MovieChat Forums > Suspicion (1941) Discussion > Perfect Ending

Perfect Ending

posted 4 years ago by Shannon (17)
10 replies | jump to latest

I never believed that story that has been circulated for years. Largely because I can't believe Hitchcock would cast and make a film while being blocked at every turn, only to have to comply with an incoherent ending. More importantly,, I can't believe that Hitchcock would make an obvious murder movie with an obvious murderer. The book sounds trite and the concept already dominated the book and film industry of that era. Cads who married for money and murder. Femme fatales who married and murdered for money. Film Noir was riddled with that overdone story.
No Hitchcock made exactly the movie he intended to make, infinitely more interesting than the book he borrowed from. The ending was just perfect and a reminder not to completely judge a book by its cover. Johnny Aysgarth was many things, but he loved his wife and was not a murderer.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

Agreed.

[–] Stratego (30500) 3 years ago

Absolutely terrible ending.

"I can't believe that Hitchcock would make an obvious murder movie with an obvious murderer."

Actually, it's never obvious he's a murderer in the original ending, it's just never resolved. But even if it was obvious, the question would be if he'll get away with it.

An ambiguous ending would've been great, but even if one insists on Johnnie being innocent, a far better ending must've been possible.

[–] Shannon82 (56) 2 years ago

Johnny's a cad, a gambler, a gigolo, interested in murder mysteries, trying to borrow on his wife's life insurance, etc., we nauseam. Of course he is being portrayed as a murderer; it's boring. Of course he won't get away with it; they never do, and the idea that he might is equally boring. The genre is flooded with those kinds of movies. If Hitchcock really did want to make a cliched murder for money movie, then my opinion of him just plummeted. The ending a bit too expository. Maybe less words and fewer explanations allowing the viewers to explain the apparently happy ending for themselves. As I think about it Hitchcock did tend towards those expositions in the end. I wonder why.

[–] Stratego (30500) 2 years ago

"The genre is flooded with those kinds of movies."

Not in 1941, it would've been a bold move. The original ending was actually quite intriguing.

With the ending as it is, you're left to wonder why either of them would even want to stay with the other. Both of them acted mentally ill if absolutely nothing was going on. It's actually quite boring how everything is suddenly honky-dory at the end.

I hate the exposition scene in Psycho, but at least it made some sense.

[–] Shannon82 (56) 2 years ago

Murder mystery novels and films were huge in the 30s and 40s. There was absolutely nothing unique about it. The only thing slightly different about this novel is that she chooses to let her husband kill her. Otherwise, I can't imagine anything more boring than yet another murder mystery.
I wouldn't call Johnny facing prison all honky-dory. The movie is designed to show the critical moments. Clearly weeks, or even months passed that we weren't privy to that certainly suggests that they had a loving relationship. In any case, they loved and needed each other. Both grew up, in the end. The psychology and love between the two is far more interesting than gigolo murders wife. There was quite enough of that with Erle Stanley Gardner flooding the market, especially with Perry Mason, or Agatha Christie and countless others.

[–] Stratego (30500) 5 months ago

"Murder mystery novels and films were huge in the 30s and 40s."

I stand by my point that the ending in 1941 would've been a bold move and quite intriguing. It's not a typical who-done-it murder mystery, it's more about what she's going to do about it.

The market was NOT flooded with stories like that. I also don't understand your argument that those couple of minutes at the end suddenly makes the whole previous film a different type of story. It's still a psychological thriller, but with a different ending it would've made more sense.

The ending to this movie feels forced, abrupt, unnatural and way too melodramatic. It just doesn't fit.

[–] Shannon82 (56) 5 months ago

Had Hitchcock embraced the ending, it would have worked beautifully. He was a big baby about it. Ergo, it felt rushed and forced. I'm not sure what you don't understand about my position on this. Husbands murdering wives are a dime a dozen. A woman thinking her husband is going to murder her, when that is not the case, is quite unique. The psychology lies in an irresponsible, impulsive, childish man married to a woman who judged him, but wanted to love him. She was ashamed of him. Her opinion of him was so low, she thought he was a murderer. They were equally messed up. I find that more interesting than yet another husband murdering his wife.
Hitchcock could have done better, accepted the code, or whatever. Instead of the exposition, he could have carefully crafted a great, more slowly unfolding reveal. I can see why people didn't like the ending. I'm sorry Hitchcock couldn't man up enough to craft a better one.

[–] Stratego (30500) 5 months ago

"Husbands murdering wives are a dime a dozen."

As I said in my first post, the original ending was ambiguous, it's just not true that stories like that were dime a dozen at that time. Even Hitchcock's supposed alternative ending with her accepting the drink she believes is poisoned and having him post a letter that might send him to prison would've been quite bold.

This ending of only a couple of minutes does not automatically turn the whole previous story into a typical murder mystery, because it was never a question of who was trying to murder her and it turns out to be the usual suspect nor does it end with the husband going all psycho and some other guy saving her while he tries to kill her. It's still about the psychological aspect of whether her suspicions are correct and what she's going to do about it.

" The psychology lies in an irresponsible, impulsive, childish man married to a woman who judged him, but wanted to love him. She was ashamed of him. Her opinion of him was so low, she thought he was a murderer."

Except that is not at all the ending that we got. What we got was a couple who simply had a little misunderstanding and then lived happily ever after. It made everything that happened before completely pointless. I said somewhere else they should've accidentally driven of the cliff during that discussion when she realized he was innocent. Then we'd have two people who acted so stupidly, they caused their own deaths while they could've been happy together instead. Like I also said in my first post, even if he's innocent, a better ending must've been possible. But the actual movie ending just sucks, no matter what.

[–] Shannon82 (56) 5 months ago

Honestly, I'd lost track of whatever our central arguments are, as it has been a while.

I love old classic black and white movies. Mysteries and film noir are my favorites. I do know that they were burdened by a Haynes Code, and further hampered by the sustained public image of the stars. Cary Grant playing Johnny, as a murderer, who may or may not get away with it, simply isn't going to happen for the above two reasons. Therefore, Hitchcock should have just gotten on with the lovely, but confused, somewhat judgemental, somewhat desperate spinsterish, infatuated, conventional wife assuming her childish, lazy playboy husband was just that, as it turns out. The idea of the bored playboy genuinely wanting to settle down with a unassuming proper lady is more interesting to me than the narcissistic murderer preying on the beguiled lady. No matter what, the code won't let him get away with it. Yes, the ending was rushed. That's on Hitchcock. I don't know that they would have been happy, at least no time soon. Johnny was facing jail. Both had a lot of growing up to do.

[–] Drooch (5333) 2 years ago

Nah, the ending spoiled an otherwise good film. It needed to be something surprising but inevitable. It felt arbitrary and thrown in, not an ending that grew out of everything that had gone before.

The heart of the movie was Lina’s mounting suspicion about Johnnie, she needed to do something, like turn the tables on him - get him to drink some maybe-poisoned water, or make him suspicious somehow.

All kinds of hints were dropped. Was he going to shag the maid? Was the novelist in on his murder plans? Was Beaky? Did he murder her father? Seeds were being sown and some kind of gobsmacking revelation that brought all of these suspicions we the audience had together in a final twist would have been epic.

The original ending of her choosing to die would have been too tragic. She was so adorable and innocent, it was already like torturing a puppy for 90mins and to kill it would be too depressing. The happy ending felt unearned and tacked on. This needed a rewrite to really embed a deeper theme and have it expressed in a knockout ending.

Perhaps Hitch was too green at this point. I’d like to have seen older Hitch remake it without the studio and star constraints, and when he had matured into the master that gave us Psycho and Vertigo. That Hitch would have given us the wallop of an ending this film deserved.