Let's be honest: romance movies are cheesy. Film noir romance movies can be down right preposterous and absurd. Life does not go into slow motion when you see your lover after a prolonged absence. A full orchestra does not play in the background when you share your first kiss. And there are no wind machines to provide a classic breeze through your hair when you see an attractive person from across the room. Yet we see all of these elements in love story after love story after love story, and that does not stop the legions of audiences that flock to these films to rekindle their own ideas about love and romance.
In Alfred Hitchcock's Suspicion, many summaries indicate this movie as a suspenseful, psychological thriller. And while that may be, this is as much of a romance movie than any of the other two genres. With great help with the not-so-subtle acting of Joan Fontaine (with the aid of Hitchcock's directing, of course), the not-so-believable writing of Samson Raphaelson, Joan Harrison, and Alma Reville, and the not-so-realistic grand orchestra music that played nearly every time "Johnnie" and "Lina" embraced, Hitchcock's Suspicion is a love story first and a psychological thriller second.
In Suspicion, we meet a charming "Johnnie" who manages to make "Lina" fall in love with him and marry him. However, nearly right after the honeymoon, "Lina" finds out that her Prince Charming has a shady past that includes embezzling money and possibly murder. After a friend of theirs die suspiciously, "Lina" becomes more than convinced that her husband is after her. However, after being given a eerily-glowing glass of milk and a frighteningly trip down a coastal road, "Lina" realizes that "Johnnie" did not kill their friend and that "Johnnie" was planning on committing suicide to save himself from his collected debts and his wife from the shame of an incarcerated husband.
One would really have to look at the movie themselves and not judge it based off a synopsis to realize that this is a love story. The biggest give away was Cary Grant's ("Johnnie") and Joan Fontaine's ("Lina's") acting. Even in the darkest of moments, such as when two police officers arrived at "Lina's" home to investigate "Beaky's" death, you could see the conflict of love and fear in "Lina's" eyes. In the scene when "Johnnie" makes it to the ball and "Lina's" notices him, the exaltation between the two of them leaps off the screen.
Hitchcock makes great use of narrative space in Suspicion. The scene that jumps out at me is the infamous glowing milk scene. The shadows played well up against the few pockets of light that shined through the glass ceiling from above. Of course, the best piece of lighting is the light that emanates from the glass milk. Prior to that scene, "Johnnie" had been fascinated with untraceable poisons, which provided a good hint to the audience that "Johnnie" was going to poisoned "Lina". However, since 'untraceable' is not that exciting visually to an audience. The glowing milk was a screaming piece of narrative to let the audience know that something was amiss in this situation. As "Johnnie" approached the top of the stairs, the milk became brighter, which hinted that the revelation of "Johnnie's" true intentions were going to become plain and seen for Lira (including the audience).
This was a great movie. The over-the-top antics did grate my nerves, but one has to take into account the times that the movie was made in and how that was the standard back in those days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Although I agree with you that this film definitely incorporates many aspects of a love story, I would not claim that it is a love story first and a thriller second. The reason the film was so successful in its narrative is because of the way Hitchcock manipulated the camera to see Lina's perspective and reveal Johnnie's flaws, building a growing sense of suspicion throughout. The intention of the movie seems to be to evoke the sensation of suspicion in the audience exactly the way the character Lina senses it. The elements of a thriller seem to be more dominant overall than those of a love story.
However, I agree with you about the glowing milk scene. I didn't take any particular note of it while I was watching the film, but now that you bring it up, I realize how I was affected by it as a viewer- it really did make me suspicious that Johnnie was going to kill Lina. It is interesting to think that not only the camera can dictate the narrative, but the lighting can be extremely influential as well.
While I agree that "Suspicion" presented a love story, it seemed more of a subplot than the main narrative.
The brilliance of this thriller arose from, as you noted, Hitcock's clever manipulation of the mis-en-scene, whethe it was camera angle, lighting, or shot composition. Cooper claims that eye-line matches are the central factor for creating spatial continuity and thus furthering the narrative, but I think that visual effects created by the lighting, such as the glowing glass of milk, actually pushed the narrative along, and committed us more to the plotline.
The effect of using only Lina's perspective reminds me a lot of children's cartoons, such as Rugrats, where we are shown the world only through their eyes. Benevolent dentists become bloodthirsty monsters, and friendly neighbors become evil kidnappers. In a similar dynamic, "Suspicion" commits us in identifying with Lina, and through this manipulation of the narrative, we begin to see what she sees. This is a great tactic for thriller movies, and I think Hitchcock hit it on the head, especially in the milk scene where Johnny is shrouded in darkness.
On the flip side, Hitchcock also reminds us that things are not as they always appears, such as in the scene where the policeman draws us out of the narrative by looking at a picture on the wall. By doing this, Hitchcock's subtley reminds the audience that what is on the surface may not be what is "real." In addition, it lends continuity to the next scene, in which a painting of Lina's father dominates the room.
Through his manipulation of the camera and the use of spatial continuity, Hitchcock creates a satisfying thriller whose universality draws audiences into the narrative decades later.
I would agree with the comments posted previously; though there certainly are elements of the romance in this film, it was not the love between Lina and Johnnie that I felt was the driving force between the narrative. In fact, their romance seemed to me almost incidental, a necessary set-up so that the actual story of suspicion and intrigue could unfold. The story could have almost as easily worked with two old friends instead of two lovers, and in that case I would be just as reluctant to call it a story of friendship first and suspicion second as I am to say that "Suspicion" is a story of romance over drama.
I did, however, particularly enjoy the emphasis you placed on the glowing glass of milk. It created a place in the film wherein even greater suspicion and intrigue could be fostered and was, I think, a stunning example of the use of narrative space in "Suspicion."
Though I wouldn't say the film is more a love story than a psychological thriller, I do think you have pointed out an aspect of the film that others forget. The film is centered on their relationship, and, in that sense, it is very much a romantic story. Nowadays, people think of love stories as either brutally melodramatic or directly connected with comedy or that sense of light-heartedness. Hitchcock gives us a more complex love story here. First, Lina jumps into the relationship in order to prove herself to her parents. Then, Lina begins to regret her decision when she starts becoming suspicious of her new husband. A solid counter-argument to the idea that "Suspicion" is primarily a love story is that, from the beginning of the film, Johnnie is both a romantic interest of Lina's but also a mysterious and suspicious stranger (he can't pay for his ticket but he's in a society magazine). I believe "Suspicion" to be equally a love story and psychological thriller.
I have begun to notice that a general consensus is developing on the topic of romance movies and I have definitely jumped on the bandwagon. As you noted, these movies are at times without plot, predictable, and cheesy, but still they attract people to the movie theatre. I appreciate you heavy emphasis on lighting providing the audience a way to feel certain emotions that would otherwise not be possible. In this case, the “glowing milk” was able to demonstrate that something had gone wrong. Additionally, I have grown to have a increased appreciation for “looks,” which you described in this blog. Looks alone are able to create a sense of love, longing, and bewilderment that lines cannot produce. The value of the camera cannot be denied.
Greetings Afftene,
My name is Alexis and I am the person grading the blog component of this course. As your classmates point out, your observations about the use of lighting are a a "glowing" :/ point in your analysis. You also do a good job emphasizing the different components of the film, including the sound and the acting. Are you an actor? Either way, thanks for your attention to the film. Next time it would be great to incorporate some ideas about the reading. And please proofread before posting!
Best,
Alexis
I think your analysis of the narrative space is very insightful and interesting. I totally agree with and admire your interpretation of the glowing milk scene and its symbolic representation of Lina's fears. However, in my opinion, I feel that this movie is actually a thriller first. I think that the romance early in the movie is Hitchcock's way of drawing the audience in and lulling us into Lina's romantic oblivion and increasing the intensity of our collective suspicion.
While I believe that strides have been made in creating gender equality, I do not believe that film is a reflection of this change. If I were to watch 100 films, there is no doubt that I would observe a noticeable trend of males having the lead role. Only in movies that are widely considered "chick flicks" do I see women taking a paramount part and even so, the message and substance in these movies are usually non existent. However, although film has not completely caught up with the times, the times have changed the way we, as viewers, see film. Although film is able to influence the way we see the world, our new way of thinking and viewing others lessens the effect of the male dominated cinema.
Post a Comment