It's so clear that Johnnie killed Beaky when the police tell Lina that in Paris, someone heard the Englishman being called "Olbean" or "Holbean" by Beaky.
This is the most chilling scene in the movie. She knows about the nickname Old Bean, and she knows the police are totally fooled and think this is the Englishman's last name. How about a physical description of the Englishman by the waiter? Guess they didn't think of it! It's almost a comical thing, like a Woody Allen stunt. The killer escapes detection by dumb luck. And we have grown to care for Beaky too, and are shocked that Johnnie could deliberately kill his friend...but this lack of any conscience is the hallmark of a sociopath.
And also, with her fainting and feeling unwell it crossed my mind that she was supposed to be pregnant, not only being constantly upset about his bad behaviour. It was only obvious considering they were wild about each other, had a magnificent satin quilted bed they shared which was the focal point of their house(up until she got suspicious), and really the physical attraction was the only thing they had between them. But the pregnancy is never mentioned in the movie.
We all know the ending was tacked on, and some like it, some don't, but they did NOT excise all the evidence shown in the film that he was a psychopath and a killer. (I read here that when all those scenes that made him appear guilty were taken out it ran only 55 min. and so they were put back in).
His entire way of life was that of a narcissist and sociopath (plus he was a compulsive gambler and liar. All of these are charming hijinks?). He pursued her deliberately, from the moment he sat in the first class car with her even when he couldn't afford it. She may not have been the richest but she was the most innocent and he at least thought he would get money out of her father (note the bitter disappointment in the antique chairs, and his selfishness in immediately selling them). Notice the fit of rage after he was sweet to her for a long time, until she interfered in his plans for developing the land. He has to be guilty, even if the end we are given shows them reuniting because she believes his story. There's no way on earth all that behaviour was just childish mistakes. All of it was deliberate on his part.
The movie is so flawlessly crafted, and mesmerizing to watch, both for her innocence and his scheming, but a bit spoiled overall because I know Hitchcock wanted it to end with him killing her with the poisoned milk. It just doesn't matter about the ending since we still have all the scenes showing his true nature, that he cared nothing about people, just scheming, gambling and charming people so he wouldn't have to work.
reply
share
parker57
18 years ago
I got a totally different impression by the "Holbean" comment. Yes, that was what he called Johnnie, ( old bean ) but I also felt it was what he called everyone. As in, an Australian calls people "mate" I did feel it was supposed to make you THINK he did it........We are seeing this movie from Lina's perspective.........she was convinced of his guilt, so what someone else may see as cooincidence, we are shown as proof of guilt.
And I don't quite understand what he would have gained if he killed Beaky.........obviously even with Beaky dead he didnt get the money he needed..........so where did he gain there? Why did he save Beaky at the cliff if his intention was to kill him the next day? My only question was, why DID he back out of the real estate deal.........I find it hard to believe it was a sudden attack of conscience, although we are supposed to think he is redeemed at the end. I think Hitch left the confusing aspects in, because in his heart he wanted Johnnie to be a killer.........a small sort of victory to leave the audience with such doubts in their mind. Just my opinion.
reply
share
rexshard93
18 years ago
The movie is a masterpiece, because of the Strong screenplay, Strong Direction, and Strong Performances by Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine.
Samson Raphaelson, screenwriter of the movie changed lots of things in the movie. So it is kind of tricky.
I will start with your first line
"It's so clear that Johnnie killed Beaky when the police tell Lina that in Paris, someone heard the Englishman being called "Olbean" or "Holbean" by Beaky."
The Frenchwaiter who heard "Olbean" or "Holbean" only has "a slight" understanding of English. It is highly possible that Beaky was talking about Johnnie or Old Bean, but not talking to Johnnie or Old Bean.
Lina clearly says this "Oh I know you didn't marry me for my money, you could have done much better elsewhere".
Nearly every single scene is in Lina's point of view. Johnnie clearly says this on the dinner "If you're going to kill someone, do it simply. The Most important thing is no one should suspect me".
if Johnnie killed Beaky, then the murder wouldn't have been suspicious to the Policemen.
We know that Isobel is aware of Beaky's death and its parallel with the Trial of Richard Palmer.
Here are other reasons why Johnnie isn't the murder of Beaky.
1)We know that Beaky is a friend of Johnnie since Johnnie's childhood. And Johnnie claims he had been broken financially all of his life.
2)Beaky supports and appreciates Johnnie and his works.
There are more evidences throughout the film to prove that Johnnie isn't the murderer.
reply
share