Skip to main content

Isn’t Johnnie simply too fantastic for words?

Suspicion
(1941)

(SPOILERS) Suspicion found Alfred Hitchcock basking in the warm glow of Rebecca’s Best Picture Oscar victory the previous year (for which he received his first of five Best Director nominations, famously winning none of them). Not only that, another of his films, Foreign Correspondent, had jostled with Rebecca for attention. Suspicion was duly nominated itself, something that seems less unlikely now we’ve returned to as many as ten award nominees annually (numbers wouldn’t be reduced to five until 1945). And still more plausible, in and of itself, than his later and final Best Picture nod, Spellbound. Suspicion has a number of claims to eminent status, not least the casting of Cary Grant, if not quite against type, then playing on his charm as a duplicitous quality, but it ultimately falls at the hurdle of studio-mandated compromise.

The film was based on Francis Iles’ novel Before the Fact, in which the protagonist comes to realise her husband is a murderer but loves him so much that she allows him to kill her. Which would likely be a stretch for any adaptation. Hitchcock told how his preferred ending – it went unshot – partially echoed this, involving that dubiously glowing glass of milk Grant’s Johnnie Aysgarth takes to shrewish wife Lina (Joan Fontaine); “Joan Fontaine has just finished a letter to her mother: ‘Dear Mother, I’m desperately in love with him, but I don’t want to live because he’s a killer. Though I’d rather die, I think society should be protected from him.’ Then, Cary Grant comes in with the fatal glass and she says, ‘Will you mail this letter to Mother for me, dear?’ She drinks the milk and dies. Fade out and fade in on one short shot: Cary Grant, whistling cheerfully, walks over to the mailbox and pops the letter in”.

Which is perfect, and provides the necessary payoff to justify what is, at times, a rather languorously one-note preceding ninety minutes. Instead, we climax on a car ride in which Lina imagines Johnnie is about to push her out (as she imagines he intended to push buddy Nigel Bruce’s Beaky over a cliff, or initiated his death-by-over-imbibing in France), but he’s actually saving her, as evidenced by his ensuing breathless stream of exposition/ confession of how all those plot points she was askance over were actually entirely explicable (most notably that he was so eager to find out about poison because he intended to do away with himself – as if Cary Grant would ever consider suicide). Truffaut, in his definitive Hitch interview tome, suggested that, in comparison to the book’s excesses of plotting “the screenplay’s just as good. It is not a compromise”. But the ending of Suspicion really is. It’s equivalent to the most unlikely exposition suggested and seized on by a guilty Cleese or Atkinson in a comedy (“Er yes, that’s exactly what happened!”)

One mightargue the filmed ending lends a stroke of realism with regard to unhappy marriages, in that – despite everything, and whatever Johnnie’s confession may suggest to the contrary that he is attempting to mend his ways – Lina is destined to remain with a bad seed who will continue to fritter away her cash, lie to her and generally fray her nerves, to the point of illness; he just won’t attempt to murder her along with all that. But such a reading doesn’t really satisfy. The picture feels incomplete as told, because it retrospectively becomes about a silly woman’s projections rather than the entirely reasonable grounds she has to get shot of a manipulative and scheming partner.

Unlike later notables in the “is he/isn’t he is she/isn’t she” genre (Jagged Edge, Basic Instinct), there’s nothing else plot-wise to distract from Lina’s heightened paranoias, which means Suspicion consists of her thinking Johnnie is planning something dodgy, being relieved of this sense, but then pulled back again, and stir and repeat, with a consistency that doesn’t become tiresome but does lose its potency in the face of Grant’s overt and consistently unprincipled and caddish behaviour.

Nevertheless, there are many pleasures here. Hitchcock takes full opportunity of any opportunity for a visual flourish. One of the best comes early on in Johnnie and Lina’s relationship as, atop a cliff, he appears to struggle with her (“Now, what did you think I was trying to do? Kill you? Kiss you?”), but is actually just trying “to fix your hair”. Later, there’s the aforementioned imagining of Beaky plunging to his death.

Johnnie: What sort of line is this, selling third-class tickets at first-class prices?

The characterisation of Johnnie’s domineering aspect precedes some of the queasy obsessiveness of Jimmy Stewart’s control freak in Vertigo, but here it’s less about insecurity and obsession than assuming sexual sway and authority (right down to the diminishing term of affection for Lina, Monkey Face); there is never any doubt where the balance of power lies between them. It’s an interesting Grant performance; all the familiar gestures and tics are present and correct, but the warmth is hollow. We can’t identify with Johnnie, as we only ever see him through Lina’s eyes. Grant can’t really have fun with the part either, though, since he has to be remote and not fully seize on the possibilities (“Anyway, you wouldn’t actually want to live off your wife’s allowance, would you?” she asks at one point, and there’s a beat before he replies). 

Bruce is in dutiful duffer mode as Beaky (he’d debuted as Watson to Basil Rathbone’s Holmes two years earlier, and also appeared in Rebecca). Leo G Carroll had appeared in Rebecca too and would show up in several more of the director’s films, including North By Northwest. Fontaine went home with the Oscar she failed to secure for Rebecca (it was awarded to Ginger Rogers), but this is significantly the inferior role and smacks, like so many Academy decisions, of their trying to make right a previous omission. Also notable is Auriol Lee – who died in a car crash soon after filming – as a murder writer friend, rather conveniently on hand to drop in misdirection and exposition on poisons; and at her dinner party is Phyllis Swinghurst, sporting a dinner suit, a lesbian identifier the US censors purportedly weren’t very happy about.

I don’t think Suspicion was ever a serious contender for claiming the Best Picture Oscar statuette, not with Citizen Kane, The Maltese Falcon and actual winner How Green Was My Valley as company, but it does show the director’s critical stock at an all-time high, having just decamped to Hollywood and not yet fully inhabiting a particular genre that would tend to go unrewarded/recognised. Apparently, Grant wasn’t terribly happy about all the attention the director gave Fontaine at his expense, but that didn’t prevent them from going on to team up three more times, two of which would result in classics. And in one of those, Notorious, they would successfully capitalise on the potential dark undercurrents of the actor’s charm-personified persona that are somewhat scuppered here.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

The Krishna died of a broken finger? I mean, is that a homicide?

Miami Blues (1990) (SPOILERS) If the ‘90s crime movie formally set out its stall in 1992 with Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs , another movie very quietly got in there first at the beginning of the decade. Miami Blues picked up admiring reviews but went otherwise unnoticed on release, and even now remains under-recognised. The tale of “blithe psychopath” Federick J. Frenger, Jr., the girl whose heart he breaks and the detetive sergeant on his trail, director George Armitage’s adaptation of Charles Willeford’s novel wears a pitch black sense of humour and manages the difficult juggling act of being genuinely touching with it. It’s a little gem of a movie, perfectly formed and concisely told, one that more than deserves to rub shoulders with the better-known entries in its genre. One of the defining characteristics of Willeford’s work, it has been suggested , is that it doesn’t really fit into the crime genre; he comes from an angle of character rather than plot or h

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

You tampered with the universe, my friend.

The Music of Chance (1993) (SPOILERS) You won’t find many adaptations of Paul Auster’s novels. Original screenplays, yes, a couple of which he has directed himself. Terry Gilliam has occasionally mentioned Mr. Vertigo as in development. It was in development in 1995 too, when Philip Haas and Auster intended to bring it to the screen. Which means Auster presumably approved of Haas’ work on The Music of Chance (he also cameos). That would be understandable, as it makes for a fine, ambiguous movie, pregnant with meaning yet offering no unequivocal answers, and one that makes several key departures from the book yet crucially maintains a mesmerising, slow-burn lure.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi