Reviews of Suspicion
Displaying all 3 Review
Johnny Aysgarth is a handsome gambler who seems to live by borrowing Money from friends. He meets shy Lina McLaidlaw on a train whilst trying to travel in a first class carriage with a third class ticket. He begins to court Lina and before long they are married. It is only after the honeymoon that she discovers his true character and she starts to become suspicious when Johnny’s friend and business partner, Beaky is killed mysteriously.
This is an early Hitchcock One of his English movies before he went hollywood. As always it has a style and grace early the film is more playful as it seems to be more of an elegant romantic film before turning into a drama and finally a thriller.
It works as most of the film has the main character questioning herself as do we. As there are a lot of coincidences that fit together. Looking at it one way the film could be about a woman do used to being safe prom and proper finally decides to take a chance and grows extremely paranoid as she questions every decision and situation that involves her husband who she doesn’t trust. She might be right she might be wrong. The tension the film brings to the table grows us off as well giving us evidence at every turn to make a decision either way.
Joan Fontaine’s performance in this movie is the only Oscar-winning performance that Alfred Hitchcock directed.
Joan Fonataine, in character as Lina, narrates the trailer on screen and speaks directly to the audience.
By the end it turns out to be totally innocent using the fact that her husband is a degenerate playboy gambler. I have to give the filmmaker credit by making a film that Seems true and like it is going to be deep, depressing and sad, though is really fluff by making not so suspenseful that he main characters fears become infectious as we all believe she should know better. The whole film could be seen as being played straight we are the one’s putting the shading to tip all the scenes to be more nefarious the bit turns out they actually are. I think the film bro directed by Hitchcock carries a certain expectation we expect a more downbeat tragedy with a somewhat happy ending. His film has more of a studio audience friendly happy ending. It would be hard to make the film today as there is rarely a director with as much talent and who brings a certain reputation and expectation with their work. Also on keep modern audiences entertained here would have to be more cliffhangers to throw the audience off and make it believable I. Their eyes, this film being made in more innocent times.
It’s easier to believe the lead who won an Oscar for her performance bro so grill able. I am an avowed Cary grant fan and he is at the top of his charm. What I truly enjoyed about his performance is that it is obvious he is using her and married her mostly for her money join seems to fall in love with her as the film continues if nobly because she loves him so min thigh suspects him of devious acts always. And their then early romantic scenes always seems to be at the ready to accuse him and it seems difficult to believe he would fall for her, it’s the fact that he still loves him despite his faults that seems to slay him.
Unlike the novel “Before the fact”, the film focuses much more on the psychology of Lina. For example, the Anagram scene in the film isn’t in the novel. Another example is where the atmosphere becomes very dark when Lina reaches the house after visiting the land Johnnie and Beaky decided for their corporation. When Lina finds out that Beaky is alive, the atmosphere becomes a bright and joyful atmosphere while Vienna Blood waltz is playing in the background. Unlike the book, the film also focuses on the inner conflict of Lina. For Example, the scene where Lina talks to her father’s portrait – “He didn’t go to Paris. He didn’t go to Paris I tell you.” Unlike the novel, the film’s focus on the psychological side of Lina makes it more ambiguous about Johnnie being a murderer.
Alfred Hitchcock originally wanted Johnnie to be guilty, but the studio insisted that the public wouldn’t accept Cary Grant as a murderer. Hitchcock’s original ending had Johnny killing Lina by poisoning her milk, but then convicting himself by mailing a letter that Lina had written. Joan Fontaine said, Cary Grant “did kill me in the original cut, but at a preview, the audience simply refused to accept him as the murderer.” Alfred Hitchcock wanted an ending similar to the climax of the novel, but the studio, more concerned with Cary Grant’s “heroic” image, insisted that it be changed. Writer Donald Spoto, in his biography of Hitchcock, “The Dark Side Of Genius”, disputes Hitchcock’s claim to have been overruled on the film’s ending. Spoto claims that the first RKO treatment and memos between Hitchcock and the studio show that Hitchcock emphatically desired to make a film about a woman’s fantasy life.
In interviews, ’Alfred Hitchcock (I) said that an RKO executive ordered that all scenes in which Cary Grant appeared menacing be excised from the film. When the cutting was completed, the film ran only fifty-five minutes. The scenes were later restored, Hitchcock said, because he shot each piece of film so that there was only one way to edit them together properly.
I am slowly making my way through the Hitchcock canon not because I don’t enjoy his films. It’s that I want to savor them and always know that I can turn to him for something new in the way that I haven’t seen it before. So there is always a master filmmaker around to impress me. The only problem is that in catching up with his films you see much techniques that have been used before you saw the film as a lot of filmmakers have borrowed, Stolen, Ripped off or copied. While when you watch his films you get the feeling of déjà vu as you feel you have seen it done before with more modern sensibilities you can identify more with.
It’s got some problems. But it’s really pretty decent…isn’t it? The interior of the mansion house they live in has some of the best lighting I’ve EVER seen in any movie. It’s unbelievable. I can’t imagine how much time it took to do that and how hard it would’ve been for the actors to hit their marks and still, like, act. It has some of the craziest camera-movements too… he’ll keep tight with an actor and move SO fast in a dolly shot and pull back and then pan and move back in, but while having no space in the frame… that’s so insanely hard… Kurosawa does it sometimes too in his mid-period movies, before he started using tohoscope… anyways…. did I just mention Kurosawa and Hitchcock in the same sentence? … weird.
- Currently 3.0/5 Stars.
This is one of Hitchcock’s best films of the 40s and it’s best scenes have retained considerable power and force after all these years, aided in no small part by excellent performances from Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine. People have mentioned the issues with the ending(which formed a convenient excuse for Hitchcock-still the shy schoolboy fusspot in his 60s when he explained this to Truffaut and the rest) but that’s just a small part of this film.
SUSPICION is the story of a weak woman. She is shy, bookish but also beautiful. She marries outside of her class and her husband fulfills her romantic fantasies(and he’s played by Cary Grant) but the constant excitement and adventure that Johnny brings to the film also means that she is totally depended on him for life support. SUSPICION anticipates VERTIGO in that it shows romantic love as a fount for weakness and abject insecurity rather than as a source for inspiration.