Ok so I'm kind of confused about the ending.
And about the part with the letters. The letter that Lina saw didn't it say something about her death? And she wasn't dead...
Also the part at the end where they are driving near the cliff and she almost falls out... did she open the door and imagine that he was pushing her out?
That's it, thanks.
Ive always wanted to have something wierd with 3 people the tennis instructor and man at the store
SPOILERS
I can help you with the ending. Fast Car Scene in the end is the current ending. In the film, Cary Grant (Johnnie) isn't guilty.
But this was Hitchcock's original ending. This ending was never shot.
'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."
Back to the subject. But there was one major flaw in this ending.
This was the flaw.
Why would Johnnie go and post the letter? He knows that Lina is going to die, because of the poisoned milk.
Another problem was the sudden change of the character. Johnnie suddenly turns into a murderer right after Mudder/Murder (Anagram) scene.
So the screenwriters made a psychological ending to the film where Johnnie isn't guilty.
The idea of the film was later used in "I confess" (1953) and "The Wrong man" (1956).
This was the flaw.
Why would Johnnie go and post the letter? He knows that Lina is going to die, because of the poisoned milk.
Maybe Hitchcock meant that as a concession to the bosses as a "fake happy ending" to assure them that the bad guy would be punished. He wanted Lina to die. Of course the real avant-guarde thing to do would have been to end the film with Lina willingly taking the gulp of that glass of milk and the film stopping there, leaving her and us uncertain as to whether or not she died. That kind of thing would have been impossible in Hollywood then.
The current ending to me is alright. In that I think it's an ending which doesn't play like the happy ending it's supposed to play and that it's vague and odd enough to preserve the essential enigma of the film.
Suspicion's strength lies in the fact that the film is really about Lina's masochism, her entire relationship with Johnnie rests on her constant doubt and antecedent appeasement of that doubt. It's really a dark film about romantic love and marriage. The question of the film as it stands isn't who or what Johnnie is and what he did or did not do but to the extent to which Lina subconsciously wants him to be what she thinks or believes him to be. The film's intensely subjective world is all the more strong for that. And I don't know if actually making Johnnie a killer would have had the same effect. In Strangers on a Train, Hitchcock again changed the plot of the book which had the Tennis player character, Farley Granger actually go ahead with the murder-exchange plot of the book. There Hitchcock changing that made for a richer film dealing with moral complicity and culpability in a very serious manner.
And the last shot of the film where his arm settles around Joan Fontaine is very unsettling. The interesting thing about the ending is the many thing it does not do. Like Johnnie's financial troubles aren't resolved at all. We only have his word as to whether or not what he wanted to do was to commit suicide with the information on poison he dug up. His word as to whether or not he didn't kill Beaky and wasn't in Paris. And from the film it's established that he often lied to Lina. We don't have to believe him or take his word for gospel. And the fact is their marriage continues, who knows when Lina falls back into the same pattern of oscillating between her doubt of her husband's past and her often restored faith in him. She basically will continue living in suspicion. Which is intensely scary if you think about it.
"Ça va by me, madame...Ça va by me!" - The Red Shoes
awesome post, artihcus022, thank you!
share[deleted]
[deleted]
While Sonysunu's answer is enlightening, I'm not sure if it really answered your question.
Here's my take...
The letter was from the insurance company stating that Johnnie could only collect the money he wanted if his wife was dead. Obviously, he was hoping to get an advance on the money, but Lina saw it as one more part of the plot to murder her (which of course didn't exist).
As far as the car scene, I think it's possible her hand slipped on the door handle, but she was so obsessed with thinking that Johnnie was going to kill her that she imagined he was responsible for all of it.
Anyway, that's what I think. Hope that helps.
I need to get my drink on- Pearl http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=8093247
I like your idea about the ending. Before speeding the car, Johnnie makes sure that the door is completely locked.
When they first set off Johnnie shut the car door, I assumed there was a problem with it that caused it to come open which is what I thought happened when she thought he was trying to push her out.
shareJust a footnote about the ending: The car scene where Lina thinks Johnnie is trying to push her out was previously filmed and scheduled to be used near the end of the movie. A continuation of the scene was added to create the finale.
It always puzzled me why she is seen wearing a kind of knit hat in the car, but once out of the car the hat is gone. Obviously an oversight in continuity; or I suppose we are to assume the hat is tossed from her head in the turmoil.