Suspicion (1941)


Synopsis:

A shy socialite, Lina McLaidlaw (Joan Fontaine, Rebecca), marries a ne’er-do-well womanizer (Cary Grant, His Girl Friday) to the dismay of her family and friends. After her husband’s friend (Nigel Bruce, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes) dies under mysterious circumstances, Lina begins to suspect that she might be next.

Reaction & Thoughts:

“If you’re going to kill someone, do it simply.”

Suspicion shows Alfred Hitchcock at his cagiest. It’s not immediately clear what the movie is trying to accomplish, partly because of considerations concerning censorship and partly because of Hitchcock’s own feelings of uncertainty. Suspicion, however, ends up being a truly fascinating study of female ambivalence.

Suspicion is a film that is difficult to categorize. While the movie has always been compared to Hitchcock’s Rebecca (1940), I think Suspicion is too odd to be clumped together with the brooding 1940 classic. Yes, both films revolve around timid women married to deeply flawed men, but while Rebecca is a straightforward Gothic romance, Suspicion is less about romance and more about a cracked female psyche.

The film is based on the book Before the Fact by English mystery writer Anthony Berkeley. Hitchcock was allegedly intrigued by the book’s tantalizing but extremely offbeat central premise: a wealthy woman refuses to act after she finds out that her shady husband is trying to kill her. The idea that love may supersede self-preservation isn’t something easy to sell to casual moviegoers, so no one should be surprised to learn that Hitchcock had a terribly hard time adapting the book into a screenplay.

In later years, Hitchcock said that RKO Pictures forced him to make the film more mainstream-friendly, but this is apparently another one of the director’s many white lies. According to Patrick McGilligan’s Alfred Hitchcock: A life in Darkness and Light, the director knew that a straight adaptation of the book was out of the question. McGilligan provides compelling evidence that Hitchcock was solely responsible for the changes, including the now-infamous, much-discussed ending.

As the story goes, Hitchcock, with the help of writer Samson Raphaelson (Trouble in Paradise), came up with an alternate ending that was approved by both the censors and RKO executives. However, test audiences hated the ending and the director asked wife Alma Reville and assistant Joan Harrison to help him come up with a new ending. Although the last-minute changes deflated Hitchcock’s ego, the audience liked the movie: Suspicion was a box office and critical success. The film also received three Oscar nods, including Best Picture (Joan Fontaine won in the Best Actress category).

I have always loved the ending. I particularly liked how the ending reinforces the film’s main idea: romantic infatuation is the product of low self-esteem, something that hadn’t occurred to me before watching the film. I also admired the fact that Hitchcock, intentionally or unintentionally, forgoes the trappings of a murder mystery in favor of an in-depth analysis of both the mechanics of the main character’s psyche as well as the psychological maneuvers found in toxic relationships.

In the end, the movie works because Fontaine and Cary Grant are extraordinarily good, an example of opposites creating great chemistry. It was interesting to see Grant use his famous charm in a negative manner. Grant’s character is a man-child, a conman and a liar — he is exactly the kind of man parents warn their daughters against marrying. He is a “bad apple” from beginning to end. Grant is absolutely brilliant and kudos to the actor for eagerly embracing such a detestable character.

Joan Fontaine’s Oscar for the film was widely seen as a consolidation prize for not winning for Rebecca. While I do agree that she won the Oscar for the wrong movie, I thought Fontaine was superb as the well-to-do spinster who slowly realizes that she has married “a lemon.” The entire film is built around Fontaine’s cunning performance — she is in almost every scene — and the actress doesn’t disappoint. Fontaine vividly conveys Lina’s doubts, insecurities, frustrations, fears and anxieties.

Nigel “Dr. Watson” Bruce has a few good moments as Grant’s ill-fated buddy. Isabel Jeans, the star of Hitchcock’s Easy Virtue, plays a writer of mystery novels. Sir Cedric Hardwicke (The War of the Worlds) and Dame May Whitty (Mrs. Miniver) play Fontaine’s parents. Leo G. Carroll (The Bad and the Beautiful) has a small role as Grant’s boss.

Conclusions & Final Thoughts:

As strange as it may sound, mystery and suspense aren’t the things you will remember about the movie. It’s the odd relationship between the two main characters that makes this film interesting. In spite of the fact that Hitchcock more or less disowned this movie (he even hated the title!), Suspicion is a gorgeous-looking, wonderfully oddball quasi-thriller. Remade in 1988 with Anthony Andrews (TV’s Brideshead Revisited) and Jane Curtin (TV’s 3rd Rock from the Sun). B&W, 99 minutes. Not Rated.

Hitch’s cameo

16 responses to “Suspicion (1941)

  1. As much of a Hitchcock fan as I am, I’d never really thought all that much of ‘Suspicion’…until I saw it again recently on the big screen, and this time I loved it. I thought that both Grant and Fontaine were great, and as you say, I thought their interactions were what made the movie so interesting, and for the most part, made the movie.

    But man oh man, I’ve always loved that other ending, and wished it could’ve stayed in the film. I liked how it would’ve turned the tables on audience expectations (not unlike Janet Leigh’s part in ‘Psycho’), and for me it made for a more powerful and ‘cool’ wrap-up. And I never knew it made it as far as a test audience…and they didn’t like it! Another reason why I hate test audiences!

    Liked by 1 person

    • To test or not to test? That’s the question. Billy Wilder was a fan (he used to say that he always learned something from a test screening). On the other hand, Woody Allen has never done one. I tend to hate them — for example, test audiences ruined Fatal Attraction! 😉

      In the case of Suspicion, I kind of understand people’s reaction. They just couldn’t accept the idea of a woman calmly allowing the husband to kill her. That said, it’s too bad that Hitch didn’t remak it in the ’60s or 70s.

      Like

      • Ha, that would’ve been interesting to see a Hitchcock remake…and then if he’d cast Paul Newman in that one instead of ‘Torn Curtain’, he STILL couldn’t have used that cool ending, because fans wouldn’t be able to handle him as a killer, either!

        Liked by 1 person

  2. You and I disagree on the ending–I was disappointed–but on everything else I think your analysis was spot-on. This is an odd movie, but so well played. I didn’t realize it had been remade.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Must get to this one soon. Still working my way through Hitch’s back-cat. As always you come up with another superb review. Oooooo if I didn’t already have a million things to see I’d watch it right now! Especially as I don’t know that “now-infamous, much-discussed ending” Really hope to get to it soon.
    Hope you keeping well, all the best
    Mikey

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s