Suspicion (1941)

Charming and entertaining Hitchcock thriller notable for the genre switch.

The film starts out as a romantic comedy, rich girl falls for likeable rogue, but gradually the plot gets darker as Johnnie (Cary Grant) lies and swindles to cover his gambling debts. Eventually Lina (Joan Fontaine) begins to suspect that he is planning to murder her for money....

My only criticism of this film would be the idealised Hollywood version of pastoral English countryside complete with huntsmen, dogs and an eccentric mystery writing spinster. All a little bit too picture-postcard perfect for my taste.

Fmovies: The strangest of coincidences haunt newly-wed Joan Fontaine (Oscar-winning) in this sleight of hand from Alfred Hitchcock. She starts to believe that husband Cary Grant may be too good to be true. It appears that he may be a heartless murderer who may be targeting her as his next victim. Hitchcock, the undisputed master of suspense, does not let the audience off easy here. The film's twists and turns will keep you glued until the stunning final act. Not without flaws, but still another winner from Hitchcock. 4.5 out of 5 stars.

The first time I saw this movie, I was kind of undecided. I had taped an Alfred Hitchcock marathon on TV and I only watched it for the sake of watching another Hitchcock film. The second time though, was in the back seat of a conversion van on a LONG road trip and I had a lot of time on my hands, so the more movies I had to watch, the better.

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Having read about the movie, I knew that the ending wasn't Alfred Hitchcock's first choice, but I thought the final shot was very beautifully filmed, and the ending was ok with me.

Of course, the whole movie is beautifully filmed in brilliant sunlight. I think the only really dark scene is the milk one. However, the theme of a woman suspecting that her husband is a murderer is indeed dark.

The movie is about Lina McLaidlaw (Joan Fontaine) who marries the rascally Johnnie Aysgarth (Cary Grant). She slowly begins to suspect that he is plotting to murder her for money, and it certainly doesn't help when his best friend dies under mysterious circumstances. Fontaine is excellent in her role and she certainly deserved her Oscar.

The movie is really quite entertaining. Many people consider Rebecca or Notorious Hitchcock's best movie of the 40's. I like both films a lot, but something about Suspicion makes it my personal favorite of the decade.

This is a must-see for Hitchcock fans. Full of classic performances and of course, suspensefully directed!

Suspicion fmovies. This is a Hitchcock thriller from 1941, early in his American period, and earned its star, Joan Fontaine, an Academy Award for Best Actress. She's excellent in the leading role, though her performance isn't quite so fine-tuned as the one she gave in the previous year's Rebecca, which this one in many ways resembles. As her gregarious and engaging gambler of a husband, Cary Grant overwhelms her in the acting and charisma departments. This is more or less Fontaine's movie, but Grant steals it with his charm.

The story is is old one about a woman who marries a mysterious and handsome gentleman who's up to his ears in dark secrets. There's not much more to it than that, aside from the little issue of whether or not he's going to murder her for her money. When a close friend of the husband dies under mysterious circumstances, the wife's suspicions begin to literally enshroud her, enveloping her in a haze of nervous expression. Hubby's strange behavior and dark glances don't help matters.

Adapted by Anthony Berkeley and Samson Raphaelson from a novel by Francis Iles, the movie suggests rural England better than most American films; and the supporting cast, which includes Dame May Witty, Cedric Hardwicke, Leo G. Carroll and especially Nigel Bruce, are all fine. Bruce plays Grant's old school twit of a friend, and the scenes of the three of them,--Grant, Fontaine and Bruce--have a rare intimacy, as we really believe that these characters care for one another. The movie's ending was controversial at the time, for a number of reasons. It works well enough for me, but then again Hitchcock generally does.

Cary Grant (Johnnie Aysgarth) was 37 when this was released and perhaps at the pinnacle of his sexual charm (but not at the pinnacle of his career by a long shot); and Joan Fontaine (Lina Aysgarth--not "Linda," as the video jacket mistakenly has it), 24, was fresh from her very fine performance in Rebecca (1940) alongside Laurence Olivier, also directed by Alfred Hitchcock, for which he garnered his only Best Picture Oscar. I don't think this film is nearly as good. It is saved from being something close to annoying at times only by the star power of the leads and a fine supporting cast, especially Nigel Bruce (best known perhaps as Dr. Watson in a number of Sherlock Holmes films) as Cary Grant's friend "Beaky."

The problem with the film lies partly with the casting of Cary Grant, although not in his performance as such. He was seen as such a valuable property by the studio that the proper ending of the film was considered inappropriate and so it was changed. Along the way we see a lot of mixed foreshadowing so it is impossible to tell whether his character is that of a loving husband who is a bit of a rogue or a cold-blooded murderer who married Lina for her inheritance and intends to kill her. We can see how the latter possibility might not work so well since she was only getting a subsistence allowance from the will of her father who disapproved of the marriage. And there are all those dark scowls that Grant manufactures, somewhat awkwardly I must say, to keep us in doubt. What is apparent is that Hitchcock had one ending in mind and then had to change it and wasn't able to redo some of the earlier scenes that worked better with the old ending.

At any rate, Joan Fontaine is very good, lovely, graceful and focused. With this performance she went one up on her older sister Olivia de Havilland by winning the Best Actress Oscar. And it is a bit of a spicy treat to see Cary Grant as something of a heavy, at least part of the time. For most of us, who have seen him in many films, his character has always been sterling.

I must also note that some of the production seems a bit unnatural. Grant wears his suit and tie all buttoned up even when visiting Fontaine in their bedroom (carrying the infamous glass of milk, which I understand was backlighted with a bulb inside the glass to make it almost glow). Fontaine's Lina appears mousey and bookish at the beginning (it is suggested that she was in danger of being an old maid!) but later develops a more sophisticated style. And I don't think Hitchcock or Grant really gave her enough cause for the sort of fear she experienced. The final scene with its quick about-face was not entirely convincing or conclusive either.

Contemporary audiences might wince at the plodding direction by Hitchcock. They might even wonder why he decided to make a movie from such a familiar and lightly plotted tale not far removed psychologically from a romance novel. But Hitchcock always erred on the side of giving the mass audience what he thought they wanted. What they wanted here was Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine together romantically with some mystery and doubt along the way.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Hitchcock's 'Suspicion' starts off as a slow moving silly romantic comedy before switching to a thriller. Hitchcock's style of narrating the story as the events unfold is brilliant as usual. Cary Grant turns on the charm button but it is Joan Fontaine who steals the show. Lina's increasing suspicion, confusion and despair as she discovers Johnnie's deadly secrets are skillfully displayed. Hitchcock maintains the element of suspense and increasing tension very well. However, it is the ending that is a let down and the only reason I can think of why such a closing was chosen was to fulfill the Hollywood 'happy ending' standard. 'Suspicion' could have been an excellent dark thriller had the ending been more plausible and made sense of all the preceding events. Yet, it remains a good job mostly because of the crafted way Hitchcock builds tension throughout the movie.