|
Post by janntosh on Apr 13, 2021 3:49:42 GMT
Here's Johnnie! Considered one of Hitchcock's lesser films and it's not hard to see why. The movie doesn't quite engage the viewer as well as it should. It also seems unwilling to commit to a darker tone that it probably needs at least in the second half. The ending might disappoint some as well as it pretty much makes the entire movie a red herring. Shadow of a Doubt is a much better version of a pretty similar story still worth a watch for Hitchcock fans. Interesting Joan Fontaine won Best Actress for this, many feeling it was a "make good" award for Rebecca
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Apr 13, 2021 4:52:57 GMT
It may be minor Hitchcock but would be major any other director. My Lovely Wife and I got to see this on the Big Screen a few years ago and agreed that it was still better that anything currently at the 'plex. The famous illuminated glass of milk. Is it safe?
|
|
|
Post by wmcclain on Apr 13, 2021 11:45:26 GMT
Suspicion (1941), directed by Alfred Hitchcock. After importing Hitchcock from Britain, Hollywood apparently wanted him to continue making "English" pictures: first Rebecca (1940) and then this. Suspicion has good features and great leads, but is not as strong as some of his other work from the period. As in Rebecca (1940), Joan Fontaine is wonderful to watch, with all the secret thoughts and emotions she expresses through her delicate features. Small emoting was bigger back then, when faces were projected onto a huge silver screen. What is her flaw? Her reason for marrying. She was goaded by her parent's presumption that she would be a spinster. She decided to capture the love and desire of such a sexy rogue. Cary Grant gets to try something different: funny and charming as always, he's also a bit of a cad. He lies, gambles and embezzles. It's not beyond belief that he might be a murderer as well. Now and then the affable mask drops and we see something much more dangerous beneath. The problem here is that romantic heroes must be stalwart and he just isn't. She is the strong one. Does the movie cheat by making him seem more sinister than he really is? I've often thought that, but on the other hand, this is another of Hitchcock's women's romance thrillers, meant to be seen from the bride's point of view. We must come to suspect with her, seeing it as she does. Hitchcock toys with us, making him seem guilty (tension!), then redeeming him with an explanation or plausible excuse (relief!) Repeat that enough times and we begin to wonder: how will it end? Could the husband really be guilty, and will we finally have the rug pulled out? The studio wouldn't allow that, but it is what Hitchcock wanted. More closely following the book, he would have: the husband was a murderer, the milk was poisoned, the bride drank it anyway because she loved him so much, but had given him a letter detailing his guilt, which he posted the next day, whistling that waltz theme. The End. (Or so the director later claimed. He was not above embellishing history). Hitchcock is sparing with camera innovations this time, although that makes certain moments more special, as when we have circular tracking around the big kiss (something like the coach house scene in Vertigo (1958). And when Grant brings the glowing glass of milk up the dark stairs. Mostly the cinematography is the beautiful actors + furniture + architecture. Hitchcock objected to the overly lavish sets. Franz Waxman score. Available on Blu-ray.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Apr 13, 2021 13:09:06 GMT
It is not one of my favorite. But it’s fine.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Apr 13, 2021 16:45:41 GMT
It would have been a stronger film if they committed to the original ending, but the most you can say that it's a precautionary tale about rushing to judgment. It's still a good romantic thriller.
|
|
|
Post by TheOriginalPinky on Apr 13, 2021 21:11:32 GMT
It's not my number one Hitchcock film (or even number ten), but it's delicious to look at.
|
|
|
Post by Spitfire926f on Apr 14, 2021 0:58:57 GMT
It would have been a stronger film if they committed to the original ending, but the most you can say that it's a precautionary tale about rushing to judgment. It's still a good romantic thriller. What was the original ending? I own this one. It's my goal to own all the Cary Grant films.
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Apr 14, 2021 2:54:39 GMT
It would have been a stronger film if they committed to the original ending, but the most you can say that it's a precautionary tale about rushing to judgment. It's still a good romantic thriller. What was the original ending? I own this one. It's my goal to own all the Cary Grant films. Johnnie (Cary Grant) kills Lina (Joan Fontaine) by poisoning her milk, but Lina sends a letter to her mother suggesting that Johnnie is attempting to poison her.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Apr 14, 2021 8:06:16 GMT
For any Cary Grant fan (like me) the film is a "must" because we get to see him (somewhat perversely) employ his unique charm for disturbing effect.
In 1987, when I saw that a TV production of Suspicion had been made I wondered, "Why? Just to give actors something to do?" Then it dawned on me: Of course! They're going to do it with the ending that Hitchcock wanted! Now it makes sense! Then it turned out they used the same ending as the movie. What a wasted opportunity.
|
|