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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.