Guilty Grant - Suspicion
Hughes
I've just finished watching 'Suspicion' on TV and was reminded of a
critic's thesis that, at the end of the film, we still do not know for
certain whether Johnny (Grant) is a (potential) killer.
This seems very true to me. Throughout the film, Johnny lies like
crazy to those around him for the purpose of financial gain and gets
away with murder (so to speak) by lying his way out again. Lina
(Fontaine) falls for all his 'explanations' hook, line and sinker
every time. Best example, the 'missing chairs' ... Johnny is later
exposed as having lied to his wife, saying he sold them to some
American, when in fact, he pawned them to some antiques shop.
Well, couldn't it be the same with his final 'explanation', regarding
his interest in the untraceable poison? He *claims* it is because he
actually wanted to kill himself and Lina believes him without much
else persuading. However, its possible he is lying yet again and will
later go through with killing Lina.
Also, Beaky (called 'Beaky', we presume, because of his penchant for
drinking brandy by the beaker-full) died in extremely suspicious
circumstances in a bar in Paris. We learn from the detective, when he
calls on Lina, that Beaky died because of drinking brandy from a
*beaker* with some other Englishman. The thing is that although Beaky
had ordered the brandy, it was the other Englishman who asked for the
beakers. If this wasn't Johnny, then its one hell of a coincidence.
Then again, maybe it just says a lot about my own paranoia (?).
Benson's cubist picture
I read *somewhere* a while ago about the strange part in the film when
the detectives call on Lina. We see the younger detective, Benson,
staring curiously at a painting in the hall, painted in the cubist
style. Hitchcock actually makes a point of showing Benson staring at
it (in fact, he does so twice). What I read has evacuated my mind
completely so I was wondering if anyone has any information regarding
it? :) Did anyone else read this essay too?
[Cubism: an 'un'realistic style of painting, where objects are
represented by cubes and other geometrical shapes ... detail is
dispensed with --- is this a reflection on Lina's inability to deal
with the finer points of Johnny, forsaking all for the security of
marriage ... (e.g. after she writes her "I'm leaving you ..." letter,
she tears it up)]
One of the things I love about 'Suspicion' is the way the story messes
around with itself ... e.g. Lina has just learned of Johnny's being
fired from his job and wants (but decides not) to leave him. Johnny
enters the room behind her ("So, you've heard") saying he 'just found
out' and hands her a telegram, which tells of her father's sudden
death! - Both are at crossed purposes, yet, naturally, her father's
death then takes precedence.
A wonderful film on the whole, I think ... Grant's best up till then -
in fact, Grant's four best films were Hitchcocks (as with Stewart).
Fergal Hughes, Galway, Ireland.
--
... I'm afraid I've been leading you down the garden path ...
or is it up? - I never can remember.
Bill Slattery
> death then takes precedence.
> A wonderful film on the whole, I think ... Grant's best up till then -
> in fact, Grant's four best films were Hitchcocks (as with Stewart).
>
> Fergal Hughes, Galway, Ireland.
>
might take a look at Shop Around the Corner. It's a movie made back when
Stewart was still an actor and not an institution.
scruf...@aol.com
In article <565e8p$s...@niamh.indigo.ie>, thhu...@indigo.ie (Hughes)
writes:
>One of the things I love about 'Suspicion' is the way the story messes
>around with itself ... e.g. Lina has just learned of Johnny's being
>fired from his job and wants (but decides not) to leave him. Johnny
>enters the room behind her ("So, you've heard") saying he 'just found
>out' and hands her a telegram, which tells of her father's sudden
>death! - Both are at crossed purposes, yet, naturally, her father's
>death then takes precedence.
>A wonderful film on the whole, I think ... Grant's best up till then -
>in fact, Grant's four best films were Hitchcocks (as with Stewart).
>
> Fergal Hughes, Galway, Ireland.
>
>
I did like Suspicion for Joan's crossword puzzle nightmare premonition!!
But finding out that Grant supposably just wants to do away with himself
and isnt a killer was totally disappointing...I wanted him to ACT,
develope character and become something other than himself...alas, he was
the 'biting, bitter cynic' once again and somehow snuck out of another
movie in the same guise. It was a really good script from Hitchcock in
the creative dept. as far as twisting things around and actually making
the notion of a suicidal person being mistaken for a killer was great
development of plot ideas, and ironically no one other than Grant could
play a self-hating no good,imho. Sorry 'bout the rant but if they didnt
see him as an actor then i wouldnt have to flame him.
"Take a look at the punks on the run from the all ministers...collecting
for the criminals...or the judges...for the blame..don't matter if you're
innocent or if you're guilty, or if you've never been given a chance, you
will never find an answer...if you're always just one more link
...to the chain"
-Dave Sharp, The Alarm
scruf...@aol.com
In article <328756...@mail.idt.net>, Bill Slattery
<bil...@mail.idt.net> writes:
>> I intend taking nothing away from the Hitchcock/Stewart movies but you
>might take a look at Shop Around the Corner. It's a movie made back when
>Stewart was still an actor and not an institution.
>
>
Whats wrong with Stewart being an institution? His most popular
stuff--Wonderful Life and Mr Smith goes to Washington are *brilliant*
performances...regardless if they are popular or not they are great
pictures and the guy CAN ACT and draw emotion far more than most known US
stars during that era. I have no prob people seeing HIM as an
institution. James wasn't just picking up the easy roles he could slide
into; Hitchcock was the first major picture surrounding a rape victim.
mlle...@aol.com
In article <19961114101...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
scruf...@aol.com writes:
>But finding out that Grant supposedly just wants to do away with himself
>and isnt a killer was totally disappointing...
Well, you do know the ending was changed, right?
Paul K. Jensen
I love the Hitch/Stewart films, but I look to Stewart's collaboration with
Anthony Mann as the most productive and watchable. Watching Jimmy come
~this~ close to cracking in The Naked Spur ranks ahead of the exaggerated
gesturing in Vertigo.
Bill Slattery <bil...@mail.idt.net> wrote in article
<328756...@mail.idt.net>...
Hughes
mlle...@aol.com wrote:
Did you notice that the ending in the novel has Lina drinking the
poisoned milk and Johnny posting an incriminating letter whereas the
film shows that she hasn't drunk the milk at all? This is presumably
so that she can wallow in her 'suspicion' and not have it dissipated
one bit. If she drank the milk (like in the novel) and lived, then
that would mean that she was wrong and that Johnny did not want to
poison her and ... her suspicion would have been proven to be
unfounded!
Its almost like she 'needs' her suspicion, especially since the death
of her father ... in fact, a domineering portrait of her father stands
in a prominent place in their home, forcing her to look at her husband
(as he did) with suspicion.
Also (RE- the omission of the letter-posting), Hitchcock's cameo is,
appropriately, a shot of himself posting a letter!
Fergal Hughes.
--
... and everywhere the colonel went, the valet was sure to go.
mlle...@aol.com
In article <56sv19$q...@niamh.indigo.ie>, thhu...@indigo.ie (Hughes)
writes:
>Did you notice that the ending in the novel has Lina drinking the
>poisoned milk and Johnny posting an incriminating letter whereas the
>film shows that she hasn't drunk the milk at all?
oui, that's what I was referring to...what I have heard is that Hitchcock
originally made the film with that ending but audiences who previewed it
hated it because they couldn't accept Grant as a killer...
Have other people heard that, or did I make it up?
Kristin
who really really really has to go study now
:)
scruf...@aol.com
In article <19961116161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mlle...@aol.com writes:
>
>>But finding out that Grant supposedly just wants to do away with himself
>>and isnt a killer was totally disappointing...
>
>Well, you do know the ending was changed, right?
>
>
NO...i didnt know the ending was changed. I would have to confess that if
he was suppose to be after her that would of been a less original script,
but nevertheless more satisfying for me.
scruf...@aol.com
In article <19961119235...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
mlle...@aol.com writes:
>>Did you notice that the ending in the novel has Lina drinking the
>>poisoned milk and Johnny posting an incriminating letter whereas the
>>film shows that she hasn't drunk the milk at all?
>
>oui, that's what I was referring to...what I have heard is that Hitchcock
>originally made the film with that ending but audiences who previewed it
>hated it because they couldn't accept Grant as a killer...
>
>Have other people heard that, or did I make it up?
>
I think you got something there. Perhaps i already heard about this but
never realized it till now. BUt I did not know there was a novel, and
that the ending was changed, but i heard someone mention the movie was
changed because Grant isn't a malevolent persona in the viewers eyes. To
me, his only hope would be to have some severe feelings even if they were
hatred.
> Kristin
> who really really really has to go study now
> :)
"Take a look at the punks on the run from the all ministers...collecting
scruf...@aol.com
That is something I really am upset over about Magnificent Ambersons
(Welles) and other films by the best directors in America...they altered
the endings to please the audience, or to at least get them made. Thats a
artistic compromise that really louses up lots of scripts! Anyone know if
Hitchcock himself was offended by the alteration? It seems to me directors
shouldn't give the viewer the slightest regard for their feelings of an
actor!! That creates a fallacy of some sort...actors are suppose to be in
'character' and if the viewer feels at the end of the movie the supposed
killer [such as Grant] wouldn't ever be capable--someone making the movie
isn't doing his job! type-casting plays a part here, i realize...but when
hollywood egos become the vessle for changing a plot, the artistry becomes
the industry.
> Kristin
> who really really really has to go study now
> :)
'study' suspiciously could mean watching Hitchcock...
Hughes
>>Did you notice that the ending in the novel has Lina drinking the
>>poisoned milk and Johnny posting an incriminating letter whereas the
>>film shows that she hasn't drunk the milk at all?
>
>oui, that's what I was referring to...what I have heard is that Hitchcock
>originally made the film with that ending but audiences who previewed it
>hated it because they couldn't accept Grant as a killer...
>
>Have other people heard that, or did I make it up?
>
Yes, I know that that was the case (i.e ending changed to accommodate
Grant's star status), but my point is that the film's ending is till
very interesting. It is VERY different from the book's but instead of
being a quasi-'Tales of the Unexpected' denouement, we are left, I
feel, 'wondering' ... i.e. with the same suspicion Lina had. I've
already posted on this, but just as a recap:-
Johnny constantly lies to Lina and when found out or suspected, he
gives an 'excuse' which is later shown to be another lie. At the end
of the film, Lina is going to her mother's because she suspects him of
wanting to murder her with poison. Johnny comes up with *desires to
commit suicide* as his reason for wanting to learn about the poison.
To me, this is his 'excuse' and who is to say that it is not like all
his previous excuses? Maybe, just maybe, he still intends to kill her.
If the above is the case, you won't look at that penultimate shot
(Johnny's arm ambracing Lina in the car) in the same way again.
mlle...@aol.com
In article <19961120091...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
scruf...@aol.com writes:
>'study' suspiciously could mean watching Hitchcock...
no KIDDING... :D and too often HAS recently...
Kristin
Thomas Biddle
Paul K. Jensen wrote:
>
> I love the Hitch/Stewart films, but I look to Stewart's collaboration with
> Anthony Mann as the most productive and watchable. Watching Jimmy come
> ~this~ close to cracking in The Naked Spur ranks ahead of the exaggerated
> gesturing in Vertigo.
>
I don't know Stewart's work in THE NAKED SPUR, but to dismiss his
tortured Scotty in VERTIGO as "exaggerated gesturing" is a mistake, I
think. He beautifully underplays Scotty's pain and confusion in the
scene where Midge creates a satirical portrait of herself as Carlotta
Valdez. It's an incredibly painful, hurtful moment and it's so
uncomfortable that Scotty, always wanting to be the gentleman, simply
excuses himself from Midge's apartment with a "That's not funny,
Midge." The audience which has just found itself laughing is sobered
immediately as it realizes just how "afflicted" Scotty has become with
the mystery.