Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Since I recently watched "The Maltese Falcon," I decided to have a go at "Suspicion," both films being from 1941. 

The glass of milk scene was my favorite part of the film - it was Hitchcock at his best.

*** MINOR SPOILER FOLLOWS ***

I didn't realize until after the movie that Cary Grant's menace is developed by Hitchcock by never having him walking into a scene; he merely "appears" - I'm not sure if that hold true for the entire film, but apparently, it happens quite a bit. Grant's performance was terrific - both childish and increasingly creepy as the film progressed. Will he or won't he? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a huge Cary Grant fan, and he did not disappoint in this film. The milk scene was Hitchcock at his best. I also liked the scene a little before that where the shadows cast in the foyer make Lina look like she's trapped in a giant spider's web.

It is interesting that the film's ending was imposed by the studio and not what Hitchcock wanted. I think his intended ending would have been better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DIShGo said:

I am a huge Cary Grant fan, and he did not disappoint in this film. The milk scene was Hitchcock at his best. I also liked the scene a little before that where the shadows cast in the foyer make Lina look like she's trapped in a giant spider's web.

It is interesting that the film's ending was imposed by the studio and not what Hitchcock wanted. I think his intended ending would have been better.

I've read some reviews about this, one of which said that Grant played his part so well that it could have gone either way, but I agree with you: Hitchcock's ending would have been better, period. 

*** SPOILERS FOLLOW ***

Grant was not a good person even in the best of scenarios, and the ending Hollywood imposed upon Hitchcock is not in keeping with what he worked so hard to build up, and his original ending would have been very much in keeping with his track record (remember, "Shadow of a Doubt" came soon afterwards). Plus, it would have just plain made more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DonRocks said:

I've read some reviews about this, one of which said that Grant played his part so well that it could have gone either way, but I agree with you: Hitchcock's ending would have been better, period. 

*** SPOILERS FOLLOW ***

Grant was not a good person even in the best of scenarios, and the ending Hollywood imposed upon Hitchcock is not in keeping with what he worked so hard to build up, and his original ending would have been very much in keeping with his track record (remember, "Shadow of a Doubt" came soon afterwards). Plus, it would have just plain made more sense.

***SPOILERS FOLLOW***

Agreed! Grant played the role extremely well. Joan Fontaine won an Academy Award for her portrayal of Lina, but frankly, I think his performance was better. Because he played it so well, the ending wasn't exactly a happy Hollywood one, and we were still left to wonder if he wasn't again pulling the wool over poor Lina's eyes.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DIShGo said:

***SPOILERS FOLLOW***

Agreed! Grant played the role extremely well. Joan Fontaine won an Academy Award for her portrayal of Lina, but frankly, I think his performance was better. Because he played it so well, the ending wasn't exactly a happy Hollywood one, and we were still left to wonder if he wasn't again pulling the wool over poor Lina's eyes.  

Many people think that Fontaine won the Best Actress Award as a "make-up call" for losing it the year before for "Rebecca."

The Academy does shifty maneuvers such as this a little too often for my taste, even now. Why is it so hard for critics to get things right? Probably because there's no such thing as "Critic's School" - often, "critics" are just journalists who have been assigned to a specific area of their publication, and spend many years learning on-the-job (and sometimes, they become quite competent after enough time has passed). I'm not sure if that's true in Hollywood, but it is in other areas. How often is it that a bonafide expert suddenly becomes a critic? Not very.

I must again direct people's attention to 1967 as being such an important year in film, for this very reason (Dr. Dolittle, Dame Edith Evans), and for many others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...