Hello,
I agree with you, ecarle. Cary Grant, Leo G. Carroll, and John Williams were Hitchcock's most favourites.
Suspicion is similar to other movies like Rear Window, Vertigo, and Marnie.
I think there are 3 more similarities with North by Northwest. But I will write them as soon as I can. I put those infos in a folder. So I will find them and write them.
As for the "flower", I can give a great explanation. I will start with Suspicion. After the marriage, you will see "flower" in nearly every single scene. And the whole movie is in Lina's "point of view" except the ending. And Lina Aysgarth is a "wallflower".
You see things like "flower vase", "garden", carpet with flower patterns, dress with flower patterns, sofa with flower patterns or anything that is associated with flowers like leaves.
If you watch Suspicion again, then you will notice it. As for North by Northwest, I can give a great example.
Do you remember the scene where Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant) meets Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint) in the Chicago Hotel? At that time, Roger Thornhill and the audience believe that Eve Kendall is a very dangerous Lady. And Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint) is wearing a dress with "flowers of red color".
Here is a picture of the dress.
http://hitchcock.tv/mov/north_by_northwest/images/northwest2.gif
I believe "Red" is a sign of danger in Hitchcock movies. And also in Rear Window, James Stewart comparing the "flowers'.
By the way, What do you think about my comment on Hitchcock's ending for Suspicion?
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 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."
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.
reply
share
ecarle
18 years ago
Nice points.
I think you demonstrate a probable problem with Hitchcock's intended "mail the letter" ending. One assumes that Johnnie would surely open that letter and check its contents before doing anything with it.
Hitchcock himself wasn't much of a writer. He hired GOOD writers, or found good books (not GREAT books, but well-plotted ones) and properly brought their work to the screen, subject to his editing of the dialogue and story.
"Suspicion" is one of two Hitchocck movies in which the ending was a major problem. "Topaz" is the other one -- three endings were shot for that one.
It is interesting that Hitchcock ran aground on the endings for "Suspicion" and "Topaz." For usually -- and unlike a whole LOT of filmmakers and writers -- Hitchcock came up with great endings, perfect endings,the greatest endings of all time:
Rebecca
Notorious
Rear Window
Vertigo
North by Northwest
Psycho
The Birds
Frenzy
GREAT endings! Solidly in control, memorable, often multi-layered.
"Suspicion's" ending was so problematic because Hitchcock was in trouble from the start: he WANTED Cary Grant to play a killer, but Cary Grant COULDN'T play a killer. Not in a 1941 American studio movie with a major star. I've read multiple arguments pro/con/sideways on this (one is that Hitchcock always KNEW Grant couldn't play a killer, but flipped out anyway), but it leaves "Suspicion" with a gaping hole at the end.
Which I why I've always figured that the ending of "Suspicion" can be -- and probably SHOULD be -- interpreted to suggest that Cary IS a killer. Just not today...
reply
share
rexshard93
18 years ago
Here are more similarities between Suspicion and North by Northwest
1) Sometimes Alfred Hitchcock puts a homosexual character in his movies. For Example, Brandon and Philip in Rope (1948). In Suspicion, there is a homosexual character. Her name is Phyllis Swinghurst (Lady with the suit at the dinner at Isobel's home). In North by Northwest, "Leonard" (Martin Landau) is a homosexual character.
2) Leonard forces Roger to drink an entire bottle of bourbon then places him behind the wheel of a car on a mountain road. This is kind of similar with Lina's Suspicions in Suspicion (1941). Lina, who has envisioned Johnnie pushing his friend from a cliff and later Lina learns Beaky died by gulping a snifter of brandy. The idea is kind of reversed like first forcing Roger to drink the bourbon and "then" putting behind the wheel of a car on a mountain road.
Also Did you notice similarity between Suspicion and Marnie?
Marnie's character is more like a mixture of Johnnie (liar and a thief) and Lina (who is happy when she is on her horse and she was a lonely woman before she met Johnnie). And the house of Mark Rutland (Sean Connery) is highly similar to the house (where Lina and Johnnie) lived in Suspicion.
I heard that Hitchcock was forced to change the ending, because of the problems with the script. I heard that the casting of Cary Grant was only second to the problems of the script.
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.
8) If Johnnie wanted to kill Beaky, then he wouldn't have applied for borrowing money on Lina's insurance policy.
Ecarle, what do you think about these reasons?
reply
share
ecarle
18 years ago
You're making the case that the story itself -- rather than Cary Grant in the casting -- practically required that Johnnie not be the killer?
Well, maybe. Sure. It is, as we have it, about Lina's poisonous "suspicion."
Also, I think your linkage of "Suspicion" to "Marnie" is spot on...for Hitchcock would return to these damaged couples with their love-hate relationships again and again: "Notorious," "The Paradine Case," "Under Capricorn," "Vertigo," "Marnie." Domination, obsession, paranoia, suspicion...Hitch dug on that, but still made LOVE out of those topics.
It was a theme to him worth exploring. Love stories with a dark twist and knowledge of psychology.
I'd forgotten Grant's line, "Monkeyface, I have been broken all my life." Pointed, that.
reply
share
rexshard93
18 years ago
Hello,
The story of Before the Fact is a lot different from Suspicion, because of the "strong" censorship.
So Alfred Hitchcock, Joan Harrison, and Alma Reville had to change the entire story in a different way. But their intention was to make Johnnie a murderer. But it end up being up all different.
One of the major problems in the script was we don't see anything about Johnnie's past other than Lina collected. And most of them are positive informations about character "Johnnie".
But in the book "Before the fact", Lina finds out Johnnie's past.
"Johnnie had affairs with many women and village girls, including Lina's best friend, Janet Caldwell - he has a flat in Bournemouth especially for that purpose - and Ella, their parlour maid, by whom he has a son."
But due to strong censorship, Hitchcock, Joan Harrison, and Alma Reville had to change the whole story and he didn't put any clues to show that Johnnie wasn't a good man before he met Lina in the train. That is one of the reasons why Hitchcock had to change the ending. This actually helped a lot. The movie became a strong psychological thriller. I enjoyed the movie, because of some strong reasons. Some of the reasons are mentioned in my previous post. Here is another reason.
1) Lina's suspicions started "developing" only after her father's death. Lina's character is similar to Marnie's. Marnie loved her mother. But she didn't receive the love she wanted from her mother. Lina loved her father. But she didn't receive the love she wanted from her father. We can see that she was a very lonely woman. And she started feeling more lonely after her father's death.
ecarle, if you are interested in the story of "Before the Fact", then you can get it from this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Before_the_Fact
What do you think about it?
reply
share