Hitchcock-a-thon: Final thoughts

hitch

After a mad 52 days the Hitchcock-a-thon is at its end. It’s been great discovering some overlooking gems that I otherwise wouldn’t have sought out. But, like every artist, Hitchcock also made plenty of films worth skipping over. And there’s some that can truly be classified as awful. It’s time from one last big round-up. Here is my personal list of every Hitchcock feature film ranked from worst to best.


waltzes1

52. Waltzes from Vienna (1934)

An unbelievably dreary period drama about Johann Strauss Jr that somehow manages to be both sickly and flavourless. Hitchcock was barely getting any other film offers at the time and it shows. By his standards, it’s uncharacteristically passionless.

17

51. Number 17 (1932)

 At 63 minutes the nicest thing you can say about Number 17 is “as least it’s over with quickly.” Not that it feels like it. The jumbled story makes it hard to know what’s going on while the paper-thin, unlikeable characters will ensure you don’t care anyway.

topaz50. Topaz (1969)

There are tectonic plates with better pacing than this Cold War spy story. With hastily written scenes and multiple alternative endings, Topaz represents Hitchcock at his sloppiest and his most world-weary.

jam1

49. Jamaica Inn (1939)

Hitchcock’s tale of Cornish smugglers is desperately limp. The only small enjoyment you might squeeze out of it is the ludicrously camp performance by Charles Laughton as the pantomime-ish villain, who takes overacting to new levels.

under48. Under Capricorn (1949)

Another failed period drama, this time in 1830s Australia. Bright colours and swooping camera shots can’t distract from the hopelessly melodramatic script. A complete waste of Ingrid Bergman and Joe Cotten. And one doesn’t simply waste Ingrid Bergman.

Cham147. Champagne (1928)

Hitchcock called Champagne the worst film of his career. It’s certainly difficult to defend. Betty Balfour manages to inject a bit of fizz as the millionaire’s daughter forced to learn the hard knocks of life, but everything else is flat.

mur146. Murder! (1930)

Who killed Edna Druce? More importantly: why should I care? This thespian-filled whodunit barely functions as piece of drama and stumbles even more as a murder mystery. Hitchcock was still finding his feet as silent cinema moved into talkies.

rich145. Rich and Strange (1931)

Possibly the of the most disjointed film in Hitchcock’s canon. Noël Coward style marital antics for the first half; a harsh seaward journey with rough sailors for the second. Problem is: neither half is great, thanks to the oafish main characters.

juno144. Juno and the Paycock (1930)

A compelling story and strong performances lie under the surface of this early Irish talkie. But you have get past horribly grating audio and stunted, theatrical pacing to uncover its merits. Only diehard Hitchcock fans should attempt.

secret143. Secret Agent (1936)

The great John Gielgud looks bored out of his mind in this early spy thriller. Madeleine Carroll and Peter Motherfuckin’ Lorre both try to liven things up and the script throws some interesting themes in play, but as a whole it’s underwhelming.

torn curtain42. Torn Curtain (1966)

Aside from one tense murder scene, this Cold War spy story is as dull as ditch-water. Paul Newman and Julie Andrews look lost as the leads and the two hour running time feels dragged out. Torn Curtain was one of Hitchcock’s most unhappy directing jobs. It shows.

harry41. The Trouble with Harry (1955)

Some laud Hitchcock’s off-kilter comedy as a success in dark deadpan humour. I find it tiresome. Pretty cinematography and the first of many great collaborations with Bernard Herrmann make it watchable. But only just.

skin140. The Skin Game (1931)

If you were generous you might call The Skin Game a slow-burner. If you were cruel you might say it never ignites at all. While this story of feuding rural families can’t be called thrilling, Phyllis Konstam provides the film with an essential dose of human drama.

virtue339. Easy Virtue (1928)

A smashing last 20 minutes aren’t enough to make up for an hour of faffing around. Isabel Jeans springs into life as the falsely-slandered heroine for film’s final act and gives a simultaneously witty and tragic performance. Why couldn’t we have had that earlier?

paradine38. The Paradine Case (1947)

While not as irredeemably awful as some have claimed, The Paradine Case takes an interesting idea about a lawyer’s infatuation with the woman he’s meant to represent, only to run it into the ground. Great actor Gregory Peck at his most uninteresting.

Down137. Downhill (1927)

1920s heart-throb Ivor Novello gives a strong performance as a falsely accused schoolboy in this a bleak depiction of “polite society”. Shame about the crudely stereotyped supporting characters and the clunky visual symbolism.

smith136. Mr. & Mrs. Smith (1941)

Hitchcock’s attempt at a wacky, screwball American comedy is harmless enough, but certainly can’t be described as “funny”. Carole Lombard is a fiery lead, but the script doesn’t give her (or anyone) much to work with.

farm135. The Farmer’s Wife (1928)

This placid, rural comedy is likely to bore many viewers to tears. While it’s neither funny nor suspenseful, it has a certain quaint charm that earns it a space in my heart. Also Jameson Thomas gives me serious mustache envy.

stage34. Stage Fright (1950)

Even the effortlessly cool Marlene Dietrich isn’t enough save Stage Fright from mediocrity. The film’s claustrophobic climax is an intense high note in an otherwise uneventful drama about deception in the theatrical world.

icon33. I Confess (1953)

A stone-faced Montgomery Clift ensures an unwavering solemnity in this tale of a falsely accused Catholic priest. It doesn’t fully captivate as a drama thanks to the by-the-numbers script. At least Quebec looks pretty.

sab132. Saboteur (1942)

Hitch’s first American take on his 39 Steps formula has some big blockbuster set-pieces and ticks the “innocent man on the run” boxes, but lacks flare. It needed a more compelling lead couple or a tighter script to push it into North by Northwest territory.

fam31. Family Plot (1976)

Even as one of his lighter films, the last project from the Master of Suspense lacks the the joyful corniness of To Catch a Thief or North by Northwest. As a mystery-based romp it serves it’s purpose, but as a final swansong we’re left wanting more.

corr30. Foreign Correspondent (1940)

This big budget blockbuster showcases what Hitch is capable of when handed an enormous paycheck and allowed to let his imagination run wild. There are a few flabby bits that don’t work, but overall it’s a rollicking wartime adventure with a strong sense of historical urgency.

spell29. Spellbound (1945)

They don’t come much pulpier than this. There’s a lot to enjoy in Ingrid Bergman’s Hitchcock debut, if you can get over the ludicrous plot devices. Hitchcock’s spun better mysteries in his time, but how many others have a fantasy sequence by Salvador Dalí?

ring128. The Ring (1927)

Hitchcock masters fast-paced editing and rich visual symbolism in The Ring, also notable for being the only original screenplay he ever personally wrote. It’s a masterpiece in technical terms, but the characters aren’t as well defined as in some of his other silents.

sus127. Suspicion (1941)

Cary Grant shows an unexpected dark side alongside Joan Fontaine in her Oscar winning performance. It’s a excellent examination of psychological entrapment and paranoia…right up until the end. Then it pulls a major cop-out. Shame.

frenzy26. Frenzy (1972)

A second wind for the aging director in the final stages of his career. With scenes of explicit sexual violence, there’s an underlying nastiness to Frenzy that makes it difficult viewing, but there’s no denying its brutal effectiveness.

manwhoknew25. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956)

A solid remake of Hitchcock’s own 1934 film.  While it lacks the off-the-wall zaniness of the original, it goes through the motions with gusto. And when you’ve got James Stewart as your lead the film’s always going to have a certain something.

m24. Dial M for Murder (1954)

The dialogue has a slightly mechanical quality in this 3D adaption of the successful stage play, but a suave performance from Ray Milland holds it all together. Grace Kelly isn’t at her absolute strongest in her Hitchcock debut, but she’s still a smash.

hitch223. The Pleasure Garden (1925)

There’s a lot to admire in Hitchcock’s lively first feature film. There are some slight pacing issues, but there’s sophisticated themes in play about marital mistrust, helped along by a talented cast and an absurdly cute dog.

catch22. To Catch a Thief (1955)

It doesn’t come much flirtier than this. The dream pairing of Cary Grant and Grace Kelly is the biggest draw to this camp, frothy romp of a film. Both Grant and Kelly have given stronger performances, but rarely are they this unabashedly fun.

sab121. Sabotage (1936)

If you like your spy films unrelentingly serious, Sabotage might be the Hitchcock for you. It’s an emotion-driven drama that expertly plays off the political paranoia building in Europe before the outbreak of World War II with great effect.

bmail120. Blackmail (1929)

Britain’s first talkie also serves as a farewell tribute to the silent era. There are a few jarring editing moments as Hitchcock struggled to film his feet in the new world of sound, but the central story is gripping with a superb performance from Czech star Anny Ondra.

lod419. The Lodger (1927)

Many people consider The Lodger to be the first “true” Hitchcock film and it’s easy to see why. Ivor Novello is haunting as the mysterious visitor in fog-covered London and the film is first Hitchcock to explicitly make the thematic connection between sex and death.

marnie18. Marnie (1964)

The accusations of harassment surrounding the production of Marnie make it a tricky watch, not helped by the deeply problematic ending. But there are times where the film verges close to masterpiece territory, particularly with Tippi Hedren’s career topping performance.

life17. Lifeboat (1944)

The self-imposed restrictions of shooting the whole movie inside one small vessel work marvellously well towards creating a sense of claustrophobia in Hitchcock’s last wartime drama. As an examination of trust and human interaction it excels.

manx116. The Manxman (1929)

One of the most unfairly overlooked of Hitchcock’s films, partly because he himself dismissed as “banal”. But the love-triangle story is at its best here, taking the time to make you care about all three of the characters and not providing any easy answers.

inn15. Young and Innocent (1937)

Easy to dismiss as a beat for beat retread of The 39 Steps, but this deeply English thriller is just too damn fun to overlook. The subtly erotic dialogue between Derrick De Marne and Nova Pilbeam is easily some of the best from Hitchcock’s early years.

rope14. Rope (1948)

The “all in one take” gimmick doesn’t quite work in this cat-and-mouse murder thriller, but so much else is done right, it’s an easy flaw to forgive. James Stewart is solid in his Hitchcock debut, but it’s John Dall as camp killer Brandon who steals the show.

shadow113. Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

Hitchcock often maintained that this visually symbolic tale of evil creeping into tranquil suburbia was the greatest of his films.  There’s a few niggling plot points that trip up the story, but the mounting paranoia is well executed and Joe Cotton is a magnificent villain.

toomuch112. The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934)

After five years of dud after dud in the early thirties, The Man Who Knew Too Much feels like a jolt of lightning in Hitchcock’s career. Peter Motherfuckin’ Lorre leads the strong cast through through Hitchcock’s first true voyage into pulp.

vertigo11. Vertigo (1958)

I’m of the minority opinion that the critical reception of Vertigo, initially dismissive, has now swung back too far in its unreserved adoration of this psychological mystery. Vertigo is still a great achievement, but I wouldn’t rank it as one Hitchcock’s absolute best.

3910. The 39 Steps (1935)

The quintessential “innocent man on the run” thriller that set the template for so many Hitchcock films to come. Often regarded as the best of Hitchcock’s British years, it captures a pure spirit of adventure better than almost any other film of the time.

wrongman9. The Wrong Man (1956)

A rare detour into neorealism for Hitchcock in his only film explicitly based on a true story. There doesn’t appear to be an easy way out for Manny, played superbly by Henry Fonda, in one of the director’s more overlooked masterpieces.

reb28.Rebecca (1940)

The only Hitchcock film ever to win the Oscar for Best Picture is a superb way to kick off the director’s Hollywood career. It’s Hitchcock’s most successful film about the theme of marital mistrust as well as his only collaboration with the great Laurence Olivier

north7. North by Northwest (1959)

One of the most ridiculous films in the director’s canon, but also one of his most flat-out enjoyable. This absurd spy fantasy is a joy from start to finish with several excellent sequences along the way: most famously, the crop duster chase scene.

Strangers6. Strangers on a Train (1951)

A superb concept about “swapping” murders expertly delivered in this tense thriller, helped by the powerhouse performances by Farley Granger and Robert Walker. It has been argued that Strangers on a Train heralded in the Golden Age of Hitchcock. Agreed.

birds5. The Birds (1963)

Tippi Hedren dazzles in her first feature film and Hitchcock’s only example of paranormal horror. Hitchcock keeps the terror alien by never fully revealing the reason behind the feathered fury and with a chilling use of sound effects.

van14. The Lady Vanishes (1938)

A film I could watch every week for the rest of my life. There hasn’t been a more sparkling lead Hitchcock couple than Margaret Lockwood and Michael Redgrave. The central mystery is exciting and the wonderful array of supporting characters is icing on the cake.

notorious3. Notorious (1946)

Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman give the performances of their career in what is Hitchcock’s most elegant film. As fusion of romance and spy drama, it finds the balance perfectly. But it’s Claude Rains who holds the film together with his understated performance.

window2. Rear Window (1954)

James Stewart and Grace Kelly are at the top of their game in Hitchcock’s best exploration of voyeurism and mounting suspicion. The confines of a New York apartment, stagnating in the summer heat, prove the perfect setting to one of his most suspenseful scenarios.

psy1. Psycho (1960)

An obvious choice for the number one slot, but there’s no escaping just how outrageously good Psycho is. The balance Hitchcock strikes between what he reveals to the audience and what he keeps concealed makes his most famous film also his best.

  •  

Hitchcock-a-thon: Torn Curtain (1966)

torn curtain

The Golden Age of Hitchcock couldn’t last forever. With New Hollywood on the rise, the ground was shifting.  Now in his sixties, there was a danger that Hitchcock would be shafted by the studios like other old-time directors such as Frank Capra and John Ford. This meant that for Torn Curtain Hitchcock was forced to do something he hated almost more than anything. Compromise.

American physicist and rocket scientist  Michael Armstrong (Paul Newman), travels to Soviet-occupied East Berlin for reasons he conceals to his to his fiancée, Sarah (Julie Andrews).  Sarah secretly follows him to Berlin to get some straight answers, worried that he’s defected to the other side. But Armstrong is, of course, secretly working for Uncle Sam; gaining the confidence of his communist hosts in order to uncover a crucial anti-missile equation. Armstrong struggles to escape the watchful eye of Soviet goon Gromek (Wolfgang Kieling), to get the crucial information back home.

su1

There’s one particularly good scene, both tense and darkly comic, where Hitchcock shows just how long and arduous it would be kill someone by strangulation. Other than that, there’s little to pull Torn Curtain out of mediocrity

Brian Moore’s plodding screenplay is the film’s biggest fault, but the cast don’t help matters. I’ve never quite understood the appeal of Julie Andrews in a non-singing role. Her short, prim delivery makes every line sounds same-y to me. As for Newman, well, I love Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid as much as the next person, but here he just looks lost. There’s a blankness to his performance that leaves him completely unconvincing as a man caught between duty and his personal feelings. Someone bring back Cary Grant!

su1

Actually, Grant was exactly who Hitchcock wanted, as well as Eva Marie Saint for his leading lady, but Universal refused, claiming the pair were too old. Accustomed to the wide production control the studio had granted him with The Birds and Marnie, Hitchcock now found himself grappling with Universal over key creative decisions which also led to to an irreparable falling out with his long-term collaborator Bernard Herrmann, who had composed the score for every Hitchcock film since 1955. Hitch despised the process and later wrote it off as the least enjoyable production he’d ever worked on.

su1

Hitchcock-a-thon: North by Northwest (1959)

north

It took nearly 30 years of waiting, but America finally had its answer to The 39 Steps. Screenwriter Ernest Lehman set out to write “the Hitchcock picture to end all Hitchcock pictures”. He sure as hell delivered the goods.

Advertising executive Roger Thornhill (Cary Grant in his last Hitchcock film) is unsuspectingly kidnapped by a couple of goons after they mistake him for a man called “George Kaplan.” After escaping an attempt on his life, Roger finds himself also wanted by the police after a UN diplomat dies in his arms. On the run from the cops and from his would-be assassins, Roger heads across the country in search of answers with the help of his seductive acquaintance Eve Kendall (Eva Marie Saint).

su1

North by Northwest might well be the most splendidly uninhibited of Hitchcock’s films. No plot point is too ludicrous, no set piece too big, no innuendo too corny. From the scuffle on top of Mount Rushmore to the much-parodied crop duster chase scene, it’s big and bold fun throughout.

su1

The banter between Roger and Eve was some Hitchcock’s more risqué yet and he struggled to squeeze a lot of it past the Hayes Code. Yet somehow the censors missed the absurdly phallic final shot that Hitchcock himself called “one of the most impudent shots I ever made.”

Grant’s at his most bumbling in this light-weight lead role, but he’s still immensely watchable as an everyman protagonist. Saint (who’s still acting today aged 89) makes a deceptively cool femme fatale and James Mason has suave menace as the villainous Vandamm. But for my money, the true stand-out is Vandamm’s right hand man Leonard (Martin Landau) whose face displays the kind of villainy straight out of a comic book.

su1

How does it compare to Hitchcock’s early adventure hits such as The 39 Steps, Young and Innocent and The Lady Vanishes? It depends what you’re in the mood for. In terms of large, blockbuster spectacle North by Northwest is unrivalled in the Hitchcock canon. Personally, I prefer the dry humour of The Lady Vanishes to the innuendo-crammed silliness we find here. But it’s not this is an either/or scenario. Why not watch both of them? And 39 Steps too. They’re all great.

Hitchcock-a-thon: To Catch a Thief (1955)

catch

After a long period of dark and serious films, Hitchcock tried his hand a something fun and frothy for the first time since Mr. and Mrs. Smith nearly fifteen years earlier. But unlike that last attempt, To Catch A Thief is very enjoyable.

Retired cat burglar John “The Cat” Robie (Cary Grant) is framed by new wave of jewellery robberies. On the run from the ever-inept police, he escapes to safety with the aid of his old flame Danielle (Brigitte Auber) and sets out to prove his innocence.

su1

Cary Grant gets stuck with the bus weirdo

In order to catch this new cat burglar red-handed, Robie becomes close to wealthy widow Jessie Stevens (Jessie Royce Landis) and her daughter Francie (Grace Kelly). While initially ice cold towards him, Francie’s attraction to Robie swells after she learns of his devious and thrilling old ways. But when Mrs. Stevens’ diamonds vanish in the night, it’s no longer fun and games in Francie’s eyes.

The driving force of To Catch A Thief comes from the pairing of two dream leads: Cary Grant and Grace Kelly (this proved to be her final Hitchcock film as she gave up acting due to her marriage to Prince Rainier III of Monaco in 1956). The chemistry between them is electric and every line of the innuendo-crammed dialogue between them is marvelously corny.

su1

“You want a leg or a breast?” Kelly ask, presenting him with a picnic. “You make the choice,” replies Grant unblinkingly. Bond would be proud.

While the film can’t be called a “comedy”, strictly speaking, it’s an enjoyable romp around gorgeous French scenery that serves as a great little call-back to some of the lighter films of Hitchcock’s late British years.

The central “who is the imposter cat burglar” mystery plays out in a fairly boring fashion without any great twists and turns, despite all the suave turtlenecks Cary Grant can squeeze into. But when the leads are this fun and the dialogue is this flirty, who cares?

“I have a feeling that tonight you’re going to see one of the Riviera’s most fascinating sights,” promises Kelly. Then, after a pause, “I was talking about the fireworks”.  “I never doubted it,” reassures Grant. Sure, mate. Sure.

su1

Hitchcock-a-thon: Notorious (1946)

notorious

In a way it’s hard to say what’s so good about Notorious because it’s kinda everything. The film offers so much in terms of pure drama. Sexual jealousy, espionage, exploitation, romance, mistrust, fear…it’s a powerhouse of a movie.

The daughter of a convicted Nazi spy, Alicia Huberman (Ingrid Bergman), is recruited by the American government to infiltrate an organization of Nazis who escaped to Rio after the War. While awaiting her orders she falls in love with fellow agent T. R. Devlin (Cary Grant). But when she’s ordered to seduce a Nazi suspect, Alexander Sebastian (Claude Rains), her life becomes an emotional turmoil as she pretends to love one man while really loving another.

sus1

“Don’t sulk. Yours is bigger.”

Both Grant and Bergman give some of the strongest performances of their careers (no mean feat given their incredible outputs) as we watch their characters try to balance their duty with their true feelings.

But, in acting terms, the film’s secret linchpin is Claude Rains, who delivers a wonderfully understated performance. Despite his political immorality and suspiciously close relationship with his domineering mother (a superb performance by Leopoldine Konstantin) his love for Alicia is genuine. It’s hard not to pity him.

sus1

Guys, I’m right here

As for camerawork, Hitchcock gives some of his most elegant cinematography and editing to date, most famously in the kissing scene. The Hays Code – Hollywood’s chief censor – forbade a kiss lasting longer than three seconds, and so Bergman and Grant break away from each others lips every few seconds to speak softly to each other as the gliding camera follows them. It’s one of the most intimate moments in Hitchcock’s canon and, proving how arbitrary censorship regulations can be, it’s profoundly more erotic than if they had held a single kiss for the two and a half minute shot.

sus1

Grant and Bergman regret playing with glue

Without spoiling anything, the film’s final scene is absolutely superb. There’s no daring chase, or scuffle atop a landmark but the emotional drama of the scene make it one of Hitchcock’s tensest climaxes.

Notorious was met with critical acclaim, but perhaps the best review came from Hitchcock’s daughter Patricia: “What a perfect film!” She ain’t wrong. It’s the most tightly constructed film in what was a phenomenal decade for Hitchcock. Unmissable.

Hitchcock-a-thon: Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

shadow1

In the sleepy town of  Santa Rosa CA, Charlotte “Charlie” Newton (Teresa Wright) is over the moon when her favourite uncle, also called Charlie (Joseph Cotten), comes to stay with her family. Everyone loves Uncle Charlie, y’see. He’s charming, fun and generous. And, best of all, he’s not secretly a serial killer.

Oh. Oh, wait.

Yes, it’s another Hitchcock tale of growing mistrust. Our heroine starts to suspect that one of the people closest to her harbours a dark, sinister secret: is her uncle the “Merry Widow murderer”? As the paranoia grows, it’s only a matter of time until it’s Charlie vs. Charlie.

shadow1

While the plot may sound like a retread of The Lodger or Suspicion, it’s executed better here than in either of them. For two main reasons. Firstly, the  idyllic suburban setting is brought to life magnificently by the Great American playwright Thornton Wilder (Our Town) who collaborated on the screenplay. With the setting imagined with such believability, it only adds to the threat when the dark presence of Uncle Charlie begins to creep in.

The second thing that makes Shadow of a Doubt a success is the spectacular performance by Cotten as Uncle Charlie. He’s acts Cary Grant’s performance in Suspicion out of the water. The strong twin-like bond he has Young Charlie at the beginning seems almost genuine, making it all the more ominous when her ideal of him begins to shatter. As Hitchcock villains go, he’s up there with Norman Bates in Psycho and Bruno in Strangers on a Train.

shadow1

When the two Charlies come head to head it plays out as an allegory of good and evil. The duality of Man: the Good Charlie and the Bad.

There are some baffling plot aspects, such as an absurdly shoehorned romance subplot that comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere, or when the detectives drop their investigation of Uncle Charlies after the other suspect meets an untimely death.

shadow1

Hitchcock ranks the film as one of his very best. While I personally wouldn’t go as far as that, it’s still an extremely strong thriller that shows off many of trademarks that make up the Master of Suspense.

Hitchcock-a-thon: Suspicion (1941)

sus1

Will poor Joan Fontaine ever get a peaceful screen marriage? Not if Hitchcock has anything to do with it. Following closely in the footsteps of Rebecca, Hitchcock once again cast Fontaine as his leading lady in a return to his ever-popular theme of marital mistrust.

Against her better judgement, Lina (Fontaine) falls in love with handsome playboy Johnnie (Cary Grant) and quickly marries him, much to her parents’ disapproval. Shortly after their honeymoon Lina begins to discover that her husband has some nasty habits such as lying to her and selling old family heirlooms to fund his gambling addiction. Hey, at least he’s not a murderer, right?

Oh wait. He totally might be. After Johnnie’s bumbling old school friend Becky (Nigel Bruce) suddenly dies in mysterious circumstances, Lina starts to suspect her husband might harbour some evil desires. Might she be next for the chop?

sus1

Chicks dig badboys. Especially murderers.

Suspicion was Hitchcock’s first film starring Cary Grant, who would go on to be one of his favourite actors. He does a great job here, showing off a much darker side to his acting than we’ve seen in any on his films. He can make the mere utterance of “Monkeyface” – his pet nickname for Lina – sound charming or menacing depending on the scene. He’s a real schmoozer.

Fontaine also does well, giving the performance that won the Oscar for Best Actress; although the popular consensus is that she won it as atonement by the Academy for not acknowledging her talents in Rebecca the year before.

sus1

Nothing says “Oscar bait” like a furrowed brow

Hitchcock’s editing and cinematography is some of his strongest yet, a brief a close up of a purse snapping shut as Lina rejects Johnnie’s romantic advances is one of my personal favourite bits of cheeky symbolism.

Where the film disappoints is with the ending. The plot performs an absurdly clunky U-turn that undermines a lot of what came before it. Allegedly, Hitchcock fought for a much darker ending than we get in the finished film, but the one we’re left with comes across as a total cop-out. There are also few other scenes that haven’t survived the test of time, such as a ridiculously melodramatic game of Anagrams.

sus1

Yeah…it’s not exactly subtle.

As a story about emotional entrapment within marriage and as showcase for Joan Fontaine’s acting abilities, Suspicion certainly isn’t bad but it’s dwarfed by unavoidable comparisons with the far superior Rebecca. If you’re faced with a choice between the two, it’s a no brainer.