MovieChat Forums > Suspicion (1941) Discussion > Bit of a plot hole?

Bit of a plot hole?

posted 12 years ago by oldsaurora
4 replies | jump to latest

Hi everyone,

I just watched the film and it was pretty enjoyable for the most part. However, I think there is a bit of a large plot hole that I haven't seen discussed yet (maybe it has been, maybe not).

Basically, why is Johnnie not a suspect in Beakie's death? You would figure that the Paris police would have asked the hotel worker to describe the person Beakie was with. Like, that should be question number one out of their mouths pretty much. And frankly, the police should automatically have been suspicious about Johnnie as he was the last known person to be with Beakie before he died and they had their little deal in the works.

I guess one can say that they did all this and Johnnie passed the test, or that maybe the cops were still doing their check up on him, but this hole should be filled by the film, not left to viewers to imagine plausible scenarios.

But would the police not be able to present a picture of Johnnie (seems his picture was published quite often) to the hotel worker, who could have identified him likely with very little trouble at all? Assuming it was him of course. If it wasn't, the cops could have told Lina her husband was not a suspect on account of the hotel worker's evidence.

That and the ending (which let's face it, could have been better) means I rate this as 6/10.

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

I don't think it's a plot hole. For the police to suspect Johnny they would need to know about his money troubles, establish he has no alibi and could have been in Paris. They don't know the first and we never learn if they establish the second because the film finishes soon after Beaky's death.

Away with the manners of withered virgins

[–] kenny-164 12 years ago

I agree with Poppy, and not only do I not see this as a plot hole, it is very much part of what makes the added on ending more sensible.

First of all, I got the impression it was not a long period of time at all between Beaky's death and the ending. There was nothing in the film to indicate that the police had completed their investigation, or had cleared Johnnie from suspicion.

Second, the outstanding investigation makes the ending more plausible, since even a huge risk taker like Johnnie would I think be loath to kill his wife while he was under suspicion for Beaky's murder. Her death even if otherwise made to appear accidental would be seen as less so in the context of Beaky's death's perpetrator still being outstanding, as well as his inquiries to Lina's friends at the dinner party and otherwise about how to kill someone without being found out. Even Johnnie I think would not take that level of risk, and of course all this would also make it much more difficult to collect on Lina's insurance policy, which was the immediate motive behind the concept of his reason to kill her.

No, not a plot hole.

[–] Harold_Robbins 11 years ago

This is one of the major differences between the novel (BEFORE THE FACT, by Francis Iles) and the film - in the novel, all of Lina's suspicions about Johnnie are true.

"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."

[–] steller217 11 years ago

Well they couldn't let Cary Grant fill those shoes so they exchanged them for a lighter color.