MovieChat Forums > Suspicion (1941) Discussion > Suspicion: It Grew On Me

Suspicion: It Grew On Me

posted 18 years ago by ecarle
11 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS

One of the great things about the 53-film, six decade career of Alfred Hitchcock is how DIFFERENT most of his movies are from one another. He may have hit the same themes from time to time (psychos, wrong men, obsessive love), but the movies themselves were always wildly different in mood and execution.

"Suspicion," one of Hitchcock's earliest American films -- and yet quintessentially English in characters and setting -- is a famous Hitchcock title. It sports the only performance in a Hitchcock movie to win the Best Actress Oscar (for Joan Fontaine.) It was a big hit.

But for me, personally, for many years, it wasn't quite "my cup of tea."

I'm more of a "Psycho" person (nasty Gothic scares with a mild-mannered maniac, a sexy blonde and hard-boiled private eye in the mix), or a "North by Northwest" person (big action, snappy patter, sexy romance.)

"Suspicion" owes itself to a tradition of "Veddy British" mystery and melodrama, somewhat in the Agatha Christie tradition, and very successful in its time. In its emphasis on a rather meek and put-upon heroine, the film is also in a tradition of "women's pictures" which don't quite match up to, say, the two-fisted Mike Hammer movie "Kiss Me Deadly" in the mystery genre.

Consequently, for me, a LIKER of tough movies, "Suspicion" wasn't a favorite Hitchcock picture even if -- it is very, very clear to me -- that for others, it is the very PERFECTION of a great Hitchcock picture.

To each his or her own, and -- God Bless Alfred Hitchcock -- he gave us "something for everybody." You got your "Psycho." You got your "To Catch A Thief." You got your "Frenzy." You got your "Spellbound." You got your "North by Northwest." You got your "Suspicion."

I have seen "Suspicion" several times over the years, and I can say that my estimation of it has risen with every viewing. Some thoughts:

-- Hitchcock's capacity for visual style and invention is well on display here. The glowing glass of milk on the tray as Cary Grant brings it up the stairs isn't just a great IDEA. It is a monumenallly great shot to LOOK AT -- the epitome of black-and-white cinematographic style; a work of art. To look at that shot is to feel the EXCITEMENT of cinema itself.

-- The glass of milk shot isn't the only great one in "Suspicion." Another stylized shot I love (and does it not occur more than once?): the spider-web configuration of the window panes framing Joan Fontaine as a fly in her husband's web.

-- Cary Grant's performance. In the forties, Hitchcock had real trouble landing major American stars to act for him. Gary Cooper and Clark Gable and Henry Fonda turned him down. But fellow Briton Cary Grant said "yes" early to Hitchcock. However, Grant said "yes" specifically to this first dark role for Hitchcock: a n'er-do-well with a lingering trace of larcenary who just MAY be a murdererer. Cary Grant turned down "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" -- he had no interest in doing his usual screwball comedy bit with Hitchcock -- but he evidently embraced the idea of playing the dangerously inscrutable Johnnie for Hitch. And its a fine performance.

-- Hitchcock's world was ABOUT suspicion. About paranoia -- the feeling that "they're out to get you." And in Hitchcock's world, they usually WERE out to get you. And "they" could be people ("Psycho") or NATIONS ("Foreign Correspondent" and the Nazis.) Or nature ("The Birds"). Or your own criminal justice system ("The Wrong Man".) Why not make a whole movie about suspicion -- which is just "personal paranoia"?

-- It is said that "Suspicion" is flawed because Hitchcock clearly wanted Cary Grant to be a killer, and studio powers clearly wanted Cary Grant NOT to be a killer. So we have a rather bizarre ending in which Grant is threatening (on the cliff drive) and...suddenly...Not (saying something like "I couldn't take your father's disrespect, or your suspicions, I was going to end it all".

But...look closer. And think about another Hitchocck movie: "The Wrong Man."

"The Wrong Man" almost ends in despair: Henry Fonda is a free man, but his wife Vera Miles is STILL mentally broken down. Then, suddenly, a title card "she got well and they move to Florida." Happy ending. The end. But...too fast.

Hitchcock is telling us, in "The Wrong Man": don't believe me. I added that clunky happy ending with no real belief in it. The studio made me do it.

Well, its rather the same with "Suspicion." Grant's sudden confession of almost committing suicide and being wrongly suspected is too quick, too pat, too fast. Hardly conclusive. As "Suspicion" ends, Lina may still be in danger of dying at her husband's hand...just later, after the movie ends.

-- Ultimately "Suspicion" is ABOUT suspicion. Joan Fontaine's Oscar was, partially, to award her for "Rebecca" the year before, but she had a harder task in "Suspicion": to PLAY suspicion. To illustrate how one sour hint after another about her husband's "reality" could drive a woman to a self-fulfilling madness. Hitchcock toys with and torments us all through "Suspicion": how much of Lina's suspicion is real, how much imagined? Is she driving herself mad? Did her father damage her capacity for self-respect, for self-esteem, for loving another?

-- It all comes back to Cary Grant, though. This greatest of Golden Era male stars had it all: great face, great body, great voice, great presence. But he was more than just another pretty face. Dark depths were ALWAYS there with Cary Grant (in real life, too), and "Suspicion" is Hitchcock's first investigation of them. Flip side: Grant's insurmountable charm and handsomeness makes Fontaine's love of him completely, totally understandable. How hard it is for her to suspect this handsome man she loves.

I also like Grant's own incisive work as Johnnie even if he ISN'T a murderer. Johnnie is a very handsome man who knows his looks are what have saved him from ruin. He's a Cockney (Grant here playing closest to his roots for Hitchcock than he ever would again.) He keeps pushing schemes and plans that aren't going to work, and he seems to rather hate himself for failing. His "relationship" with Lina's father is quite real and bitter: the old man sees right through him, and even in death, pays him no respect (Grant's gesture with a drink towards the dead father's portrait after being cut from the will is a nastily intelligent, rueful moment.)

Joan Fontaine's great "of its time" performance (again, not quite my cup of tea), Cary Grant's first great Hitchcock Performance; the overall thematic concerns of a movie about suspicion, and perhaps above all, Hitchcock's super-smooth mastery of the visual in this film (that glass of milk above all) -- all have combined to give "Suspicion" new respect in the heart of this "Psycho fan."

[–] Egg_MacGuffin 18 years ago

The problem with this movie is not only the cop-out studio ending, but also the fact that it offers literally nothing on repeat viewings.

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

I loved your posting, ecarle.

As for the ending, I think the current ending is amazing. It was Screenwriter Samson Raphaelson who first told Hitchcock to change the ending. If you check all of the Cary Grant movies with Hitchcock, then you will see "a car with a high-speed" starting from Suspicion (1941) to North by Northwest(1959).

Samson Raphaelson was a very clever screenwriter. The first American sound film "The Jazz Singer" is based on Samson Raphaelson's play.

I heard that Samson Raphaelson claimed Suspicion as his strongest work. But I am not sure.

These are the major reasons why Hitchcock was told to change the ending and make Cary Grant not guilty.

1) After the marriage, we clearly see Lina saying "Oh I know you didn't marry me for my money, you could have done much better elsewhere."

2) Johnnie and Beaky had strong friendship since Johnnie's childhood. We see that Johnnie started calling Gordon Thwaite "Beaky", when they both were in school. And the Suspicion of Lina starts only after the marriage.

3) Johnnie clearly says "Monkeyface, I have been broken all of my life." And if Johnnie was looking for money, then he wouldn't have picked Lina, because Lina's father General McLaidlaw was against Johnnie Aysgarth.

4) We see that Johnnie has a huge collection of detective books, when Lina is trying to find the book of "The Trial of Richard Palmer".

5) The whole movie is in Lina's point of view.

6) It is highly possible that Lina became very psychologicaly disturbed after her father's death.

7) The information from the policeman - "According to the waiter, who has
a "slight" understanding of English his name would appear to be ‘Albie’ or ‘Holby.’ It is highly possible that Beaky was talking "about" Johnnie (old Bean), because the waiter only has a slight understanding of English.

Here is Hitchcock's ending to Johnnie as the villain.

"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 milik 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."

Here is my comment on Hitchcock's ending. Why does Cary Grant (Johnnie) have to go and post the letter? I don't think Johnnie will go and post the letter, because he knows that the milk is poisoned. I think he will just tear the letter.

I don't think Joan Fontaine won Best Actress Oscar, because he didn't win for Rebecca. I liked Joan Fontaine's performance in Suspicion far better than her performance in Rebecca. She played the character "Lina Aysgarth" beautifully.

I believe that is the reason why she won "Best Actress Oscar". And Joan Fontaine also won "New York Film Critics Circle Best Actress Award" for her role "Lina Aysgarth".

[–] jyanks 18 years ago

ecarle - i enjoyed reading your analysis of Suspicion. However, I believe Rear Window or Shadow of a Doubt get closer to "perfection" than this film.

[–] rexshard93 18 years ago

Actually Rear Window and Shadow of A Doubt got influences from this film.

[–] Ron in LA 17 years ago

Hitchcock's ending would have been better. With the ending that was used, every clue in the story turns out to be a red herring. A mystery can have a few red herrings, but it has to have some real clues. Otherwise, you're just wasting your time trying to figure things out because everything is a false lead.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

I don't know. Samson Raphaelson, screenwriter was against Hitchcock's ending.

Samson Raphaelson asked Hitchcock one question "Why would Johnnie (Cary Grant) go and post the letter? He knows that Lina (Joan Fontaine) is going to die, because of the poison in the milk."

So Hitchcock'e ending was never used. Finally, the current ending was written by Hitchcock, Samson Raphaelson, and Joan Harrison.

[–] csu16387 17 years ago

Cop-out ending or not, Suspicion isn't one of my favorite Hitchcock movies. This particular film I found uninteresting, even with the talent surrounding this one. Cary Grant is excellent, as is Nigel Bruce. Joan Fontaine, however, isn't one of my favorite actresses. She's good in Suspicion, but I liked her in Rebecca much more. I wonder how her sister, Olivia de Havilland, would have been as Lina.

Despite Johnnie's "abuse" towards Lina, I never found myself on her side. I never was completely drawn in her world, inside her soul. Fontaine wasn't as convincing, to me, in Suspicion as in Rebecca. That was another damsel in distress role where she has to live up to Laurence Olivier's first wife. Joan is excellent and quite heartbreaking in Rebecca (the dress sequence alone is very memorable).

The plot is certainly interesting, but I didn't think it was as exciting or dangerous as it could have been.

"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

Thanks for reply. Alfred Hitchcock was very proud of Joan Fontaine's performance. Suspicion (1941) may not as interesting as other thrillers.

But its the first pure Hitchcock thriller that influenced other thrillers in a different style.

I liked the way Joan Fontaine played. In my opinion, her performance in the film is better than her performance in Rebecca. Both performances are great.

But she played the character Lina perfectly. To me, She was exactly like Lina in the novel, the movie is based on.

[–] fataloblivion 17 years ago

Suspicion illustrates perfectly how a woman can stay in an abusive or damaging relationship - through continual rationalization and self-talk.

Lina is in love with Johnnie and the concept of Johnnie. She (and her parents) never considered her attractive - the idea of a popular and attractive man courting her is irresistable. This idea becomes a driving force in her life. It's the one thing she "knows" she wants. Every new offense is just incrementally worse. This progressive rationalization paths a slippery slope into supspicion.

This desire predisposes her to believe Johnnie. She continuously reevaluates and reframes situations and information based upon Johnnie's story, no matter the prior evidence. All this makes Lina an unreliable source.

The biggest question in the film is "What can we believe?" Lina's perceptions aren't reliable due to her paranoid and gullible state. Johnnie is also clearly unreliable based upon Capt. Malbeck and Thwaite. None of these sources have any reason to be untruthful in their initial reports. They establish Johnnie as a liar and criminal.

The ending is not a copout. With the above established, we have no reason to believe that Johnnie is telling the truth or that Lina's belief in him will save her from a future of even greater paranoia or death. We witness the moment where Lina is absolutely broken down --- the ultimate Stockholm syndrome. Every turn, Johnnie reveals progressively greater criminal behavior/intent and Lina copes with it. Nothing indicates that the next step won't continue down this same path.

As with many other psychologically thrilling scenes, Hitchcock doesn't need to show the final denouement. Lina's fate lies in death or total psychological debilitation. Whether she lives a life of constant psychological fear or an untimely death at the hands of her husband, we know that a terrible ending is in store for Lina.

I liked it. Even as a guy that can tolerate a lot, it gave me chills to see someone so desperate and psychologically ruined.

[–] rexshard93 17 years ago

I agree with you. But I think Johnnie loved Lina a lot. He tried to make Lina as happy as he could. That is why he brought back the chairs.

We see this in the very beginning of the film. Lina says this "Oh I know you didn't marry me for my money. You could have done much better elsewhere."

Samson Raphaelson considered Suspicion "in many ways my best screenplay."

[–] jamasian_man 17 years ago

I didn't like the cop-out ending. Though I like the part where he turns the car around, and put his arm around her.

Now Johnnie wanted to kill himself because he didn't have any money. This is mentioned because he didn't know what to do if she died first when they were in the car.

Hitchcock's original ending would have the best, but not with that part the mailing the letter.

Instead they changed it all to fit the rest of the film, and said johnnie was suicidal. then they decided to work things out.

I kind of wanted a happy ending but that was a little too happy. maybe if the camera zoomed into cary grant's face and he grinned a bit. because he is known for being really smooth and getting away with things. that would have great.