Part of what makes her character so interesting is that she combines a certain naivete and vulnerability with a self confidence that she can manage the situation. Really any situation, but of course with her problematic spouse in particular. This is analogous to Mark's view of his ability to "manage" Marnie.
And of course it is not merely one's self perception of having the ability to do so that motivates both. It is also a desire to prevail despite the testing of that ability. Once into the relationship, the challenges that come up can certainly pile up. And this remains true even if it turns out eventually that the size of that pile grows so large that if known in advance might or even would have scared off both Lina and Mark from their respective future challenges. But in for penny, in for a pound - this is no doubt true of both Lina and Mark as well. In Lina's case the absence of options as the story proceeds is highlighted in a way that has no direct parallel in Marnie, since presumably Mark could go back to the life he had before, and even into Lil's avaialable arms, if he got rid of Marnie, or Marnie left on her own. But the challenge is still there for Mark, and no doubt that is part of his motivation.
Then there is the obvious element of attraction, for both Mark and Lina. As in real life, this should not be underestimated.
Still, there is also an element of neuroses in both Lina and Mark's personalities. In Lina's case, expressed as a lack of self esteem here by some, we do not normally view suck a lack as being neurotic. But of course such lack can be, by definition particularly where it has no apparent basis in a realistic point of view or understanding. Mark's neurosis by comparison is seen by some as aggressive and even abusive. But... that may again be the work of sexual politics affecting one's viewpoint. At the least one must acknowledge if one accepts the narrative arc of Marnie that Mark does succeed in helping Marnie, and resolving her dysfunction.
Not to digress here, but the fact that a main character's abilit to put up with a problematic spouse has some basis in a neurosis of their own hardly makes the situation unrealistic. Neurosis is hardly a rare occurence in real life.
In any event, I do see some interesting comparisions in the relation of the main characters between Marnie and Suspicion.