A LESBIAN couple in Suspicion?
Kari S.
holidays here in Finland provide the setting...
I think I've found something in Suspicion that I hadn't noticed before.
The dinner scene at Isobel's (the mystery writer) house raised some questions.
There are five people in that scene: Grant, Fontaine, Isobel, a man who is identified as
her chemist brother (who Grant tries to pump information concerning
no-trace-leaving-poisons from)
AND a woman wearing a men's suit, complete with a tie. She is not identified at all.
She takes part in the conversation and fills the wine glassed so one kinda
gets the impression that she's the man in the house.
She actually looks a bit like Hanna Schygulla, the German actress e.g. in Fassbinder's films.
I wonder if anyone else has noticed this.
Kari S.
Turku, Finland
toni...@netti.fi
Michel Couzijn
>[There is] a woman wearing a men's suit, complete with a tie. She is not identified at all.
>She takes part in the conversation and fills the wine glassed so one kinda
>gets the impression that she's the man in the house.
Lots of heterosexual women wear suits. Lots of homosexual women do not
wear suits.
Lots of heterosexual women take part in conversations and pour wine.
Lots of homosexual women do not take part in conversations and do not
pour wine.
Lots of heterosexual women act as if they are the 'man' in the house.
Lots of homosexual women do not act as if they are the 'man' in the
house.
Are you telling us something about that film or about yourself?
Michel Couzijn
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
EnterAct
Perhaps he's trying to tell us something about the way Hollywood films have
always portrayed Gay men and Lesbians.
Hollywood (hell, all the media!) has usually portrayed G/L folks as being
nothing more than living, breathing stereotypes for decades. If Hitchcock had
shown a man at the table, wearing high-heels, make-up, and a dress, that would
be all the audience needed to know about the character to draw the conclusion
that he was a homosexual. (Never mind that most crossdressers aren't Gay!)
I have no doubt that the character in question was intended (by Hitchcock) to
be percieved as a Lesbian. In the real world, her sexuality would remain
ambiguous. In Hollywood, she's a Dyke.
Sad, but true.
éntr’acté
semtex
<toni...@netti.REMOVE.fi> wrote:
> She takes part in the conversation and fills the wine glassed so one
> kinda gets the impression that she's the man in the house.
And what would Hitchcock's point be by delineating the sexuality of this
unidentified woman? In my opinion, nothing. It doesn't serve the plot, it
is completely useless as ambience, and only distracts the viewer, if it's
noticed at all.
I think it's just one of those red herrings and touches that Hitch staged
in all his films to mislead and ridicule the intellectuals who study his
films looking for handouts. These handouts go a long way toward making a
non-creative, non-accomplished life bearable.
--
Dave
sem...@ix.netcom.com
Take out the nospam. to reply.
BillyBond
>I think it's just one of those red herrings and touches that Hitch staged
>in all his films to mislead and ridicule the intellectuals who study his
>films looking for handouts.
My god. Do you really believe that drivel?
Bill Warren
FilmGene
be percieved as a Lesbian. In the real world, her sexuality would remain
ambiguous. In Hollywood, she's a Dyke.>>
In this case there is also the problem of stereotypes of English country
ladies. They are inevitably tweedy, mannish types and although Hitchcock was
quite capable of making such an inference, I suspect that this is a case in
which he is suggesting a stereotype not necessarily of a gay woman, but of a
particularly English type of "country" lady.
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
BillyBond
>They are inevitably tweedy, mannish types and although Hitchcock was
>quite capable of making such an inference, I suspect that this is a case in
>which he is suggesting a stereotype not necessarily of a gay woman, but of a
>particularly English type of "country" lady.
I think you're on the nose with this.
Bill Warren
mack twamley
BillyBond wrote in message
<199808022309...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
Can't say I remember the character in Suspicion, but these posts remind me
of the "tweedy" older woman in the bar/grill in The Birds (an
ornithologist?) Maybe Hitch liked to insert tweedy ladies occasionally in
his films.....
Blaster53
These tweedy women were a "type" that showed up regularly on stage and
screen. Agatha Christie, for example, is full of them. In fact, Miss Marple
herself has often been portrayed this way.
webm...@film.tierranet.com
>
> On 31 Jul 1998 19:12:39 GMT, Kari S. <toni...@netti.REMOVE.fi> wrote:
>
> >[There is] a woman wearing a men's suit, complete with a tie. She is not identified at all.
> >gets the impression that she's the man in the house.
>
> wear suits.
>
> Lots of heterosexual women take part in conversations and pour wine.
> Lots of homosexual women do not take part in conversations and do not
> pour wine.
>
> Lots of heterosexual women act as if they are the 'man' in the house.
> house.
>
Don't be so snide. Suspicion was a 1941 film. A time when women would
usually never be seen wearing a men's suit. Your views reflect the
modern attitude that women may dress as they please and often do without
any regard by anyone. Also, films are not known for being highly
realistic. Especially 1940's films. Everything was a little more
noticeable in these films. Not like real life.
mack twamley
webm...@film.tierranet.com wrote in message <
>Don't be so snide. Suspicion was a 1941 film. A time when women would
>usually never be seen wearing a men's suit.
Unless you were Marlene Dietrich who even sported a top hat and tails, or
Kate Hepburn, seen mainly in slacks (when not on camera). Sport coats
(like horseback riding coats) and slacks were very popular women's wear in
the 40s.
Peter D
>
>Don't be so snide. Suspicion was a 1941 film. A time when women would
>usually never be seen wearing a men's suit. Your views reflect the
>modern attitude that women may dress as they please and often do without
>any regard by anyone. Also, films are not known for being highly
>realistic. Especially 1940's films. Everything was a little more
>noticeable in these films. Not like real life.
That is not altogether correct. Hollywood may have created the glamor
girl type character in many films, but films in the 40's already began
to show women in more masculine appearing fashions, with broad
shoulders, tailored suits, etc. Furthermore, Hitchcock reveled in
tweaking the British stereotypes (take a look at the two "cricket" men
in "The Lady Vanishes"), drawn of course from the real world. Mannish
women with their tweed suits and severe demeanor were not uncommon in
his films or those of other directors as well. There is a tiresome
practice by contemporary filmgoers to project todays' sensibilities
onto films made decades ago and then to impose judgements based on
this. It cannot be done fairly.
And as for films in the 40's not being life real life? Hah! One only
has to look at anything in the action genre today to see something far
from real life. Somehow these superhuman leading men get stabbed,
shot, blown up, barely utter a groan and still save the world. Now
that's realism!!
Peter D
BillyBond
>Don't be so snide. Suspicion was a 1941 film. A time when women would
>usually never be seen wearing a men's suit.
Sorry, but that was definitely a fashion statement at the time, mostly due to
Marlene Dietrich.
Bill Warren