For the second noir review of “Noirvember” I’m watching a Hitchcock classic, “Suspicion” from 1941. Because of the nature of this story and the fact it is 83 years old, this review will have spoilers, so be warned. Suspicion is based on Francis Iles’s novel Before the Fact (1932). With a screenplay from Samson Raphaelson, Joan Harrison (Hitchcocks P.A.), and Alma Reville (Hitchcock’s wife). The movie stars Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant with support from Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Nigel Bruce, Dame May Whitty, Isabel Jeans, Heather Angel, and Leo G. Carroll. Whitty was also in my last Film Noir review “My Name is Julia Ross”. That has no relevance here but it does link my november noir reviews!
After a chance encounter on a train “Johnnie Aysgarth” (Grant) begins a romantic relationship with “Lina McLaidlaw” (Fontaine). The pair marry and Lina discovers things about johnnie she never suspected. Despite his charm Johnnie is a gambler and struggling both financially and with his addiction. He is sometimes honest with Lina, but often tries to hide the truth from her. A lot of these truths she learns from Johnnie’s good natured friend ‘Beaky’ (Nigel Bruce) who it seems is very bad at keeping quiet. When Lina’s father dies and doesn’t leave her money Johnnie is clearly disappointed and begins to plan an ambitious real estate venture with Beaky. Lina becomes concerned that Johnnie is planning to murder Beaky and not long after Beaky does die under suspicious circumstances. After finding out about a life insurance policy in her name, Lina becomes concerned she will be next.
Audience Manipulation
As a story this has perhaps not aged that well. Subversion is so common these days it doesn’t really subvert anything, As a result the swerve at the end does have that much of an impact. Interestingly this is the second Hitchcock movie in a row staring Joan Fontaine that totally altered the context of a story by changing the ending from the source material. The previous movie was “Rebecca” (1940), Both stories were effectively re-written to make the male lead no longer a murderer. This may seem a bit of an anti-climax to modern audiences. The thing with Hitchcock though is it was always more about the suspense than the story’s conclusion. Rebecca’s change was down to the Hays code, but Suspicion’s change is more up for debate. Hitchcock claimed studio interference in later year, but some have suggested this was what he always intended.
Regardless of intent, this is a showcase of Hitchcock’s ability to build suspense. It helps that he has two talented actors for his leads that he works well with. Fontaine was nominated for an Oscar for “Rebecca”, but this time around she would actually win the award. Grant made four films with Hitchock, culminating in one of Hitchcocks most famous films “North by North West” in 1959. Suspicion was the first of this run, but clearly the director felt he could work with him. Both perform their role perfectly. The key here is the film needs to make the audience suspicious of Johnnie’s motives and intentions. Since the movie concludes with a suggestion of innocence (With some wriggle room), the atmosphere has to be created indirectly. Some of that comes from the directing, some from Fontaine’s expression of anxiety and some form Grant’s careful glances and tone of voice.
Swerve In The Road
I mentioned the ending movie does leave wriggle room. The reason is that the way it is directed leaves you never entirely sure. You don’t really know that Johnnie is trying to save Lina in the car. You don’t even know what he was trying to do on the night they first met. Most of all though, Lina never consumes the drink that Johnnie brings her, after she found out that he knows about the untraceable poison. It is visible the following. Hitchcock uses a light to give the drink an ethereal look when it is presented and we all know what it was meant to suggest. In the novel, this drink is poisoned and Lina drinks it knowing that, because she loves Johnnie that much. Officially of course Johnnie is not a killer, but the movie leaves the suspicion.
That all said, this isn’t the most interesting Hitchcock story and without Johnnie being a murderer it really is a story about nothing more than suspicion. The actual events are somewhat peripheral and the ending feels a bit on the swift side. None of that makes it objectively bad, but it made it less entertaining for me personally. The big problem here is the movie is really quite subtle, so I can see some viewers simply being bored. I have mixed feelings, in some ways it is a masterclass and in others it is really quite empty. Not Hitchcock’s best, but still a very solid 6.5/10.
You must be logged in to post a comment.