When Johnny brings up that glass of milk, Hitch had a small lightbulb lit in the glass for the cinematic effect so that it really stood out as he walks up the stairs, the shadowing as he ascends the stairs & but then, our all-out attention to that glass of milk & what's in it. Genius.
I think the point was to make the character unlikable to the audience, which is difficult with a charismatic actor like Grant. But the repeated uttering of monkey face makes the audience want to slap him.
@@CinemaCities1978 Me too. Hitchcock even put a lit flashlight bulb in the bottom of the milk glass so it would glow sinisterly on screen. Obviously he was setting us up for the ending he wanted, with Grant's character unknowingly posting the letter that would seal his fate.
Great combination of analysis and reportage/history. I haven't seen "Suspicion" in a long time, and then only once, but I remember feeling the ending was a typical tacked-on paste-up happy ending of the unconvincing type you could see on a lot of movies. Seeing it as more ambiguous is intriguing. Also, I can't help thinking about how this is the reverse of "Chinatown," where the original script by Robert Towne ends optimistically, with the monster slain and the hero and heroine together, but director Roman Polanski insisting on a dark and bitter ending where evil goes unpunished and the hero is forced to realize he's powerless to stop it. The difference between Hollywood (and America) 1941 and 1974. 🙁
Total chills went down my spine in your last 15 seconds. You are so right about the possibility in layering that line over the ending. I watched this movie when I was in my early teens and was in the throes of my Cary Grant crush and I always felt very uneasy about this movie. I hadn’t yet learned to appreciate layers, depth, and ambiguity in storytelling. I will definitely need to revisit the one.
Same. I watched this move for the first time very young and it took me along time to see how manipulative and wicked Johhny was. I just thought he was charming.
Suspicion was the first time I can recall watching a film - as a teen at the time - and after seeing the ending devolving into Annie Wilkes screaming about Rocket Man and the "cock-a-doody car!!" And the feeling wouldn't be as justified if Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant hadn't done such an incredible job of building and raising the tension and suspense to such a degree that you were expecting this big "punch" that never really came. And if this was just some rando director like Sam Wood or somebody I would probably be more willing to just handwave it, but because it's Hitchcock you can't help but want "more." I read somewhere he blamed the studio censors for the ending's anti-climactic nature, but it's not like he wasn't already adept at circumventing or subverting the Hays Code in his other films. I don't even know what personally to suggest he have done, only that watching the way Notorious closed out, I KNOW he was capable of ending a film on a darkly ambiguous note, and his television show (both episodes he did and didn't direct) were full of those kind of open-ended finishes leaving it to the viewer's imagination what happened next. As it is the ending we got almost feels as though our intelligence is being insulted, along with Lina's/Joan's intelligence. I also do definitely believe that Joan's Oscar was in part a consolation prize for the Rebecca snub, as the awards were and still are politicized in such a way, but I don't think believing that necessarily takes away from evaluating her performance here (because again her performance raises the stakes dramatically so that we fear for Lina's safety enough that we don't buy into Johnnie's explanation even as she inexplicably does). It was more like a one-two punch I guess...
I agree that Suspicion’s ending was really unsatisfactory and out-of-left-field. However, I did enjoy the movie, regardless of its tacked-on ending. I think that the bad ending was probably a combination of Hays Code restrictions and Cary Grant’s benevolent image, which is a shame because Grant did so well as a dislikable villain.
Me too, I still love the film. It's one of my all time favorites. I like thinking of the ending as ambiguous, in my mind Grant still gets to the the villain.
I like the ending. I'm a sap and prefer happy endings. Also, I think the ending is actually in line with Hitchcock's thoughts on suspense. If we go through the whole movie suspecting Johnny of being a murderer, there is no suspense if he actually turns out to be one. My only complaint is that when Johnny and Lina drive away, they are obviously doubles and not Grant and Fontaine.
This is finally up! I had some ridiculous copyright restrictions even though this is critique and commentary. Hopefully, it stays up. Sorry for the black screen near the end. I got tired of re editing and re uploading…. While making this video I think I watched Suspicion all the way through at least 8 times😂 Each time I focused more and more on Cary Grant’s performance. He’s phenomenal! What he does with his face and his eyes is so subtle and conveys all the possible danger lurking underneath that charming exterior.
I enjoyed your presentation very much but you said something that I'll have to disagree with you about. The clip that you showed where Alfred Hitchcock states the ending he liked best where he says that Lina does drink the milk and has written the letter and sat (I can't remember if she ask him to mail it or if he just picks it up) on the bedside table next to the glass of milk that Johnny picks up and whistles to the mailbox and drops it in and then the movie ends with Johnny walking down the sidewalk. I saw, yes I saw that version when I was in my early teens on television (I'm 63 now). It was riveting! This was my first time seeing Suspicion and this ending did not make me dislike Cary Grant (who I really like) and it made the movie so much more interesting and more in sync with what was going on in the movie up to that point. It was a real disappointment when Carry Grant leaves the milk and . . . THEN it cuts to Lina WAKING up!!! I will tell you though never, Never, NEVER have I ever seen that first version again - Only that one time. When years later I saw Suspicion again I was waiting for the ending that I had seen the first time BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED - UGH!!! Instead it was the ending where they ride off together (those where doubles not Cary Grant and Joan Fountain) that seems to be the ending that is most associated with Suspicion. Thanks for the post though!
If Hitch had lived longer a good title would’ve been “Going Postal” haha. I like ‘Rear Window’ a lot. They’re all pretty good. I mean if you’re re-watching them, you see interesting things in every one during multiple views. To me, any Hitchcock film is like an old friend coming by for a visit. Rebecca, N by NW, Vertigo, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, they’re all fun. Griping about Hitchcock movies is like complaining about the champagne.
I love REAR WINDOW. Besides the story, performances and direction, That set is a thing of beauty. If I continue with the Hitchcock videos I definitely want to do one that focuses on REAR WINDOW’s production design. Agreed, Hitchcock films are the gifts that keep giving. I recently rewatched SABOTAGE (1936) and I saw all these little details I’d missed previously.
agree! We have most of his movies on DVD and re-watch often, they're incredible. Rear WIndow is my fave, the set! the story! the fashion! Love everything about that movie
I don’t know. Another one of my favorites ends on a positive note, The Lady Vanishes, as does Strangers on a Train. Several others, matter of fact, like Rope and Rear Window.
Cary Grant as a psychopath would not fly for fans, but he played one PERFECTLY. The movie was moving towards an obvious conclusion right up the the milk scene. Her drinking the milk with the knowledge that it was poisoned also works. A manner of suicide. The only flaw I can think of was that murder would have been too obvious. Not after pressuring he coroner into giving him information on how to poison somebody without leaving a trace.
Another very enjoyable and informative video. I won't spoil the mood by saying that while I hated the ending the first time I saw SUSPICION, and intellectually know it's bad, I enjoy the movie on repeat viewings and accept that it's a warped comedy about how we misinterpret other people's actions. NOT saying I really like the 'It was all in your head!" ending, but I've accepted it--it turns the whole movie into something much lighter than it should have been. ((If you want a REALLY bad remade ending, see the otherwise excellent Robert Siodmak/George Sanders movie UNCLE HARRY. Actress Geraldine Fitzgerald so hated the new ending she refused to show up for the additional shooting; her character is off screen for the ending as it is now.))
I have always enjoyed this film. Grant was great in the role; his easy and effortless charm explains how he has been a successful con man and thief. It works. Fontaine is brilliant. The ending always left me unsettled and sad. I always wanted to believe that he'd change, but in my heart of hearts, I always knew that he would not, and she would be destroyed.
Hitch always did weird things. In Vertigo James Stewart begins the movie clinging to a roof ledge. A cop walks toward him. New scene! Ya never see Stewart get off that ledge!
I agree with Hitchcock that Cary Grant was miscast. I just couldn't believe him as a would-be psychopathic killer. Any of the other names mentioned would have been better - Olivier, Sanders, Welles - all could be charming but also believably evil. The only benefit of Cary being Cary is you *sort of* understand why Fontaine doesn't just dump him in the first hour of the film...he's clearly revealed as a liar, a gold-digger, an insensitive, selfish lout who pawns her heirlooms, etcetera. Again, not entirely believable that someone so likeable is such a heel, but there are people like that. It's just hard to believe she wouldn't have fled or had the marriage annulled, long before the ending.
I will never be able to look at the ending of this film in the same way ever again. The ending could have been a preview to a murder,it would be ridiculous to think they could have just moved on to a happy marriage. This video has made me feel much happier with the film’s ending
The ending is very beautiful and pure Hitchcock. Confession by both the wife and husband is the only way for both to live free of suffering. This theme of confession is key to much of Hitchcock’s work (confession is the key theme of such films as I, Confess, Under Capricorn, Torn Curtain, Blackmail) Hitchcock is possibly the greatest Catholic filmmaker to ever live and the spiritual need for Confession is vital to an understanding of his films.
Like a good read on a rainy day, your videos are both a pleasure and a warm comfort. Another thorough and informative dive. A great reminder that so many classic films were born of trial and error, redirected by test screenings and shaped one way or the other by studio interference. This is my 2nd screening of this video, and I found the behind-the-scenes outcome just as suspenseful. Always a pleasure, CC.
I’m glad you enjoyed it! Twice!!! The workings of the studio system is endlessly fascinating to me. I’m trying to figure out a way to balance classic movie content with the location/settings content on the channel because I love making videos about both.
@@CinemaCities1978 I love the path you're carving for your channel. No one does the classic studio and star system deep dives as well as you do. I'm not feeling any imbalance, thematically. I think it's your consistent presentation style and POV that makes them feel consistent. Maybe the answer is a minor tweak to your channel description, if your original focus is feeling confining. Title-wise, I see CC working for you, no matter your approach. Whatever you decide, I look forward to more as you follow your muse.
The amount of research in this video is staggering! Thank you so much! While my initial thoughts after viewing the film was to consider the ending as banal, I now believe it is one of Hitchcock's most complex.
such a great video essay and also prompted me to totally reevaluate suspicion quite a while after watching it. it's a great 40s Hitchcock film! eerie and tense, and there's a wonderful menace to Cary grant's performance. the ending was something I always thought was an immense letdown, but after rewatching, it does have a very sinister quality to it; something a little too rushed and agreeable in Lina's explanation, and almost a beat too long when Johnny agrees to it.
For years, I viewed that ending as relatively happy. Then one evening, I watched the film and really honed in on all of Johnny's deceptive behavior: his lies, lies, and manipulations. By the time I reached the end of the film, I saw those last moments in a different light. It suddenly seemed very sinister. I believe the ambiguity makes it a better film.
Another fascinating video, CC. I really liked Hitchcock's idea for the ending with a whistling Johnnie posting the letter. Also, was the scene with the postbox in, Hitch's cameo in the film? Looks like him posting something in it, but I couldn't quite tell. Brilliant insight, excellent background knowledge and all in all a very enjoyable 25 minutes. Top class, old bean! ☺
Yes, old bean that was Hitch at the mailbox. 😊 Which adds to the compelling argument that he was setting up that 'letter to mother ending' he really wanted. I agree that would've been a top notch finale for the film. It probably would've pushed Suspicion higher on the Hitch's and Cary Grant's best films lists.
@@CinemaCities1978 Ahh brilliant! Thanks. I thought that might be him. Confession, I've never seen this movie! 😲 But I've been working throught the Hitch back catalogue over the past year and your vid has made me want to put it on top of the watch soon list!
Whenever you get to it, I'd love to know your feelings on the ending. I took me years to look at it as something other than happy. Once I zeroed in Cary Grant's performance the entire thing took on a more sinister tone. It's funny because I think I did what 1940s audiences did, I watched the film with all the baggage of Cary Grant's persona in the back of my mind so of course I would see the ending as a happy resolution. Divorcing Grant from his image and just looking at Johnny as character gives you an altogether different film.
Interesting take on this movie and honestly, the ending of this film has always baffled me. Grant's performance is absolute perfection IMO, and a model for future suspense/thriller movies. The movie really also insinuates the character killed his BFF in Paris so the ending where he kills the wife is not a stretch. Fontaine is also brilliant and having watched this before I saw Rebecca, she is way better with this story. I would have been interested to see a screen test of Olivier and/or Welles with Fontaine because if you wanted to make the story more in line with the book, then get another actor. It had to be frustrating for Grant because even Jimmy Stewart got to be the killer in a movie at least once.
It is a very disturbing film, and its being wrapped up in the unsettling, threatening charm pouring out of Cary Grant is what makes it so disturbing. No other actor (and no other director) could have made that film so perturbing. The charm that is there to reassure and make us think that this guy cannot possibly be a murderer is actually what also makes us unsure. A self-contradiction within the category of charm, which Cary Grant auratically embodies (and no actor or star has ever come close to such an achievement). Charm is in this film brandished like a weapon, or punches like a fist. I don't think that the ending the film finally got leaves anyone who had been paying attention relieved. I went back to watch the film again a few weeks ago, and I must say I agree with Bogdanovich (a film-maker and film analyst I never cared for -I consider him too sycophantic and too 'quotetional' for my liking) that the ending feels more like a deferral of Lina's murder. And I'd go even further and say that the deferral puzzles Johnnie himself, Lina and the viewer alike. I think Johnnie has developed a kind of love for Lina that has caught him by surprise. However, Johnnie does not undergo a Damascene conversion, and that is plainly stated. Neither love nor murder seem to be enough to put an end to what it is Johnnie desires, and what it is Lina desires. That long, stretching arm that wraps around Lina's shoulders in the final shot is utterly menacing and not in the least reassuring. Who on earth could believe that we are witnessing the beginning of a beautiful marriage? I think perhaps this is the one Hitchcock film where the suspense is heightened by the 'happy ending' rather than relieved. We are left suspended in mid-air, as we still DO NOT KNOW whether he will kill her or not... in the future. While 'Suspicion' is the clearest example of the uneasy, equivocal 'happy endings' of Hitchcock's films, there are other examples where one cannot help but suspect things took a turn for the worse after the closing titles (a feeling cultivated by Hitchcock). For example, in the masterpiece that is 'Notorious', a film I absolutely love, and one where Cary Grant is at his erotic-enigmatic and perverted best, I always felt that there is a good possibility that Alicia did not make it in the end, that she died of all that weeks-long poisoning in the hospital Devlin took her. Or the ending of ' The Birds'. If one thinks that ending through then, assuming Melanie survived, it would be far more plausible to believe she was left extensively scarred and deeply traumatised than that she went on to be happily married to Mitch.
It always astonishes me that after watching "Suspicion," some people believe that Johnny and Lina are on the path to reconciliation. However, I believe this is a testament to Grant's persuasive charm. He captivates both the audience and Lina. To be honest, when I first watched the film as a teenager, I interpreted the ending as a happy one. But, as I rewatched it as a more mature woman, I could clearly see Johnny's true character and his ability to manipulate, all evident from the very first scene on the train. The final scene is truly terrifying because it spells doom for Lina. Even if he doesn't kill her immediately he will torment her psychologically and she will never be able to trust him. I always encourage people to revisit the film and focus on Cary Grant. His facial expressions and body language leave no doubt that Johnny is a terrible person.
I've been through a ten year exploration of noir, ahead of the covid years. I find rare masterpieces; but fascinating camera work, lighting, sequences. I don't regret a minute of it. I wasn't impressed by Suspicion, but you're such a thoughtful viewer, I'll have to revisit it. The Snake Pit is very interesting. De Haviland is having a psychic break-down and enters an asylum. Similarities with Spellbound.
Such an interesting interpretation of the ending of the film as being ambiguous. I completely agree with your assessment, and can now enjoy the ending more, the next time I watch it.
I absolutely love Cary Grant and Suspicion is one of my favorite films. However, George Sanders would have been excellent in the role. Suspicion would have been a great movie with Sanders, and it would have not been out of character to have him be the handsome murderer.
@@CinemaCities1978 Actually, Grant did a wonderful job being the engaging bad guy. I think Grant is like Denzel Washington, he can play a bad guy, but it makes us all feel good when he is a good guy. Sanders on the other hand, was just as handsome, but he had had a sinister quality about him that was attractive and satisfying to watch.
It was the false ending that completely marred this film, the book was so much better, and I have edited my DVD to end at the point where Johnny brings the glass of milk. This is much more satisfactory and conforms with the book. Pity so many books are messed about when films are made, it seems that the words 'based on' gives film makers licence to do anything they like!
This was really well done and enjoyable. Thank you very much. I do disagree with you about the ending in the book, which I’ve come to respect a great deal. Once I realised that both of these characters developed extreme addictions to each other and whatever puzzle pieces they fit into in each other’s psyches, it remained until the end. I believe that was why lena desired to give Johnny everything in the end. Call it crazy love. She come to accept what he was and still loved him with that unbreakable addiction. Also, in allowing him to have her fortune, she was hoping he would stop murdering people for money. It’s nuts, it’s twisted, but it’s brilliant and human and anti-fairy tale and deeply fascinating. I agree with Bogdanovich about the ambiguity angle.
I'm so glad you enjoyed it. I do agree it's crazy, self destructive, obsessive love. The book is very much a psychological study as well as a crime/love story. I now want to go back and read it again. The last time I read it (which was the second time) was for this video and I had this thesis in mind.
@@CinemaCities1978 def do reread it again- absolutely a book that reveals different angles each time- it’s addictive! I’ve read it at different ages and that has made a huge difference. Last time I started taking notes for a sequel (to the book, not the movie). I freely admit though that when I first read it at about 19, I was furious that she “gave in”! Now I see it totally differently. Look how she evolves and changes in that book.
Very interesting exchange. From what l have read about Francis Iles book, the original Lena is somewhat frumpy and not very attractive. Being wooed and won by Johnny was the high point of her life. VERY different from the character as played by Joan Fontaine. The original ending would have been hard to swallow (no pun intended) and a more plain looking star (did that even exist) is unimaginable. Thoughts?
@@c.a.savage5689 Thank you for your response. If I interpret your response correctly, I think you’re commenting on Lena‘s appearance as a factor, and that you’re also saying that the book ending was not believable. Tell me if I’m incorrect. What I took from the book was that Lena was frumpy in an English kind of way - tweeds and cardigans and sensible shoes, plain tastes and horseyness. But that she had an underlying beauty that Johnny often brought out. I never really understood in the book why he chose her to pursue as a wife except that he seemed to recognise her weakness and perhaps that he could always have his way in the marriage, and also he overestimated her financial situation. On the surface I think we’re supposed to believe that Johnny is weak and Lena is strong, because she holds him in check kind of like a wild horse being reigned in. But the last time I read this I saw that she really is a terribly weak person, almost without any self-esteem at all, and this is utterly her downfall. As for the book’s ending, I think I started to say but perhaps didn’t say it very well, that when I paid more attention I saw how she evolved from a person who became very indignant very quickly at what she perceived to be wrong behaviours, but over the years she had really changed albeit by tiny bits and pieces, inch by inch. In the end she was all for Johnny and nobody else, was completely isolated, and really only had one or two things on her mind about points - one being for Johnny to be entirely looked after and The other being to somehow, someway get him to stop murdering people! Her messed up idea that if he has her money he would not have to kill for money anymore leads to her resignation and there is a sick twisted kind of love involved with her dying knowing that she has provided for that one person that she absolutely adores. So the last time I read it I did come to believe in the ending only because of Lena’s horrendous weakness making it possible. And her obsession. In his own way Johnny seemed obsessed with her too- does that seem evident? I’m not certain you’ve actually read the book though - if you have not, you must stop whatever you are doing and procure a copy! They have re-issued it I think- so I’m afraid you’re without excuse LOL but you have a wonderful reading session ahead of you if so. There are very few books I reread so many times and this is one of them. For good reason! Thanks for your comments!
I saw the movie, liked it but when I learned about Hitchcock's "alternate ending I thought it fitted into the whole of the movie's pattern of guessing is he guilty or capable of murder? The scene on the edge of the cliff where it appears that he is in fact trying to push her off instead of trying to fix her hair. Or was he really in London at the time of Beaky's death? Finally answering the question one might have throughout the movie. As the letter goes into the mail slot. Much better ending and in fact ties everything together with Hitchcock's style of movie making.
The negative dynamic moments between the two leads onscreen was actually for real; Fontaine couldn't stand what she felt was Cary Grant's boorishness & Grant was jealous of the attention given Fontaine during filming, since she actually had more screen time, & also felt Hitchcock emphasized shots of Fontaine to better flatter her over him, so all this said it's amazing that Hitchcock & Grant worked together 3 more times.
I read the book "Before the Fact" and seem to remember it ended as Hitchcock described with the wife drinking the milk that she knows is posion but sending a letter to someone giving them the prove of her husband's crime. I remember a bit where as she is dying she feels sorry for her husband who will not have anyone to rely on or protect him.
Johnny would absolutely not change his character and suddenly become the devoted husband putting his wife first. His character flaw is to always put his needs and wants first and to take what isn’t his and to cruelly get rid of anyone in his way. If you get a chance to see The Charmer starring Nigel Havers in a British TV mini series you can see the same type of man. It’s brilliant. In Suspicion, I believe he placates her hysteria and she interprets his actions as to what she wants to believe rather than what is the truth and he goes along with her. He had her murder on his mind but that was not the time and the place.
Sensational video! Your clips/insight on the whole "old bean" gave me chills. I've seen this film 3 times now and I never picked up on it! I always wondered why it hit her so hard when the detectives gave her that information. Speaking of seeing it 3 times, the first time I saw it, I thought it was OK and never imagined at the end he was evil. I heard Bogdanovich thoughts after and still thought it wasn't plausible. The 2nd time I watched it I thought it was better and really good but still not one of my favorites and I thought the ending of him being evil was plausible but I still had my doubts. My 3rd watch, right from the start, I had that feeling... that suspicion... he was evil and the more I watched the more I believe there is no bleeping way he is innocent! I believe at the end when they drive off together, he will try to kill her again. Then by a fortuitous accident after my 3rd viewing a week later I listened to a interview with Tarantino and he also thinks at the end Grant is gonna kill her! I absolutely love this film and I think it's a masterpiece!
I went through the same exact arc with my feelings about Johnny. 1st time I watched the film I was way too young to pick up on how shady he was, watched other times and didn't really investigate his actions . . . then I watched again during covid lockdown and I saw just how manipulative he was and just what he was capable of. I think Cary Grant is marvelous in Suspicion,. if you watch him closely he's doing a lot of subtle work to let us know just how terrible he really is.
@@CinemaCities1978 I first watched this during lockdown. Yes, Grant as a villain is all time great! He might be a top 5 Hitchcock villian for me. Totally amazing too he wanted to play this role. Yep my 3rd watch I paid alot of attention to him (hard to take your eyes of Fontaines performance though) the way he stands sometimes is so menacing! And subtle movements from him and the occasional little flicker in his eyes. Just all this without his dialogue and his actions paints he's sinister! I believe people who have only seen it once see it as a happy ending
@@CinemaCities1978 I actually just checked the bonus feature on the blu ray disc and didn't hear Bogdanovich talk about the ambiguous ending, I know I heard it before like you but I can't find it. Is there a link or certain video for it?
Thank you for your comments you have a great voice ,and there are many things I did not know about the script ,Why change the ending? a pitty.....from Argentina.
If he was trying to commit suicide why was he taking her along? Was he hoping she'd jump out before the car went over the cliff? None of that made any sense.
I'll have to give 'Suspicion' another go. I found it very disappointing, primarily because of the ending. I had read and enjoyed the novel (but assumed Frances Illes was a woman until you showed his picture). Thanks again, your videos are a lot of fun.
Lovely assessment of the movie. I always thought Fontaine’s Oscar win was justified. She was phenomenal in this and as you said won NYFCC award and The National Board of Review.
A great movie…..WITH AN AMBIGUOUS ENDING. One does not know if Grant truly is a murderer or just a player with many circumstances in married life. Was the ending just not a good day to murder wife….or will he wait for a LESS suspicious situation….or is he NOT a murderer at all? Thats what one is left with.
I think it is a brilliant underrated film. I do think that it was wrong that Joan Fontaine Received a Oscar for this role and not for Rebecca. What I love about this film is that there is a giant question mark. Is he bad or good. And even when this film ends you still have that question. I think that this makes the film far more interesting psychologically. Because it makes you wonder and think it creates suspense. I think that this is far more interesting then if they would have made it like the book. Where he is obviously the bad guy. Where is the mystery in that? And I think it is very Hitchcock. as well I think the film is kind of similar as the film/novel my cousin Rachel. IN that film you also have the question. Is he a murderer yes or no. I love that.
Thanks for this. I remember watching it and feeling utterly conned by the ending. It was so preposterous after all that had come before. It made zero sense. Up to that point it had been a gripping movie but ended as a complete dud IMHO.
I remember being thoroughly disgusted at what Hollywood did to the ending of "Our Town." Of course, they changed the whole story, tacking on a happy ending that made no sense.
The only problem I have with the ending of Hitchcock's Suspicion is that the two people in the car as it drives away are so obviously NOT Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine but, rather, doubles badly cast and with bad hair. I spent enough time in production work and on sets to know that one doesn't want to pay principal actors for scenes one doesn't have to. But, the likenesses from behind in this last scene are so obviously not them, that it's always bothered me.
I agree, I thought it might have been Joan Fontaine, but it was clearly not Grant. I always thought that was cheap. I think it would have made a difference if it was actually Grant in the car.
I had no idea of this discourse of the unpreferred ending and I have to completely disagree. I much prefer the ending it has; the gaslighting, the psychological persecution, the undying attempt at unconditional love. A masterpiece as it stands
This was the second time Hitch was forced to have a bowdlerised ending. In his English period, in 1926, his first great film "The Lodger" was intended to finish with the mysterious lodger proving to be the murderer of young women - but because the lodger was played by matinee idol Ivor Novella the ending was changed to having him exonerated and cleared of all guilt. Only years later, in the 1940s, was there another version of "The Lodger" which restored the original ending of the novel on which it was based - and the lodger really was the murderer... but this was not a Hitchcock movie.
Rebecca was also bowdlerised: in the book he shoots Rebecca after she goaded him into it, but in Hollywood 1940 nobody was allowed to get away with murder, so they had to make it an accident.
Erm . . . I just checked with an online synopsis, and Rebecca does have cancer. If she had gone to the gynecologist for an abortion there would have been no reason to goad Maxim into killing her. @@nicholasreid1836
I never considered that Johnnie WASN'T the murderer. He had already proven himself a liar, so he wouldn't be telling her the truth. Him being a murderer would be consistant with his character as portrayed throughout the movie. The older I got (I've watched it many times) the more annoyed I got with her lack of assertiveness.
Wow this was interesting! I've watched this movie 100s of times over many decades and *never once thought of Johnny as a bad guy* !!! He was just a loveable, well intentioned guy who always had bad luck! I guess that's the power of Grant's image. I have to read the book because I've always considered this a lighthearted romantic comedy! BTW I *cannot believe* Fontaine's performance won over Davis' in The Little Foxes!!! WHAT??? NO WAY that was a fair judgement!
I think the ending as it exists now strengthens the story as it being about Lina. She makes all the meaningful choices in the family. And in the end it's she who chooses to see things out for better or worse. I just don't think Johnny has any motive to kill Lina. He won't inherit enough money to clear his debts. She has never accused him of killing Beaky and so silencing her as a witness does not hold up. He doesn't just hate her. He buys so many things he cannot afford FOR HER. So much of his foolishness is an immature pursuit of her and trying to give her things. There's no indication of another woman. He's a thief but his cousin knows that. She knows but why silence her for that? He would surely be suspected in her death if she died. I just don't see any real motive. There was more of a motive for him to kill Beaky and her father not Lina. If they turn around, Go home and sell almost everything to start paying off debts they'll have very little but Johnny will still have someone who sticks by him even tho she shouldn't. There's far more motives for Johnny's sake to keeping her than killing her.
One reason not to know anything about actors and not to read their biographies is this movie. Any article or book about Cary Grant will inform you that he never played a villain. So, you kinda know from the start. . .
I just watched the movie. I have to say that the ending was such an about turn in terms of plot and character that it made no sense whatsoever and felt a complete let down
I really wish Hitchcock had been able to kill Lina and then have Cary Grant put that incriminating letter in the mailbox. That would've been the perfect ending.
@@CinemaCities1978 It would have been more in keeping with the plot. I felt really cheated by the ending. And I didn't get any ambiguity as some have claimed (ie that Johnny has hoodwinked Lina again.)
Great video analysis as usual. Interesting to see how many fans analyze the endings of Hitchcock films. He chooses so many that are not necessarily satisfying or obvious but make you watch the film again until you discover the meaning or key to the ending that satisfies you individually. Yours was *most* haunting for me.
Disagree. The ending does not fit the flow of an otherwise expertly crafted film, proving Hitchcock's disgruntlement. Had a whistling Grant deposited the letter in the featured mailbox as the button, it would be considered one of the most famous scenes in all of film.
Today, of course, we would watch Joan drink the poisoned milk then watch Cary move on to his next vic...wife. I am generally agnostic on original vs. film ending. In fact, the ending of THE THIN MAN film is far better than the one in Hammett's novel. Stories are told differently on page and on screen. Now, do I love SUSPICION's ending? Not really, though Bogdanovich's take is intriguing. I also recommend Iles' novel.
The ending of Iles' book is very sad and tragic. Lina would rather accept her fate with Johnny than believe there can be happiness anywhere else. I would love to see a proper adaptation, as all the things they left out of both versions make Johnny and Lina even more compelling and complex characters
Great analysis and although I agree the ending can be taken as ambiguous, hey I'm romantic, I like to think they will work it all out and live happily ever after. Makes me feel good, what can I say? 🙄
I didn’t care for the ending either but definitely didn’t think it’s a happy one either. Grant was too shady! lol! Wish he had played more characters like that.
The only thing I don't like about this movie is that her character is so totally incapable of reading signals or even just putting 2 and 2 together. Character flaws that I personally find irritating. I understand that it would be super easy to be bowled over by Cary Grant, but really. Just because someone is charming and unbearably attractive doesn't mean they aren't despicable. I like the ending. Everything he said to her was a lie so she will just continue being tortured with suspicion which is no more than she deserves.
Yes! I agree with you 100%. Initially, yes, you get taken in by Johnny's charm, but eventually, with all the shady goings-on, your eyes would be opened.
With Cary Grant as Johnny you’re never quite sure if he’s going to murder Lena. That’s why no one else could’ve played it as well. That ending was so lame, didn’t feel real. It definitely should’ve ended w him at least trying to kill her and getting caught.
Tarintino says Grant was indeed going to kill her at home and Hitchcock used the Hays code against Hollywood and that is why the movie ended like it did
The Producers had Hitchcock's hands Tied.. Props to the DP... The Photography is Beautiful... & Cary is Nice to Watch... But Wrong for this Role... Love Self...Peace...!!!
I blame the studio for making Hitchcock change his original ending. The one they chose will go down as tremendously illogical, boring and totally asinine! It absolutely ruined the end of a spectacular movie up until the last 2 minutes. I will always envision the real ending. He does eventually kill her and is caught. Great ending!!!
Oh, I would've loved to see him but that letter in the mailbox and saunter off thinking he got away with murder. What a fantastic ending that would've been.
The ambiguous ending of Suspicion reminds me of two much newer movies that mean one thing, or maybe, something else. In all 3 movies you can make a case for either side. The other 2 movies are Presumed Innocent and Eyes Wide Shut. My husband and I were newly married, and binged watched Eyes Wide Shut( 3 times) while snuggling in his big chair. We slept and woke, and slept again. We loved it- we both thought Alice was a member of the sex club, and she had a right to be- she wasnt promiscuous or immoral- she took her extreme sex very seriously. As the husband, Cruise's character was naive, curious and conventional. He did not belong in a club like that- he didnt have the stuff for it. Our theory is not a widely accepted one among fans of the movie but we both came to the same conclusion. I like movies with " no resolution ". If you want to know why characters act so crazy, my husband would say " because it's in the script".
I love an ending that keeps you thinking as the credits roll. The last scene in in 'Unfaithful' also comes to mind, where Diane Lane and Richard Gere are at the stoplight and then it's over. . . That's a very intriguing take on 'Eyes Wide Shut.' I like it. I like that view of Alice, and I agree with your assessment of the husband, Bill. It's been a while since I last watched it, but now I want to revisit it
@@CinemaCities1978 O now I'm going to have to watch Unfaithful again. I was prejudiced with Eyes Wide Shut because, I fear, I think Nicole Kidman is very intelligent but I think Cruise is sort of, well, entitled and stupid. I have similar feelings about Diane Lane and Mr Gere. Gere and Cruise have never bothered to hide their natures, and have certainly displayed some inappropriate behavior in public. My bias influences will reflect on my feelings of Unfaithful. I love men( I'm married to one), just not those willing to act as idiots on national TV.
The ending to “Suspicion” to me was controlled by the story & Hitchcock’s style as shown in “Rebecca”. For an hour in “Suspicion” the viewer is told about Johnnie; that he’s a liar & killer over and over again. So, at the end, where does the story go? A Hitchcock mystery/suspense film has a twist (“Rebecca”). Where is it in “Suspicion”? A twist either has Johnnie arrested (one proposed ending) or he explains that he is not a killer (the final ending). Fontaine poisoning herself due to love (the novel’s ending) is silly. The preview audience seeing that reacted as I would. It makes Fontaine out to be pathetic. The final ending however, shows that she was right to be suspicious (from the film’s title) and therefore smart. But she was only mistaken with Johnnie’s new information which is the twist.
For more deep dive Hitchcock stories check out my video on the making of 1940s REBECCA here ➡ th-cam.com/video/-IPFtJSDY-s/w-d-xo.html
When Johnny brings up that glass of milk, Hitch had a small lightbulb lit in the glass for the cinematic effect so that it really stood out as he walks up the stairs, the shadowing as he ascends the stairs & but then, our all-out attention to that glass of milk & what's in it. Genius.
An absolutely genius and horrifically beautiful scene. Death was supposed to be that glass..until it wasn’t.
Only Cary Grant could call a woman "monkey face" and not get slapped.😵
this is 100% true!
I thought he was quite unlikeable in this movie, no mean feat for Cary who you always root for otherwise.
A handsome man....monkey face.........sounds ok to me.
I think the point was to make the character unlikable to the audience, which is difficult with a charismatic actor like Grant. But the repeated uttering of monkey face makes the audience want to slap him.
Joan Fontaine, despite the Oscar, always appeared to be underrated and seemingly walked in the shadow of her sister, Olivia, throughout her career.
Wow~~ Hitchcock’s preferred ending would have been awesome! Gave me chills just hearing about it.
Right! I wish we'd gotten that ending.
@@CinemaCities1978 Me too. Hitchcock even put a lit flashlight bulb in the bottom of the milk glass so it would glow sinisterly on screen. Obviously he was setting us up for the ending he wanted, with Grant's character unknowingly posting the letter that would seal his fate.
Definitely! He had such a smile on his face when he talked about it.
Great combination of analysis and reportage/history. I haven't seen "Suspicion" in a long time, and then only once, but I remember feeling the ending was a typical tacked-on paste-up happy ending of the unconvincing type you could see on a lot of movies. Seeing it as more ambiguous is intriguing. Also, I can't help thinking about how this is the reverse of "Chinatown," where the original script by Robert Towne ends optimistically, with the monster slain and the hero and heroine together, but director Roman Polanski insisting on a dark and bitter ending where evil goes unpunished and the hero is forced to realize he's powerless to stop it. The difference between Hollywood (and America) 1941 and 1974. 🙁
Total chills went down my spine in your last 15 seconds. You are so right about the possibility in layering that line over the ending. I watched this movie when I was in my early teens and was in the throes of my Cary Grant crush and I always felt very uneasy about this movie. I hadn’t yet learned to appreciate layers, depth, and ambiguity in storytelling. I will definitely need to revisit the one.
Same. I watched this move for the first time very young and it took me along time to see how manipulative and wicked Johhny was. I just thought he was charming.
Suspicion was the first time I can recall watching a film - as a teen at the time - and after seeing the ending devolving into Annie Wilkes screaming about Rocket Man and the "cock-a-doody car!!" And the feeling wouldn't be as justified if Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant hadn't done such an incredible job of building and raising the tension and suspense to such a degree that you were expecting this big "punch" that never really came. And if this was just some rando director like Sam Wood or somebody I would probably be more willing to just handwave it, but because it's Hitchcock you can't help but want "more." I read somewhere he blamed the studio censors for the ending's anti-climactic nature, but it's not like he wasn't already adept at circumventing or subverting the Hays Code in his other films. I don't even know what personally to suggest he have done, only that watching the way Notorious closed out, I KNOW he was capable of ending a film on a darkly ambiguous note, and his television show (both episodes he did and didn't direct) were full of those kind of open-ended finishes leaving it to the viewer's imagination what happened next. As it is the ending we got almost feels as though our intelligence is being insulted, along with Lina's/Joan's intelligence. I also do definitely believe that Joan's Oscar was in part a consolation prize for the Rebecca snub, as the awards were and still are politicized in such a way, but I don't think believing that necessarily takes away from evaluating her performance here (because again her performance raises the stakes dramatically so that we fear for Lina's safety enough that we don't buy into Johnnie's explanation even as she inexplicably does). It was more like a one-two punch I guess...
I think he was trying to kill her, and for all we know.. when they got home, he killed her
I agree that Suspicion’s ending was really unsatisfactory and out-of-left-field. However, I did enjoy the movie, regardless of its tacked-on ending. I think that the bad ending was probably a combination of Hays Code restrictions and Cary Grant’s benevolent image, which is a shame because Grant did so well as a dislikable villain.
Me too, I still love the film. It's one of my all time favorites. I like thinking of the ending as ambiguous, in my mind Grant still gets to the the villain.
@@CinemaCities1978 We don't know if he was telling a tale and once they got home, he plotted a new way to kill her.
Your research for your videos is the most impressive on this platform. Great work.
I LOVE this movie!
I think the ending left us with more questions than answers!
I like the ending. I'm a sap and prefer happy endings. Also, I think the ending is actually in line with Hitchcock's thoughts on suspense. If we go through the whole movie suspecting Johnny of being a murderer, there is no suspense if he actually turns out to be one. My only complaint is that when Johnny and Lina drive away, they are obviously doubles and not Grant and Fontaine.
The buildup was wrong completely. The ending was plan stupid.
I liked it anyway.@@xr2863
This is finally up! I had some ridiculous copyright restrictions even though this is critique and commentary. Hopefully, it stays up. Sorry for the black screen near the end. I got tired of re editing and re uploading….
While making this video I think I watched Suspicion all the way through at least 8 times😂 Each time I focused more and more on Cary Grant’s performance. He’s phenomenal! What he does with his face and his eyes is so subtle and conveys all the possible danger lurking underneath that charming exterior.
If Johnnie was is Liverpool who was responsible for Beaky's death in Paris?
@@ronystanleyquintanillacast2178 it’s fun to think he was lying about being in Liverpool.
@@CinemaCities1978 Ok thanx CC, the last scene like a spider embracing its catch. Incredible Ms. Fontaine, God Rest Her Soul
@@CinemaCities1978 Who is the lady with tie and jacket at dinner with Isobel, her brother and the Aysgarths'?
@@ronystanleyquintanillacast2178 that's Phyllis. Her character usually seen as Isobel's partner.
I enjoyed your presentation very much but you said something that I'll have to disagree with you about. The clip that you showed where Alfred Hitchcock states the ending he liked best where he says that Lina does drink the milk and has written the letter and sat (I can't remember if she ask him to mail it or if he just picks it up) on the bedside table next to the glass of milk that Johnny picks up and whistles to the mailbox and drops it in and then the movie ends with Johnny walking down the sidewalk. I saw, yes I saw that version when I was in my early teens on television (I'm 63 now). It was riveting! This was my first time seeing Suspicion and this ending did not make me dislike Cary Grant (who I really like) and it made the movie so much more interesting and more in sync with what was going on in the movie up to that point. It was a real disappointment when Carry Grant leaves the milk and . . . THEN it cuts to Lina WAKING up!!! I will tell you though never, Never, NEVER have I ever seen that first version again - Only that one time. When years later I saw Suspicion again I was waiting for the ending that I had seen the first time BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED - UGH!!! Instead it was the ending where they ride off together (those where doubles not Cary Grant and Joan Fountain) that seems to be the ending that is most associated with Suspicion. Thanks for the post though!
If Hitch had lived longer a good title would’ve been “Going Postal” haha.
I like ‘Rear Window’ a lot. They’re all pretty good. I mean if you’re re-watching them, you see interesting things in every one during multiple views. To me, any Hitchcock film is like an old friend coming by for a visit. Rebecca, N by NW, Vertigo, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, they’re all fun. Griping about Hitchcock movies is like complaining about the champagne.
I love REAR WINDOW. Besides the story, performances and direction, That set is a thing of beauty. If I continue with the Hitchcock videos I definitely want to do one that focuses on REAR WINDOW’s production design.
Agreed, Hitchcock films are the gifts that keep giving. I recently rewatched SABOTAGE (1936) and I saw all these little details I’d missed previously.
SEE the set move in Rebecca as rolly eyes walks along.
agree! We have most of his movies on DVD and re-watch often, they're incredible. Rear WIndow is my fave, the set! the story! the fashion! Love everything about that movie
I don’t know. Another one of my favorites ends on a positive note, The Lady Vanishes, as does Strangers on a Train. Several others, matter of fact, like Rope and Rear Window.
Cary Grant as a psychopath would not fly for fans, but he played one PERFECTLY. The movie was moving towards an obvious conclusion right up the the milk scene. Her drinking the milk with the knowledge that it was poisoned also works. A manner of suicide. The only flaw I can think of was that murder would have been too obvious. Not after pressuring he coroner into giving him information on how to poison somebody without leaving a trace.
Another very enjoyable and informative video. I won't spoil the mood by saying that while I hated the ending the first time I saw SUSPICION, and intellectually know it's bad, I enjoy the movie on repeat viewings and accept that it's a warped comedy about how we misinterpret other people's actions. NOT saying I really like the 'It was all in your head!" ending, but I've accepted it--it turns the whole movie into something much lighter than it should have been. ((If you want a REALLY bad remade ending, see the otherwise excellent Robert Siodmak/George Sanders movie UNCLE HARRY. Actress Geraldine Fitzgerald so hated the new ending she refused to show up for the additional shooting; her character is off screen for the ending as it is now.))
I have always enjoyed this film. Grant was great in the role; his easy and effortless charm explains how he has been a successful con man and thief. It works. Fontaine is brilliant. The ending always left me unsettled and sad. I always wanted to believe that he'd change, but in my heart of hearts, I always knew that he would not, and she would be destroyed.
As they drive off and head home together you know that it's just a return to more of the same. It's all very tragic for Lina.
Hitch always did weird things. In Vertigo James Stewart begins the movie clinging to a roof ledge. A cop walks toward him. New scene! Ya never see Stewart get off that ledge!
I agree with Hitchcock that Cary Grant was miscast. I just couldn't believe him as a would-be psychopathic killer. Any of the other names mentioned would have been better - Olivier, Sanders, Welles - all could be charming but also believably evil. The only benefit of Cary being Cary is you *sort of* understand why Fontaine doesn't just dump him in the first hour of the film...he's clearly revealed as a liar, a gold-digger, an insensitive, selfish lout who pawns her heirlooms, etcetera. Again, not entirely believable that someone so likeable is such a heel, but there are people like that. It's just hard to believe she wouldn't have fled or had the marriage annulled, long before the ending.
I will never be able to look at the ending of this film in the same way ever again. The ending could have been a preview to a murder,it would be ridiculous to think they could have just moved on to a happy marriage. This video has made me feel much happier with the film’s ending
Totally! Because even if you accept that the plot to murder was all in her mind, he's still guilty of some really shady behavior. He's not a good guy.
The ending is very beautiful and pure Hitchcock. Confession by both the wife and husband is the only way for both to live free of suffering. This theme of confession is key to much of Hitchcock’s work (confession is the key theme of such films as I, Confess, Under Capricorn, Torn Curtain, Blackmail) Hitchcock is possibly the greatest Catholic filmmaker to ever live and the spiritual need for Confession is vital to an understanding of his films.
It's truly a wonder that there was as many good movies during that time as there was, with that awful hayes code tied around all the director's necks.
Like a good read on a rainy day, your videos are both a pleasure and a warm comfort.
Another thorough and informative dive. A great reminder that so many classic films were born of trial and error, redirected by test screenings and shaped one way or the other by studio interference.
This is my 2nd screening of this video, and I found the behind-the-scenes outcome just as suspenseful. Always a pleasure, CC.
I’m glad you enjoyed it! Twice!!! The workings of the studio system is endlessly fascinating to me. I’m trying to figure out a way to balance classic movie content with the location/settings content on the channel because I love making videos about both.
@@CinemaCities1978 I love the path you're carving for your channel. No one does the classic studio and star system deep dives as well as you do. I'm not feeling any imbalance, thematically. I think it's your consistent presentation style and POV that makes them feel consistent.
Maybe the answer is a minor tweak to your channel description, if your original focus is feeling confining. Title-wise, I see CC working for you, no matter your approach. Whatever you decide, I look forward to more as you follow your muse.
The amount of research in this video is staggering! Thank you so much! While my initial thoughts after viewing the film was to consider the ending as banal, I now believe it is one of Hitchcock's most complex.
Mission accomplished 😉 But, seriously, thank you for watching.
such a great video essay and also prompted me to totally reevaluate suspicion quite a while after watching it. it's a great 40s Hitchcock film! eerie and tense, and there's a wonderful menace to Cary grant's performance. the ending was something I always thought was an immense letdown, but after rewatching, it does have a very sinister quality to it; something a little too rushed and agreeable in Lina's explanation, and almost a beat too long when Johnny agrees to it.
For years, I viewed that ending as relatively happy. Then one evening, I watched the film and really honed in on all of Johnny's deceptive behavior: his lies, lies, and manipulations. By the time I reached the end of the film, I saw those last moments in a different light. It suddenly seemed very sinister. I believe the ambiguity makes it a better film.
Hi I just found your channel. I love it so much. I am so happy, thank you for all of the content. Binge watching it ♥️
I'm glad youtube led you here and that you're enjoying the content! Welcome!
I love your videos and agree that he superimposing those 2 lines on the ending would be a fantastic ending
have you read the book? If not, I really recommend it especially because it paints Johnny as such a scoundrel.
Another fascinating video, CC. I really liked Hitchcock's idea for the ending with a whistling Johnnie posting the letter. Also, was the scene with the postbox in, Hitch's cameo in the film? Looks like him posting something in it, but I couldn't quite tell. Brilliant insight, excellent background knowledge and all in all a very enjoyable 25 minutes. Top class, old bean! ☺
Yes, old bean that was Hitch at the mailbox. 😊 Which adds to the compelling argument that he was setting up that 'letter to mother ending' he really wanted. I agree that would've been a top notch finale for the film. It probably would've pushed Suspicion higher on the Hitch's and Cary Grant's best films lists.
@@CinemaCities1978 Ahh brilliant! Thanks. I thought that might be him. Confession, I've never seen this movie! 😲 But I've been working throught the Hitch back catalogue over the past year and your vid has made me want to put it on top of the watch soon list!
Whenever you get to it, I'd love to know your feelings on the ending. I took me years to look at it as something other than happy. Once I zeroed in Cary Grant's performance the entire thing took on a more sinister tone. It's funny because I think I did what 1940s audiences did, I watched the film with all the baggage of Cary Grant's persona in the back of my mind so of course I would see the ending as a happy resolution. Divorcing Grant from his image and just looking at Johnny as character gives you an altogether different film.
@@CinemaCities1978 I sure will do! Thanks CC!
Very interesting video, thank you so much. I am now watching Rebecca, and I think Joan Fontaine is absolutely stunning.
Interesting take on this movie and honestly, the ending of this film has always baffled me. Grant's performance is absolute perfection IMO, and a model for future suspense/thriller movies. The movie really also insinuates the character killed his BFF in Paris so the ending where he kills the wife is not a stretch. Fontaine is also brilliant and having watched this before I saw Rebecca, she is way better with this story. I would have been interested to see a screen test of Olivier and/or Welles with Fontaine because if you wanted to make the story more in line with the book, then get another actor. It had to be frustrating for Grant because even Jimmy Stewart got to be the killer in a movie at least once.
Thank you! Love your analysis
It is a very disturbing film, and its being wrapped up in the unsettling, threatening charm pouring out of Cary Grant is what makes it so disturbing. No other actor (and no other director) could have made that film so perturbing. The charm that is there to reassure and make us think that this guy cannot possibly be a murderer is actually what also makes us unsure. A self-contradiction within the category of charm, which Cary Grant auratically embodies (and no actor or star has ever come close to such an achievement). Charm is in this film brandished like a weapon, or punches like a fist.
I don't think that the ending the film finally got leaves anyone who had been paying attention relieved. I went back to watch the film again a few weeks ago, and I must say I agree with Bogdanovich (a film-maker and film analyst I never cared for -I consider him too sycophantic and too 'quotetional' for my liking) that the ending feels more like a deferral of Lina's murder. And I'd go even further and say that the deferral puzzles Johnnie himself, Lina and the viewer alike. I think Johnnie has developed a kind of love for Lina that has caught him by surprise. However, Johnnie does not undergo a Damascene conversion, and that is plainly stated. Neither love nor murder seem to be enough to put an end to what it is Johnnie desires, and what it is Lina desires. That long, stretching arm that wraps around Lina's shoulders in the final shot is utterly menacing and not in the least reassuring. Who on earth could believe that we are witnessing the beginning of a beautiful marriage? I think perhaps this is the one Hitchcock film where the suspense is heightened by the 'happy ending' rather than relieved. We are left suspended in mid-air, as we still DO NOT KNOW whether he will kill her or not... in the future.
While 'Suspicion' is the clearest example of the uneasy, equivocal 'happy endings' of Hitchcock's films, there are other examples where one cannot help but suspect things took a turn for the worse after the closing titles (a feeling cultivated by Hitchcock). For example, in the masterpiece that is 'Notorious', a film I absolutely love, and one where Cary Grant is at his erotic-enigmatic and perverted best, I always felt that there is a good possibility that Alicia did not make it in the end, that she died of all that weeks-long poisoning in the hospital Devlin took her. Or the ending of ' The Birds'. If one thinks that ending through then, assuming Melanie survived, it would be far more plausible to believe she was left extensively scarred and deeply traumatised than that she went on to be happily married to Mitch.
It always astonishes me that after watching "Suspicion," some people believe that Johnny and Lina are on the path to reconciliation. However, I believe this is a testament to Grant's persuasive charm. He captivates both the audience and Lina. To be honest, when I first watched the film as a teenager, I interpreted the ending as a happy one. But, as I rewatched it as a more mature woman, I could clearly see Johnny's true character and his ability to manipulate, all evident from the very first scene on the train. The final scene is truly terrifying because it spells doom for Lina. Even if he doesn't kill her immediately he will torment her psychologically and she will never be able to trust him. I always encourage people to revisit the film and focus on Cary Grant. His facial expressions and body language leave no doubt that Johnny is a terrible person.
You made this movie more interesting for me, I've seen it many times. Thank you
thank you! The story of the making of this film adds another fascinating layer to what ended up on screen.
I've been through a ten year exploration of noir, ahead of the covid years. I find rare masterpieces; but fascinating camera work, lighting, sequences. I don't regret a minute of it. I wasn't impressed by Suspicion, but you're such a thoughtful viewer, I'll have to revisit it.
The Snake Pit is very interesting. De Haviland is having a psychic break-down and enters an asylum. Similarities with Spellbound.
Such an interesting interpretation of the ending of the film as being ambiguous. I completely agree with your assessment, and can now enjoy the ending more, the next time I watch it.
Love your channel!
Thank you!!!☺️
I absolutely love Cary Grant and Suspicion is one of my favorite films. However, George Sanders would have been excellent in the role. Suspicion would have been a great movie with Sanders, and it would have not been out of character to have him be the handsome murderer.
George Sanders as Johnny would've been very interesting to watch.
@@CinemaCities1978 Actually, Grant did a wonderful job being the engaging bad guy. I think Grant is like Denzel Washington, he can play a bad guy, but it makes us all feel good when he is a good guy. Sanders on the other hand, was just as handsome, but he had had a sinister quality about him that was attractive and satisfying to watch.
@@dparks3784 that's a very good point about Grant/Washington.
George Sanders is too obviously manipulative and sinister, without Grant's charm.
It was the false ending that completely marred this film, the book was so much better, and I have edited my DVD to end at the point where Johnny brings the glass of milk. This is much more satisfactory and conforms with the book. Pity so many books are messed about when films are made, it seems that the words 'based on' gives film makers licence to do anything they like!
i agree the book is far superior to the film. I would love a proper adaptation of Before the Fact that keeps its perfect ending in tact.
This was really well done and enjoyable. Thank you very much. I do disagree with you about the ending in the book, which I’ve come to respect a great deal.
Once I realised that both of these characters developed extreme addictions to each other and whatever puzzle pieces they fit into in each other’s psyches, it remained until the end. I believe that was why lena desired to give Johnny everything in the end. Call it crazy love. She come to accept what he was and still loved him with that unbreakable addiction. Also, in allowing him to have her fortune, she was hoping he would stop murdering people for money. It’s nuts, it’s twisted, but it’s brilliant and human and anti-fairy tale and deeply fascinating. I agree with Bogdanovich about the ambiguity angle.
I'm so glad you enjoyed it. I do agree it's crazy, self destructive, obsessive love. The book is very much a psychological study as well as a crime/love story. I now want to go back and read it again. The last time I read it (which was the second time) was for this video and I had this thesis in mind.
@@CinemaCities1978 def do reread it again- absolutely a book that reveals different angles each time- it’s addictive! I’ve read it at different ages and that has made a huge difference. Last time I started taking notes for a sequel (to the book, not the movie). I freely admit though that when I first read it at about 19, I was furious that she “gave in”! Now I see it totally differently. Look how she evolves and changes in that book.
Very interesting exchange. From what l have read about Francis Iles book, the original Lena is somewhat frumpy and not very attractive. Being wooed and won by Johnny was the high point of her life. VERY different from the character as played by Joan Fontaine. The original ending would have been hard to swallow (no pun intended) and a more plain looking star (did that even exist) is unimaginable. Thoughts?
@@c.a.savage5689 Thank you for your response. If I interpret your response correctly, I think you’re commenting on Lena‘s appearance as a factor, and that you’re also saying that the book ending was not believable. Tell me if I’m incorrect. What I took from the book was that Lena was frumpy in an English kind of way - tweeds and cardigans and sensible shoes, plain tastes and horseyness. But that she had an underlying beauty that Johnny often brought out. I never really understood in the book why he chose her to pursue as a wife except that he seemed to recognise her weakness and perhaps that he could always have his way in the marriage, and also he overestimated her financial situation. On the surface I think we’re supposed to believe that Johnny is weak and Lena is strong, because she holds him in check kind of like a wild horse being reigned in. But the last time I read this I saw that she really is a terribly weak person, almost without any self-esteem at all, and this is utterly her downfall. As for the book’s ending, I think I started to say but perhaps didn’t say it very well, that when I paid more attention I saw how she evolved from a person who became very indignant very quickly at what she perceived to be wrong behaviours, but over the years she had really changed albeit by tiny bits and pieces, inch by inch. In the end she was all for Johnny and nobody else, was completely isolated, and really only had one or two things on her mind about points - one being for Johnny to be entirely looked after and The other being to somehow, someway get him to stop murdering people! Her messed up idea that if he has her money he would not have to kill for money anymore leads to her resignation and there is a sick twisted kind of love involved with her dying knowing that she has provided for that one person that she absolutely adores. So the last time I read it I did come to believe in the ending only because of Lena’s horrendous weakness making it possible. And her obsession. In his own way Johnny seemed obsessed with her too- does that seem evident? I’m not certain you’ve actually read the book though - if you have not, you must stop whatever you are doing and procure a copy! They have re-issued it I think- so I’m afraid you’re without excuse LOL but you have a wonderful reading session ahead of you if so. There are very few books I reread so many times and this is one of them. For good reason! Thanks for your comments!
Excellent commentary on a great film. Well done.
Thanks for watching!
Fantastic analysis and editing. Subscribed
I'm glad you enjoyed the video! Thank you for subscribing.
I saw the movie, liked it but when I learned about Hitchcock's "alternate ending I thought it fitted into the whole of the movie's pattern of guessing is he guilty or capable of murder? The scene on the edge of the cliff where it appears that he is in fact trying to push her off instead of trying to fix her hair. Or was he really in London at the time of Beaky's death? Finally answering the question one might have throughout the movie. As the letter goes into the mail slot. Much better ending and in fact ties everything together with Hitchcock's style of movie making.
The negative dynamic moments between the two leads onscreen was actually for real; Fontaine couldn't stand what she felt was Cary Grant's boorishness & Grant was jealous of the attention given Fontaine during filming, since she actually had more screen time, & also felt Hitchcock emphasized shots of Fontaine to better flatter her over him, so all this said it's amazing that Hitchcock & Grant worked together 3 more times.
I read the book "Before the Fact" and seem to remember it ended as Hitchcock described with the wife drinking the milk that she knows is posion but sending a letter to someone giving them the prove of her husband's crime. I remember a bit where as she is dying she feels sorry for her husband who will not have anyone to rely on or protect him.
I see some studio suspensions in your future. A great chance to travel and do some stage and radio work. 😂
They changed the ending of "Rebecca" too, because of the Hays Code. In the film, Rebecca's death is ruled a suicide; in the novel, Maxim kills her.
Johnny would absolutely not change his character and suddenly become the devoted husband putting his wife first. His character flaw is to always put his needs and wants first and to take what isn’t his and to cruelly get rid of anyone in his way.
If you get a chance to see The Charmer starring Nigel Havers in a British TV mini series you can see the same type of man. It’s brilliant.
In Suspicion, I believe he placates her hysteria and she interprets his actions as to what she wants to believe rather than what is the truth and he goes along with her. He had her murder on his mind but that was not the time and the place.
I absolutely love the ending. Always have. And probably always will.
Sensational video! Your clips/insight on the whole "old bean" gave me chills. I've seen this film 3 times now and I never picked up on it! I always wondered why it hit her so hard when the detectives gave her that information. Speaking of seeing it 3 times, the first time I saw it, I thought it was OK and never imagined at the end he was evil. I heard Bogdanovich thoughts after and still thought it wasn't plausible. The 2nd time I watched it I thought it was better and really good but still not one of my favorites and I thought the ending of him being evil was plausible but I still had my doubts. My 3rd watch, right from the start, I had that feeling... that suspicion... he was evil and the more I watched the more I believe there is no bleeping way he is innocent! I believe at the end when they drive off together, he will try to kill her again. Then by a fortuitous accident after my 3rd viewing a week later I listened to a interview with Tarantino and he also thinks at the end Grant is gonna kill her! I absolutely love this film and I think it's a masterpiece!
I went through the same exact arc with my feelings about Johnny. 1st time I watched the film I was way too young to pick up on how shady he was, watched other times and didn't really investigate his actions . . . then I watched again during covid lockdown and I saw just how manipulative he was and just what he was capable of. I think Cary Grant is marvelous in Suspicion,. if you watch him closely he's doing a lot of subtle work to let us know just how terrible he really is.
@@CinemaCities1978 I first watched this during lockdown. Yes, Grant as a villain is all time great! He might be a top 5 Hitchcock villian for me. Totally amazing too he wanted to play this role. Yep my 3rd watch I paid alot of attention to him (hard to take your eyes of Fontaines performance though) the way he stands sometimes is so menacing! And subtle movements from him and the occasional little flicker in his eyes. Just all this without his dialogue and his actions paints he's sinister! I believe people who have only seen it once see it as a happy ending
@@CinemaCities1978 I actually just checked the bonus feature on the blu ray disc and didn't hear Bogdanovich talk about the ambiguous ending, I know I heard it before like you but I can't find it. Is there a link or certain video for it?
@@youngdumbcool9190 yes! the eye flicker and the smirking. When I noticed those the performance turned menacing.
@@youngdumbcool9190 I read it in an article. I think it's in the article linked in the video description.
Thank you for your comments you have a great voice ,and there are many things I did not know about the script ,Why change the ending? a pitty.....from Argentina.
If he was trying to commit suicide why was he taking her along? Was he hoping she'd jump out before the car went over the cliff? None of that made any sense.
I totally agree.
I'll have to give 'Suspicion' another go. I found it very disappointing, primarily because of the ending. I had read and enjoyed the novel (but assumed Frances Illes was a woman until you showed his picture). Thanks again, your videos are a lot of fun.
I think it deserves a rewatch just to focus on Cary Grant's performance. He's doing some really understated work.
Lovely assessment of the movie. I always thought Fontaine’s Oscar win was justified. She was phenomenal in this and as you said won NYFCC award and The National Board of Review.
A great movie…..WITH AN AMBIGUOUS ENDING. One does not know if Grant truly is a murderer or just a player with many circumstances in married life. Was the ending just not a good day to murder wife….or will he wait for a LESS suspicious situation….or is he NOT a murderer at all? Thats what one is left with.
I think it is a brilliant underrated film. I do think that it was wrong that Joan Fontaine Received a Oscar for this role and not for Rebecca. What I love about this film is that there is a giant question mark. Is he bad or good. And even when this film ends you still have that question. I think that this makes the film far more interesting psychologically. Because it makes you wonder and think it creates suspense. I think that this is far more interesting then if they would have made it like the book. Where he is obviously the bad guy. Where is the mystery in that? And I think it is very Hitchcock. as well I think the film is kind of similar as the film/novel my cousin Rachel. IN that film you also have the question. Is he a murderer yes or no. I love that.
Thanks for this. I remember watching it and feeling utterly conned by the ending. It was so preposterous after all that had come before. It made zero sense. Up to that point it had been a gripping movie but ended as a complete dud IMHO.
Same. I think perhaps taking some imaginative liberties with the ending makes it make more sense. 😂
I remember being thoroughly disgusted at what Hollywood did to the ending of "Our Town." Of course, they changed the whole story, tacking on a happy ending that made no sense.
Hitchcock's ending idea is good, but the ending as released works. Ambiguity is good.
The only problem I have with the ending of Hitchcock's Suspicion is that the two people in the car as it drives away are so obviously NOT Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine but, rather, doubles badly cast and with bad hair. I spent enough time in production work and on sets to know that one doesn't want to pay principal actors for scenes one doesn't have to. But, the likenesses from behind in this last scene are so obviously not them, that it's always bothered me.
Yeah, it's pretty cheap and pretty bad. It adds to the cobbled together feeling of the ending.
I agree, I thought it might have been Joan Fontaine, but it was clearly not Grant. I always thought that was cheap. I think it would have made a difference if it was actually Grant in the car.
I had no idea of this discourse of the unpreferred ending and I have to completely disagree. I much prefer the ending it has; the gaslighting, the psychological persecution, the undying attempt at unconditional love. A masterpiece as it stands
Please...that particular ending with two cardboard looking structures riding off into the happy horizon? It belonged to a B-Movie.
This was the second time Hitch was forced to have a bowdlerised ending. In his English period, in 1926, his first great film "The Lodger" was intended to finish with the mysterious lodger proving to be the murderer of young women - but because the lodger was played by matinee idol Ivor Novella the ending was changed to having him exonerated and cleared of all guilt. Only years later, in the 1940s, was there another version of "The Lodger" which restored the original ending of the novel on which it was based - and the lodger really was the murderer... but this was not a Hitchcock movie.
Rebecca was also bowdlerised: in the book he shoots Rebecca after she goaded him into it, but in Hollywood 1940 nobody was allowed to get away with murder, so they had to make it an accident.
@@lyudmila2882 Also in the novel Rebecca had an abortion where the screenplay turned it into cancer.
Erm . . . I just checked with an online synopsis, and Rebecca does have cancer. If she had gone to the gynecologist for an abortion there would have been no reason to goad Maxim into killing her. @@nicholasreid1836
i love Joan Fontaine in this role, her introverted canterpillar who turns into a beautiful butterfly.
I never considered that Johnnie WASN'T the murderer. He had already proven himself a liar, so he wouldn't be telling her the truth. Him being a murderer would be consistant with his character as portrayed throughout the movie. The older I got (I've watched it many times) the more annoyed I got with her lack of assertiveness.
Wow this was interesting! I've watched this movie 100s of times over many decades and *never once thought of Johnny as a bad guy* !!! He was just a loveable, well intentioned guy who always had bad luck! I guess that's the power of Grant's image. I have to read the book because I've always considered this a lighthearted romantic comedy!
BTW I *cannot believe* Fontaine's performance won over Davis' in The Little Foxes!!! WHAT??? NO WAY that was a fair judgement!
I think the ending as it exists now strengthens the story as it being about Lina. She makes all the meaningful choices in the family. And in the end it's she who chooses to see things out for better or worse.
I just don't think Johnny has any motive to kill Lina. He won't inherit enough money to clear his debts. She has never accused him of killing Beaky and so silencing her as a witness does not hold up. He doesn't just hate her. He buys so many things he cannot afford FOR HER. So much of his foolishness is an immature pursuit of her and trying to give her things. There's no indication of another woman. He's a thief but his cousin knows that. She knows but why silence her for that? He would surely be suspected in her death if she died. I just don't see any real motive. There was more of a motive for him to kill Beaky and her father not Lina.
If they turn around, Go home and sell almost everything to start paying off debts they'll have very little but Johnny will still have someone who sticks by him even tho she shouldn't. There's far more motives for Johnny's sake to keeping her than killing her.
One reason not to know anything about actors and not to read their biographies is this movie. Any article or book about Cary Grant will inform you that he never played a villain. So, you kinda know from the start. . .
I can tell by the title, of this video, that you are on the fence about the film's ending.
I always wondered if she was suicidal. That’s why she went home with him.
I always figured she knew what she was going back to, and that included the possibility of murder.
The book is so chilling it would be very uncanny for the endind to be very different at the time
I just watched the movie. I have to say that the ending was such an about turn in terms of plot and character that it made no sense whatsoever and felt a complete let down
I really wish Hitchcock had been able to kill Lina and then have Cary Grant put that incriminating letter in the mailbox. That would've been the perfect ending.
@@CinemaCities1978 It would have been more in keeping with the plot. I felt really cheated by the ending. And I didn't get any ambiguity as some have claimed (ie that Johnny has hoodwinked Lina again.)
Great video analysis as usual. Interesting to see how many fans analyze the endings of Hitchcock films. He chooses so many that are not necessarily satisfying or obvious but make you watch the film again until you discover the meaning or key to the ending that satisfies you individually. Yours was *most* haunting for me.
Even a subpar Hi5chcock ending is better than most movies today😊
100% true
Disagree. The ending does not fit the flow of an otherwise expertly crafted film, proving Hitchcock's disgruntlement. Had a whistling Grant deposited the letter in the featured mailbox as the button, it would be considered one of the most famous scenes in all of film.
Ive always liked the movie, first saw it when i was a kid so the ending didnt bother me.even now i enjoy it but see the flaws.
Honestly though when he puts his arm around her I can't help but think omg he's actually going to kill her
Same.
Tubi added suspicion and many others to their library you can see free!
I called a girl i had the hots for " monkey face " with Cary Grant's accent, it didnt work lol.
I think it only works for Cary Grant 😂
In Spellbound, 1945 Hitchcock….the murderer is punished….but he wasn’t the main character but #2 actor Leo G. Carroll.
Today, of course, we would watch Joan drink the poisoned milk then watch Cary move on to his next vic...wife. I am generally agnostic on original vs. film ending. In fact, the ending of THE THIN MAN film is far better than the one in Hammett's novel. Stories are told differently on page and on screen. Now, do I love SUSPICION's ending? Not really, though Bogdanovich's take is intriguing. I also recommend Iles' novel.
The ending of Iles' book is very sad and tragic. Lina would rather accept her fate with Johnny than believe there can be happiness anywhere else. I would love to see a proper adaptation, as all the things they left out of both versions make Johnny and Lina even more compelling and complex characters
Great analysis and although I agree the ending can be taken as ambiguous, hey I'm romantic, I like to think they will work it all out and live happily ever after. Makes me feel good, what can I say? 🙄
Oh...that Lagonda! Where is it now?
I love that car! It's just so stylish. I'd drive it everywhere if I owned it.
Just how hard was it to make a movie, keep hold of your artistic integrity and please the chiefs?
It was nearly impossible
Romeo and Juliet had an unsatisfactory ending too.
The studio and censors.
Orson Welles would have been so good as Johnnie 😭
Yes! He would've been great. He's handsome and charming but also has an edge of menace.
It had a happy ending and I liked the ending.
Johnny is not a murderer.
When I saw this movie years ago my feeling was the Fontaine character was a complete idiot.
I didn’t care for the ending either but definitely didn’t think it’s a happy one either. Grant was too shady! lol! Wish he had played more characters like that.
As the story is told, the audiences were happy with Cary Grant as a murderer.
I love the ending.
Johnny was a bounder deserving of an utter thrashing.
100%
The only thing I don't like about this movie is that her character is so totally incapable of reading signals or even just putting 2 and 2 together. Character flaws that I personally find irritating. I understand that it would be super easy to be bowled over by Cary Grant, but really. Just because someone is charming and unbearably attractive doesn't mean they aren't despicable. I like the ending. Everything he said to her was a lie so she will just continue being tortured with suspicion which is no more than she deserves.
Yes! I agree with you 100%. Initially, yes, you get taken in by Johnny's charm, but eventually, with all the shady goings-on, your eyes would be opened.
This should have been American psycho
With Cary Grant as Johnny you’re never quite sure if he’s going to murder Lena. That’s why no one else could’ve played it as well. That ending was so lame, didn’t feel real. It definitely should’ve ended w him at least trying to kill her and getting caught.
You and I are on the same page.
Tarintino says Grant was indeed going to kill her at home and Hitchcock used the Hays code against Hollywood and that is why the movie ended like it did
The Producers had Hitchcock's hands Tied.. Props to the DP... The Photography is Beautiful... & Cary is Nice to Watch... But Wrong for this Role... Love Self...Peace...!!!
Not one of my fave Cary films as I’m not a fan of Fontaine, prefer him with Hepburn and Bergman, but enjoyed the vid!
I blame the studio for making Hitchcock change his original ending. The one they chose will go down as tremendously illogical, boring and totally asinine! It absolutely ruined the end of a spectacular movie up until the last 2 minutes. I will always envision the real ending. He does eventually kill her and is caught. Great ending!!!
Oh, I would've loved to see him but that letter in the mailbox and saunter off thinking he got away with murder. What a fantastic ending that would've been.
The ambiguous ending of Suspicion reminds me of two much newer movies that mean one thing, or maybe, something else. In all 3 movies you can make a case for either side. The other 2 movies are Presumed Innocent and Eyes Wide Shut. My husband and I were newly married, and binged watched Eyes Wide Shut( 3 times) while snuggling in his big chair. We slept and woke, and slept again. We loved it- we both thought Alice was a member of the sex club, and she had a right to be- she wasnt promiscuous or immoral- she took her extreme sex very seriously. As the husband, Cruise's character was naive, curious and conventional. He did not belong in a club like that- he didnt have the stuff for it. Our theory is not a widely accepted one among fans of the movie but we both came to the same conclusion. I like movies with " no resolution ". If you want to know why characters act so crazy, my husband would say " because it's in the script".
I love an ending that keeps you thinking as the credits roll. The last scene in in 'Unfaithful' also comes to mind, where Diane Lane and Richard Gere are at the stoplight and then it's over. . .
That's a very intriguing take on 'Eyes Wide Shut.' I like it. I like that view of Alice, and I agree with your assessment of the husband, Bill. It's been a while since I last watched it, but now I want to revisit it
@@CinemaCities1978 O now I'm going to have to watch Unfaithful again. I was prejudiced with Eyes Wide Shut because, I fear, I think Nicole Kidman is very intelligent but I think Cruise is sort of, well, entitled and stupid. I have similar feelings about Diane Lane and Mr Gere. Gere and Cruise have never bothered to hide their natures, and have certainly displayed some inappropriate behavior in public. My bias influences will reflect on my feelings of Unfaithful. I love men( I'm married to one), just not those willing to act as idiots on national TV.
The ending to “Suspicion” to me was controlled by the story & Hitchcock’s style as shown in “Rebecca”.
For an hour in “Suspicion” the viewer is told about Johnnie; that he’s a liar & killer over and over again.
So, at the end, where does the story go? A Hitchcock mystery/suspense film has a twist (“Rebecca”). Where is it in “Suspicion”?
A twist either has Johnnie arrested (one proposed ending) or he explains that he is not a killer (the final ending).
Fontaine poisoning herself due to love (the novel’s ending) is silly. The preview audience seeing that reacted as I would. It makes Fontaine out to be pathetic.
The final ending however, shows that she was right to be suspicious (from the film’s title) and therefore smart. But she was only mistaken with Johnnie’s new information which is the twist.
It should have stuck with the original, but I’m a dark loving SOB. 😂