Why Hitchcock Loathed ‘Suspicion’, His Hit Film With Grant & Fontaine

by

Every now and then, a skillful artist should take a moment to exclaim, “Wow! I’m fantastic!” And that’s exactly what Alfred Hitchcock, the renowned British film director nicknamed the “Master of Suspense,” did. Throughout his career, he produced more than 50 films and took great pride in most of them. With a staggering 46 Oscar nominations, he truly embodied excellence. His movies also raked in hundreds of millions at the box office. But Hitchcock’s impact on cinema extended beyond accolades and profits; he pioneered or popularized several filmmaking techniques, such as the “Dolly Zoom” and the “MacGuffin,” leaving an indelible mark on the industry.

In a 1969 BBC interview, the renowned storyteller of suspense, referred to “Rear Window” and “Shadow of a Doubt” as two of his most beloved creations from his collection. He expressed praise for numerous other films as well. However, he harbored strong dislike towards “Suspicion”, a highly photographed, top-notch romantic psychological thriller featuring Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine. The film’s quality and reception were not the reasons for his dissatisfaction. In fact, with a Rotten Tomatoes score of 97%, it is one of the most acclaimed movies ever made. So, what was his disagreement? It stemmed from a studio-related decision.

‘Suspicion’ Has a Plot Soap Opera Creators Would Love

1930s-set drama “Suspicion” might not appeal to modern “Psycho” enthusiasts, but soap opera fans should definitely give it a try! This captivating tale follows Johnnie Aysgarth (played by Cary Grant), a charming but enigmatic playboy, as he sets his sights on Lina McLaidlaw (Joan Fontaine). Despite her initial refusal, believing him to be merely after a fling, she softens when overhearing her parents discuss her lack of romantic prospects. Hurt and vulnerable, she begins to entertain the idea of pursuing Johnnie further. However, as they delve deeper into their relationship, the question arises: is a life with him truly an attractive option? Uncertain but drawn in, Lina finds herself succumbing to his charm, leaving her susceptible to his manipulations.

It turns out that Johnnie isn’t the best of men, as her wealthy father had suspected when he looked into his suitability. Despite the early warning signs, Lina was blinded by love and went ahead with the marriage. After their honeymoon, cracks began to show in their relationship. Lina soon realized that this wasn’t the stable, prosperous romance she had envisioned. Johnnie was lazy with no income, living off loans, and it appeared he had plans to take advantage of her father. Since she had already found herself in this predicament, she urged him to find a job.

Afterward, Lina discovers Johnnie has been telling more falsehoods. His gambling habits have expanded significantly, and he even sold two antique chairs – family heirlooms given to her by her father as wedding presents. Unfortunately, Lina’s father passes away, and upon learning that Lina won’t receive any inheritance, Johnnie loses control. His anger builds up, clouding his judgment, and affecting his decisions. Matters escalate when Lina’s friend, who was involved in a questionable business deal with Johnnie, tragically dies. As odd incidents pile up, Lina starts suspecting that her husband is a cold-blooded manipulator, willing to use deceit or even murder to further his schemes.

Suspicion, unlike a turkey, is a skillfully written screenplay brimming with dialogue, yet it masterfully maintains an air of intense suspense. Nominated for three Oscars, including Best Picture and Best Actress for Fontaine, the film was a significant triumph. Initially conceived as a B-movie featuring George Sanders and Anne Shirley, it was only when Alfred Hitchcock expressed interest that the budget grew, with Laurence Olivier and Frances Dee under consideration for leading roles. However, the casting eventually fell to Cary Grant and Joan Fontaine, who had previously collaborated on Gunga Din.

Studio Interference Changed the Book’s Dark Ending, Which Upset Hitchcock

Similar to many films directed by Alfred Hitchcock, the movie Suspicion is adapted from a book. In this case, it’s the 1932 novel Before the Fact by Francis Iles. Regrettably, the film strays into melodrama in its climax, a departure from Hitchcock’s original intentions. On paper, the story concluded with Lina being killed by Johnnie, a dark ending that Hitchcock planned to maintain. However, the studio executives at RKO Pictures were unwilling to accept this, leading to a change in the narrative where the main character eventually develops a sense of guilt. The studio was primarily concerned with upholding Cary Grant’s “heroic” on-screen persona.

As depicted in Donald Spoto’s book The Dark Side of Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock, the director compromised to studio pressures yet spent his entire life expressing discontent over it. It was justified for him to feel aggrieved, as the original ending would have been more compelling and in sync with his signature style. In an interview with François Truffaut, one of the pioneers of the French New Wave, Alfred Hitchcock confesses that he desired to maintain the original ending, where Johnnie offers Lina a glass of poisoned milk, but with a distinctive twist that only a genius like him could devise.

In the original version by Hitchcock, Lina, fearing that her husband will take her life, pens down a message to her mother initially.

Dear Mom, I find myself deeply smitten with this man, yet his actions have led him to take lives, making it difficult for me to continue living. Despite my longing for the peace that death could bring, I believe it’s crucial to protect society from such a dangerous individual.

Afterward, Lina requests Johnnie to send the letter (ignorant of its content) and then consumes the milk, unknowingly taking a fatal dose. In this manner, Johnnie accomplishes his goals while simultaneously providing evidence against himself, ensuring a lengthy prison sentence. Hitchcock portrayed Lina as a romantic who is deeply smitten with Johnnie, even though she knows he’s killing her.

Lina asks Johnnie to post the letter without revealing its contents and then drinks the milk, unaware it’s poisoned, which leads to her death. This action allows Johnnie to achieve his objectives while also implicating himself unwittingly, securing a long prison term. Hitchcock depicted Lina as a romantic who loved Johnnie despite knowing he was murdering her.

Studio Interference Is Sometimes Necessary

Alfred Hitchcock may have seemed eccentric, yet studio intervention is not unheard of and occasionally can prove beneficial. Sometimes, directors push boundaries a bit too far, leading to escalating costs or stirring up controversy without delivering a final product that warrants such risk-taking. Interestingly, several classic movies owe their iconic status to studio interference. Examples include _Alien_, _The Wizard of Oz_, _Good Will Hunting_, _Toy Story_, and _Casablanca_. Even the production of _Psycho_ was marked by intervention, yet Hitchcock surprisingly doesn’t view it negatively.

Revisiting the theme of Suspicion, RKO Pictures aimed to safeguard Cary Grant, whose career at the time was built around heroic roles. Back then, actors were typically categorized as either hero or villain characters. There wasn’t much room for ambiguity. Hitchcock had already pushed boundaries by depicting Grant as a directionless character who found comfort in women rather than facing the challenges of mature life during the Great Depression. It was feared that the audience might have reacted negatively if the star was portrayed as a murderer, so the movie subtly suggests his potential guilt without explicitly stating it.

During the era of the Hays Code, there were suspicions that the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) would crack down on studios, preventing them from venturing into content deemed inappropriate for a general audience (R-rated territory). It’s not hard to imagine why RKO Pictures would want to steer clear of such issues. If the movie had been made at a later time, things might have turned out differently.

Challenging another perspective, it’s plausible that Hitchcock could have chosen a different actor to give his movie a more ominous feel, given that the acting industry wasn’t limited to just Gary Grant at the time. However, such a decision might have altered the trajectory of Grant’s career significantly. It is fortunate for Hitchcock that he collaborated with Grant, as they formed a productive partnership, resulting in box office successes like “Notorious,” “To Catch a Thief,” and “North by Northwest.” So, one may wonder why Hitchcock seemed displeased?

Read More

2025-03-08 03:33