0:00
for those of you who are joining for the first time uh and uh linda for example linda is asking
0:06
uh will we be able to watch the whole film um so well yes you can so
0:12
we've deliberately chosen for this series um three films citizen kane and bringing up baby were the first
0:18
two uh suspicion is the third one um uh you may uh have recognized the link
0:25
between all three of them which is that they're all rko pictures and that's not a coincidence because the bbc
0:32
have clearly just got access to a whole load of rko films which they've put up
0:38
on iplayer for the best part of a year i mean some of them have been up for a little while
0:45
excuse me but um most of them have still got you know nearly a year to run so you've
0:50
got a lot of time to catch up not just on the films we're talking about but some other really really good films
0:57
of the 30s and the 40s so go on to bbc iplayer and have a look
1:03
um but today we are doing suspicion so the way these sessions work is in this
1:11
case actually i'm going to go first so i'm going to speak for about 20 minutes on a particular theme uh we'll take some
1:18
questions and some comments from the chat and then i'll hand over to rob miller who's a media studies
1:24
consultant and knows much more about hitchcock than i do and he'll correct all my mistakes and
1:30
he'll tell you about some themes that i haven't covered um now when we've done the the last two
1:38
citizen kane and bringing up baby we have tried where possible to avoid giving
1:44
away the endings because we're aware that uh people may not necessarily have seen those films
1:51
and might not want us to spoil uh you know the the the outcomes uh now
1:56
with suspicion um two things here obviously
2:02
the ending is very important and so i don't want to spoil it too much for those of you who haven't seen it
2:08
but on the other hand it's a really interesting discussion point and it's quite difficult to get through
2:14
a whole hour talking about suspicion without talking about the ending so a
2:19
couple of things here if those of you who don't want to know the ending
2:24
could just type into the chat you know please don't give away the ending that
2:29
will give me an indication of you know how uh coy i need to be um and then in the sort
2:37
of tradition of kind of you know football focus or whatever we'll have a bit towards the end where we say
2:43
look away from the screen now if you don't want to know the results and then rob and i will talk a little
2:48
bit in more detail about the ending of the film and also the ending of the book um
2:54
towards towards the end of the lecture so so we've got some please don'ts already okay so
3:00
so rob health warning be as coy as we can for at least the first 45 minutes of the
3:06
session and then it'll be no holds barred towards the end and if you know if you want to drop out of that point
3:12
please please do um so let me get on with my bit of the presentation so first off
3:18
let me share my screen
3:25
[Music] there with me now um
3:33
can people see that slideshow rob can you see that yes i can sir thumb up excellence um
3:40
so the only thing i'm having trouble with now is i can't get to the bit where it lets me go to slideshow play from
3:46
starts there we go excellent good so um what i want to talk about for the first
3:52
sort of you know 15 minutes or so um is the idea so we we think of
3:58
hitchcock classic otter you know everybody he's probably the most famous film director there has probably ever
4:05
been so you know so if we think about uh directors in control of their movies
4:11
hitchcock is pretty much the first person you think of really and he has a very distinct visual style
4:17
so if you look at this still not from suspicion obviously from psycho you know you could pretty much uh you know show
4:24
that to anybody who's ever seen a film in the last 50 years and say you know take a guess at who that film is made by it and
4:31
they'd say you know blonde lighting uh you know suspense drama it's probably
4:38
hitchcock so you know he's he's very he's a very visual filmmaker
4:43
even his promotional shots um you know this is not actually from the film this is something
4:49
that's been mocked up to promote the film um and it still uses all the same
4:55
devices you think that looks like a hitchcock film you know so so he's a very visual director
5:02
which you know might seem a weird thing to say we are talking about film film is a visual medium but if you
5:09
think back to those of you who were with us last time around we were talking about howard hawks and we were talking about bringing
5:15
up baby and screwball comedy and you know howard hawks has a visual
5:20
style of course he does but he also relies really heavily on dialogue and scripts and you think
5:26
about bringing up baby you think about um ball of fire you think about uh
5:31
uh you know pretty his girl friday really wordy talky films where the
5:37
script is really really important um i mean another example woody allen
5:43
you know um okay woody allen's got a bit of a visual style but you wouldn't come to woody allen thinking
5:48
oh the scripts the words the jokes aren't important they're absolutely as important as the
5:55
uh as the visuals so so when i say that hitchcock is a visual film director actually it's not you know
6:01
quite as kind of obvious as it seems and um i always like a
6:06
counter factual so what happens when hitchcock doesn't rely on the visuals and relies instead on the script
6:13
um so hitchcock actually did make a screwball comedy it was called mr and mrs smith
6:19
and i think pretty much everybody agrees including hitchcock himself it's really not his best film um you
6:26
know it and it's quite telling that when truffaut interviewed hitchcock
6:33
there's a brilliant uh interview or series of interviews that francois truffaut the french director does with hitchcock
6:39
where he kind of systematically goes through all of these films and talks you through them um when when
6:46
truffaut asked him about this one hitchcock said i just followed the scripts of norman
6:52
krasner in other words he didn't really do very much other than film the scripts and film the
6:59
actors saying the script and the end result was quite frankly a bit flat and not his
7:05
most interesting film so so what i want to talk about today
7:11
uh is hitchcock's approach to adaptation hitchcock's uh attitude and and links
7:19
with his screenwriters because actually having said all of that intro about his very visual
7:26
film director it's really striking how much his script
7:31
and the process of writing those scripts was really really important to you so
7:38
so so before we go any further the first thing to sort of mention is that hitchcock
7:43
never took a screenwriting credit so again you know we talk about hotels talk about woody allen you know woody allen
7:48
writes all his own films hitchcock never took a script writing credit so and he almost wore that as a badge of
7:56
honor you know he actually sort of said you know i'm not not interested in in that side of it you know the idea of
8:01
actually writing things down but yet at the same time he he worked with
8:06
some really noticeable screenwriters and he almost always took his screenplays
8:12
uh his adaptations from novels from plays and from short stories in fact when i came to
8:19
this uh researched this i was really racking my brains to think about hitchcock films
8:25
certainly major hitchcock films um which are not adaptations there are
8:32
hardly any of them and so you think of uh this is where vlog's going to correct me i'm sure but
8:37
but actually even the ones you think oh you know rear window that's got to be an original screenplay
8:43
they're not they're all taken from short stories or from plays or whatever so so
8:50
he he is really interested and alert to literature literature and and the
8:56
written word so let's look a little bit at um you know how suspicion came about how
9:03
that was adapted and draw some sort of general conclusions from that about how hitchcock works more generally
9:12
so um so i think the first thing to to to bear in mind is that hitchcock is a
9:18
planner he absolutely plans meticulously everything that he wants to shoot
9:24
um so he always claimed for example that he never looked at the script
9:29
when he was actually in production you know he would spend a lot of time before any shooting started in great
9:36
detail but once he actually got on set he claimed he never looked at the scripts now you have to remember that hitchcock is a
9:43
great self-mythologizer so i don't actually believe that's literally true but but the sort of general consensus is
9:50
that hitchcock got really really very involved at that early planning stage and he would sit
9:56
down with his screenwriters and have long conversations with them even to the extent he would take them
10:03
out you know for dinner he'd say even there are even examples he takes some of them on holiday with him
10:08
just so he can have these long conversations about what's going to go into that eventual finished film
10:15
and um and then beyond that you know he's not above asking for you know rewrites and edits
10:22
uh there's a story of thornton wilder you know very well established playwright and screenwriter who wrote um
10:30
uh uh oh mental block rob help me out um joseph cotton film oh gosh yeah i'll google it now while
10:37
you're uh thank you um anyway um uh did he dump the scripts anyway at the
10:43
last minute said no yo complete rewrite for you you know a shadow of a doubt thank you there you go it comes with eventually
10:49
uh and so um you know he wasn't above taking some very experienced screenwriters and saying
10:55
yeah it's not quite what i was looking for starts again you know so he took a lot of interest in in those
11:00
scripts and um more to the point uh he took a lot of interest in
11:08
books in novels in plays and places where he could find you know hot
11:14
properties basically so this is obviously a jokey one where he's pretending to uh look at birds but um of course all
11:22
all studios used to routinely buy up the rights of particularly very popular
11:28
novels and and plays and and hitchcock was really alert to this as well you know he
11:34
would he would he would read a lot of popular fiction he would sort of squirrel that you know information way
11:41
and think okay yeah one day you know i might get around to to filming that of course he's working
11:47
within the studio system so he's he's he's still kind of at the mercy of what those
11:52
studios are prepared somebody can buy so you know again if you think of a
11:57
modern film writer the filmmaker like scorsese you know who might sit on a project for
12:02
decades at a time and you know he really wants to make silence and he waits for the right moment to get around to that
12:08
wasn't quite like that for hitchcock you know so suspicion for example came about because uh he was having lunch with an
12:16
executive at rko and uh i think the rko guy was pitching something else to him and he happened to
12:22
mention that they'd got the rights to this book and hitchcock had read the book years before and uh you know
12:28
something that he'd got in the back of his mind that's something that he would like to make and you know the penny dropped and the two things
12:34
came together i'll come back to that in a bit more detail in a minute but um so then you sort of think okay so
12:41
if hitchcock is alert to these properties what is it within them that that interests him and i would say there are
12:48
kind of two things really here so one is books that contain within them
12:55
visual set pieces so things you know particular scenes particular images
13:00
that hitchcock can come back to and elevate above the kind of words on the page into
13:07
something that's purely cinematic and i think the other thing that interests him is a kind of central
13:13
idea in the book usually just one thing one little sort of uh you know turning
13:20
point one pivotal thing you know uh what what if the wrong man
13:25
got convicted or the wrong man got pursued by the law you know what if somebody was in the wrong place at the
13:32
wrong time what if uh two strangers met and plotted a murder together you know just just
13:38
one little quirky idea that was enough to kind of build a whole story around and um
13:46
and again let's bring this back a bit so if that's what hitchcock is looking for in uh books and in plays
13:54
um it's interesting on those rare occasions when he does start from scratch so um he worked with a a
14:02
screenwriter called ernest lehmann this is in the sort of late 50s and um they were adapting i think it
14:08
was a hammond innis book or they were trying to and they were getting absolutely nowhere
14:13
and um hitchcock said you know what let's just leave this alone for a bit and let's just take some
14:18
time out and just hang out together and um and maybe try and you know construct something
14:24
from scratch and and lehman said we know what i'd like to do i'd like to write the ideal the absolute archetypal
14:32
hitchcock film because obviously by this stage you know hitchcock's style is really really
14:37
well known and um lehman and hitchcock sit down and they construct this whole film basically
14:44
around three ideas so the idea that they want to have a murder in the uh un headquarters
14:52
but they want to have a finale on mount rushmore and they'd read they both read this this
14:58
newspaper article about the creation of a fake secret agent so somebody who
15:04
had an identity uh that was made up in order to kind of act as a decoy uh in
15:11
espionage and of course that film then became north by north west um but interesting that you know again
15:17
those two elements they just started with okay we want to start here in the un we want to end here in mount rushmore
15:24
and in the middle we want this quirky thing about mistaken identity and so let's come back to suspicion
15:32
then because you'll find all of those things in suspicion um so um i'm going to skip ahead a bit
15:41
actually because yes chris can i just say that i think um there's a bit of feedback coming back from your
15:46
microphone i don't know if you've got your oh okay i can't hear that at my let me um
15:52
disguise people sort of saying that on the chat that it's a bit a little bit yeah okay i wonder what i can do though
15:57
because um uh obviously i can't mute myself because
16:04
then they'll be able to yeah no i just don't know whether you've got your notes close to the microphone and when you know maybe it's rustling
16:10
from my papers sorry i'll move them over here although it does mean i'm gonna have to look over here now so apologies
16:15
uh if that's the case um so uh let's let's go on a bit
16:23
from current side there you go can people see um cary grant on matt rushmore there and he's has the rustling stopped
16:31
fiona sounds good to me okay good i'll play one then so um
16:38
so i'm gonna come back to those in a minute so um uh yeah so the the the adaptation of
16:45
suspicion so it came uh soon after um hitchcock's work on uh
16:51
rebecca now part of the reason for putting this slide up is it's again quite interesting i think in as
16:57
much as you won't necessarily be able to see all the detail here but you know this is a kind of fairly
17:03
familiar layout for a poster you've got the title you've got the actors names and then you
17:08
know in quite big text you've got alfred hitchcock down here um and then you've got the producer's name
17:14
david selznick and here you've actually got the name of daphne du maurier because rebecca was adapted because it was an
17:21
incredibly popular book and daphne de mourier at that time was a very popular and well-known
17:27
author so let's go on to suspicion now here are two posters for suspicion
17:33
now again uh on this slide i'm not expecting you to be able to read absolutely all the detail but
17:38
um trust me when i say that the author of the book on which suspicion was based is
17:45
absolutely nowhere to be seen on either of these posters alfred hitchcock of course is right up
17:51
front the actors of course are right up front interestingly i noticed that you just noticed this myself actually
17:57
in very small print on this right hand one it even mentions the people who wrote the screenplay of suspicion
18:04
and but nowhere does it mention the actual author of the book on which it's based
18:09
um and part of that plays back to like i say hitchcock's idea that
18:14
you know once he has digested the original work it almost becomes of little importance
18:22
to him um now obviously he doesn't design those posters but but you know everybody's going in the same
18:28
direction everybody's thinking this is a hitchcock film it's not a daphne de maurier film or a
18:34
francis isles films i'll come on to and i thought this quote was quite interesting as well obviously again
18:39
talking later about the birds but i read it only once and very quickly at that so the idea that i just forget about the
18:46
book and i start to create cinema so let's look about that let's look at the book that created
18:52
the the thing that is suspicion so it's called before the fact and it's by francis isles now francis
18:58
isles uh is if you're a crime fan you probably still know francis isles he was
19:04
certainly very big in the 30s um he went under various other
19:09
um as this cover suggests he was the also the author of malice of forethought which is you know has been adapted
19:16
several times as well and this was a book that hitchcock read and admired and as i say
19:21
filed away as one that he would come back to and again largely because it has this kind of idea
19:28
of you know this central premise of the the beleaguered wife and and the
19:35
the possibility of murder let's just say that uh for now without giving any spoilers away
19:40
now as i say rko already owned actually the rights to this so there was a this uh you know coincidental lunch
19:46
where hitchcock said oh before the fact i like that can i can i get on board apparently before
19:52
hitchcock uh became involved and it became an a picture you know a big proper big budget picture
19:58
it was going to be a b movie uh with george sanders in it which i have to say as a george
20:04
sanders phone i kind of wish that that that version existed as well because that would be really really
20:10
interesting um but anyway hitchcock uh said well great that you've got it rko
20:16
actually already had a script ready to go um and hitchcock said
20:21
no no thanks i'll bring my own team in on this and so who was that team so joan
20:27
harrison now she'd already got a screenwriting credit on rebecca and she would go on to write foreign
20:34
correspondent as well now joan harrison's an interesting uh figure because she
20:39
kind and again this is very typical of hitchcock's kind of approach to
20:44
collaborators generally and writers in particular joan harrison as hitchcock tells it really started out
20:51
as kind of his secretary or you know in a kind of very supporting role which is very dismissive for
20:57
somebody who you know ended up getting academy award nominations for their writing
21:02
second person on the bill alma revel now those of you who don't know you may even
21:08
guess from this particular photo alma revel is mrs alfred hitchcock and she played an absolutely
21:14
key role not just on suspicion but many other films as well quite often uncredited where she had a
21:21
kind of editing role you know she she could help hitchcock take those books and take
21:27
those plays and distill them down into something that he could film so he had he had harrison and rebel but
21:34
then he also brought in somebody called samson raffleson now he was a very very experienced
21:40
hollywood screenwriter he'd worked with ernst lubich i think he was a scriptwriter on the original jazz
21:47
singer the 1927 first ever talking picture really really experienced
21:52
and again this is typical of hitchcock that he he has collaborators who help him kind of
21:58
distill this down to something manageable then he brings in a really sort of classy hollywood
22:04
writer who can turn it into a really good screenplay for him
22:09
and again through a process of kind of long discussions not the pair of them sitting over a
22:15
typewriter but rifleson sort of saying you know what kind of film do you want hitch then he'd go away
22:20
and write it apparently hitchcock would then pretty much kind of flick through the the the
22:25
script that had come back and just kind of in a few minutes give it back say yep trust you to know what you're doing this
22:31
is great you know and then he would take it on set and then he would turn it into a film and a rifle only ever worked with
22:37
hitchcock once which again is very typical of hitchcock he had some people that he collaborated with time
22:43
and time again but but very few scriptwriters who uh you know stayed with him three i mean
22:50
it was a long career but you know four four films was a good run if you were with hitchcock
22:56
so i i'm just aware of time because i want to hand over to rob in a minute so um what was the process of adaptation it
23:03
was in some respects quite typical so a couple of things happened um first of all uh you know things like
23:10
supporting characters were excised from the book you know there are kind of incidents
23:16
and characters in the book that you won't find in the film i mean that's fairly typical of any adaptation you you'll find that all the
23:22
way through but having said that having read before the fact now i think this is very much
23:28
a uh based on in other words you will find lots of
23:34
dialogue lots of characters lots of things that are in the original book which make it into the finished
23:40
film rather than let's say an inspired by you know where actually the finished
23:46
film bears no relation to the original source material you get that quite often
23:51
in films as well this is definitely a based on but um
23:56
i'm going to uh cut through now because i'm running out of time on this one but of course the the
24:02
real crunch in this is that the original book is really much darker and much harder and much more
24:09
psychologically uh challenging than the finished film
24:14
um it's really quite grim the original book actually i mean it's it's quite a hard read and
24:20
not just because it's a little bit outdated in its kind of you know sexual politics and other things like that you
24:26
know it really puts you in the mind of some really quite uh disturbed people which i don't think
24:32
you really get in the finished film by any stretch you know so it has more ambiguity
24:38
it's rob will come on to this in a minute it's very much from lena's point of view as well which uh again is an interesting
24:46
read across to the final film um and um
24:52
and the build up as well so again we're not giving too much away the ending of the book is alluded to
24:58
in the very first paragraph in fact even the very first line of the book so so it isn't
25:06
in that classic whodunit style it's actually uh we've already given us all the information where are you going to take
25:12
us next suspicion the film doesn't have that same kind of trajectory it it operates in a totally different
25:19
way and again francois truffaut i think is quite generous to the adaptation because he says uh well
25:27
look you know i know the film and the book have ended up in certainly different places but you know actually i don't quite like the
25:33
film says trufo because it's less dramatic than the book you know you've created something that feels
25:39
intrinsically different so this original book which truffaut had also read and also enjoyed um
25:46
i mean again let's come on to the discussion because does it i mean even if you haven't read the book you know does suspicion stand
25:53
up as a piece of melodrama i do wonder so so i'm just going to draw a few sort
26:00
of conclusions uh before i hand over to the questions and to rob so so so hitchcock would take uh
26:08
books novels plays and he would use them almost like a sculpture would regard a
26:13
block of stone you know it was a kind of interesting source material but what he really wanted to get to was
26:20
the hitchcock products you know so francis isles we can forget about him patricia highsmith she might get her
26:26
name on the poster but the final product isn't going to be her thing it's going to be hitchcock's
26:33
thing robert block the author of psycho you know he was around when psycho was
26:38
being made did hitchcock invite him to get involved in the film or to collaborate on screenplay no
26:44
he got in his own guy to do it instead so so the author is not the most important thing for hitchcock the most
26:50
important thing is where in that original source material can he find those things
26:56
that are absolutely archetypal him you know those those moments when uh you
27:02
know somebody can come up in a staircase somebody can come up a staircase in a sinister manner
27:08
or or this kind of central conceit of you know what's going through the wife's
27:14
mind uh you know what should we think about cary grant here looking much more sinister
27:20
than he normally does you know and those those initial ideas are there in the book and just enough for hitchcock to hook
27:27
you know an interesting film around um so let's leave it there uh i'm going to
27:34
stop sharing my screen so i can see uh all the things people have been saying on chat which i've not been able
27:39
to hopefully not just can you please stop rusting your paper will i follow you um
27:44
and let's let's have a quick look uh now just see um if there's any things we
27:51
want to pick up here so suspicion builds throughout the movie the strongest strongest near the end says philip that's an
27:58
interesting i mean that is kind of what you would expect from a suspense movie you would expect it to build up
28:04
gradually i mean despite what i said about the opening paragraph of the book once that shock of wow you've just told
28:12
me that is over actually the book itself is a very slow burn as well actually and you know very
28:18
little happens at first and then gradually more and more does um so that's interesting that's
28:24
interesting you find that it kind of builds up um uh grant's ambivalent performance
28:31
um are are you still suspicious of him despite the user well again we're too early for spoilers but
28:37
but you know rob will come on to this in a minute that the casting is is of course really interesting in
28:42
this isn't it because you've got cary grant who again at this stage in his career is already
28:48
you know mr smooth mr uh charming mr attractive how could he not be he's carrie grant
28:54
you know um and so casting him in this ambiguous role and again uh you know the the johnny
29:00
ogarth character in the book uh is also you know a kind of um you
29:06
know johnny uh kind of come lately kind of character you know he's he he's a
29:12
charming character although you know gets much grimmer much quicker i think in the book but so but
29:18
that's interesting um okay i can't see any other um
29:24
uh a few more up there no okay let's uh let's go on to uh
29:31
rob rob do you want to pick up any of those points that i just made and then go on to your well on the suspense part of it i think
29:38
whoever made that comment is absolutely spot on for me it's you know i love it because
29:43
it's cary grant and it's hitchcock but for me it's it's suspicion is quite unlike a lot of hitchcock films
29:49
it kind of exists on a on a level of tension throughout there's almost like this string of tension there's not these huge
29:57
sort of you know huge dramatic moments that that underpin for me a lot of hitchcock films
30:02
there's that sort of slow building attention almost like a wire of tension that exists as you say until about sort
30:09
of you know 10 or 15 minutes from the end um i appreciated your comments by the way um
30:14
talking about my favorite uh hitchcock film north by northwest and to understand the sort of storyline
30:21
of suspicion linking with that it weirdly made me think of my film studies tutor at
30:26
university bless him a guy called raymond durgnat who was a an authority on the french new wave on
30:32
truffaut and his colleagues at the coyote cinema and he always said that um the hitchcock
30:38
you know working in classical cinema you know the way the best way to understand hitchcock and that classic
30:44
three-act structure was really simple it was you know act one get your hero up
30:51
a tree act three throw rocks at him act three get him down again and i loved
30:57
your description of of the un set piece uh mistaken identity mount rushmore
31:03
you know that's a perfect way of analyzing i think a hitchcock film and i think suspicion can be can be analyzed in exactly the same way
31:11
and also i think your comment about um alma you know she was you know she was so underrated i think i've mentioned
31:17
this before and and her role in psycho was absolutely pivotal completely
31:23
pivotal and as you say you know she's almost overlooked because she was his misses i mean to be fair to
31:31
him i mean when he got his lifetime uh oscar he did say there were four people
31:37
who were really important in my life and basically all four of them were alma you know his wife
31:43
his screenwriter he did actually acknowledge that he was she was the screenwriter the mother of his daughter and uh
31:49
whatever the fourth category she fell into so he kind of came back good in the end but yeah really underrated
31:55
while you know to go from sort of like yeah she made me breakfast uh yes she was a really clever colleague
32:01
you know as you say it took him a while all right i want to do a bit linking with what chris was saying i'm going to
32:07
talk a little bit about the contextual background to the film um and then if i've got time a little bit an auto i'm not going to repeat the
32:13
stuff we did when we had the hitchcock session i want to link the alter stuff specifically
32:20
um to suspicion and then weave in characters and representation that's
32:25
kind of not a bad start the whole sort of you know you've talked about cary grant and uh you know he's the smoothie
32:32
you know surely surely he couldn't be uh cast as a murderer um i mean his his status at the time was
32:39
was quite significant in terms of the the roles he'd been in but i'm going to suggest you this film
32:45
you know he was flexible you know he was he was quite he showed a degree of flexibility
32:50
and adaptability and the whole joan fontaine thing you know every time i look at her you know you're
32:55
probably gonna pan me for this chris but i think girl next door you know she's kind of almost like the
33:00
the superstar that was the girl next door and even when she stepped up to to to get the award for for best oscar
33:08
performance with with i think gary cooper had won the best oscar that um was it
33:13
sergeant york that yeah sergeant york that year um she really comes across as the girl
33:18
next door and i'm amazed that that she was the only person in hitchcock films that actually won that performance
33:25
award obviously as you say there were lots of other awards um so that was really a start i wanted
33:31
to make sort of talking about cary grant and joan fontaine but i'm going to link you know your stuff was on scripts and and i'm
33:38
going to say if there was an award again no spoilers if there was an award for the most
33:43
far-fetched script that pushed th the the audience to the limit then suspicion would be up there you
33:50
know it'd be nominated for an academy award um and i'm gonna sort of you know talk about suspicion
33:56
and the willful suspension of disbelief you literally have to suspend your
34:01
disbelief you know it's not a science fiction film it's not a a horror film but it's an
34:07
astonishing script in many ways that that pushes you to the limit um similar to the lodger um the whole sort
34:13
of the silent film the lodger is he or isn't a killer is he or isn't a killer that that's
34:19
the sort of you know question that i think you mentioned it you talked about the whole sort of um
34:24
narrative enigma aspect the i think the phrase you used was the possibility of murder and the lodger
34:31
which was also a hitchcock film a silent film before has that possibility of murder
34:36
so you know we've got a film we've got a film about i'll be careful here how i say this
34:42
we've got a film about a a spinster who runs off with a charming playboy
34:47
who turns out to be a penniless chronic gambler a liar he lies like lying is his day job
34:54
he's completely dishonest to to make her think that he may or may not be
35:00
plotting to kill her um i'd like to give you a personal response my partner and i
35:06
watched this um in the run-up to this session i've seen the film obviously several times um it's really interesting a
35:12
contemporary point of view on on the on the plot lines and the narrative as it progresses
35:17
um i'm going to read more or less what she said um except i'm going to describe it in the third person um
35:24
i know some of you haven't seen it so i'm not giving anything away here by saying that that my partner was very angry at lena
35:31
that the joan fontaine character she was very angry at her for constantly forgiving johnny his many
35:38
many misdemeanors throughout the film and the booming negative messages this sent out the time
35:44
about the importance of marriage union no matter what you know it's almost like she she
35:50
absolutely has to get married and it doesn't matter that he's a gambler he's penniless
35:57
he chronically lies um there's something deeply wrong about him she just feels the pressure
36:02
to get married so we talked a lot about the institution of marriage uh quite a lot you know when we watch
36:09
this and you've got the sort of twist at the end and she also suggested that you know and again no spoilers
36:16
that surely hitchcock fans read what chris was saying about you know he's he's in many ways his
36:22
predictability is an auteur there's always going to be a twist but she didn't get it my partner watched it
36:28
for the first time and she didn't get the twist so i think that was interesting in terms of like
36:34
you know a primitive spectator coming to the film for the first time um if i may
36:41
um as chris did i want to just slow slow it down a bit and just show you a few images from the film and
36:48
just talk you through things like character representation a little
36:54
bit about sort of hitchcock and the alter just to get a feel for it again i stress
36:59
um with without giving away any spoilers so um i suspect
37:06
um i'm gonna have the same issue here with chris trying to find the uh maximizing my here we go um you have to
37:14
you have to grab it there we go so um i'll move through those posts as we've seen posted there we go this
37:19
year's okay so there's joan fontaine collecting the award with with gary cooper
37:24
um she wasn't a massive superstar for me but it was a an astonishing performance
37:31
it really was a tour de force performance um but she was pathetic as a character
37:36
she was absolutely an utterly pathetic um
37:41
she angered us in terms of i know this was back in the day but her absolute forgiveness of him
37:48
and everything he stood for and everything he did right until the end and and again you
37:54
know there will there will be no spoilers or perhaps there might be during the chat at the end um so we've got this delightful actress
38:01
in joan fontaine playing this completely weak pathetic character and i believe i've said before that my
38:08
personal opinion is um that an auteur trope of hitchcock is incredibly weak character
38:14
representation both male and female and for me johnny and lena are deeply pathetic characters
38:22
in terms of in terms of their in terms of their values and how they're they're more than happy to sort of put
38:28
their values aside uh to get what they want he wants money she wants love and security
38:36
all right so this is the the rather german expressionist poster uh for the lodger this is the sort of
38:41
film i talked about earlier the silent film that also asks um is he or is he not a killer
38:48
um i'm afraid i couldn't resist this um as i look at it again by complete
38:54
accident even the parallel lines are similar to our friend nosferatu
39:00
and the very sinister johnny mounting the stairs um with a glass of milk
39:07
that was illuminated by by hitchcock to make it look sinister um i've never seen carrie grant look
39:14
like that you know he i mean let's find this particular image i mean he he's sculpting doorways he in this film
39:21
he's sculpting doorways like nosferatu he played a character and his versatility as an actor for me
39:28
really came through from from the screwball comedy actor uh the romantic lead
39:34
to this very very sinister dark man who as chris rightfully has said if you
39:40
read the book it's very very very grim indeed but you know you've got moments where you think
39:46
goodness gracious me look how hitchcock is framing him um as very sinister you know skulking
39:51
doorways but also the love interest you know he's also the love interest you've got the
39:58
classic um excuse me you've got the classic sort of filter here over the lens i mean i was
40:04
watching um the quiller memorandum last night and even in the 60s the sort of you know the sort of filters they used
40:10
to put over key scenes you know that were deeply romantic and here
40:16
you have you have lena deeply in love with johnny um
40:22
here is a scene that that's one of my favorite scenes uh uh the the again no spoilers uh the general
40:29
um lena's overbearing father as a wedding gift uh donates these two antique chairs that
40:38
are worth loads of money johnny sits on them as the playboy he is
40:43
and then she comes home from work one day to find out that he sold them
40:48
uh this film i know it was briefly wretched mentioned earlier again there were similarities for me
40:55
um with the sort of brooding characters uh particularly played obviously uh in
41:01
rebecca so you've got the lodger you've got rebecca you've got these very similar films
41:07
and then you've got this and i'm going to show you this clip if we've got time we have very very shortly this is lena
41:15
first gazing upon upon johnny on the train reading a book
41:22
on child psychology wearing glasses and i'm gonna do that little bit on glasses in a minute
41:28
suggesting obviously the whole hitchcock glasses thing um i'm going to show you a still in a
41:34
minute if i've got time of madeleine carroll in 39 steps with her glasses on um when robert dona approaches her she
41:41
takes her glasses off um there's that sort of symbolism for me in hitchcock and glasses
41:48
that runs through suspicion she's very bookish she is uh intelligent she's probably
41:55
reading a book on child psychology because you know she's had this very overbearing upbringing and she's
42:00
probably trying to find out why she's the person she is then suddenly this beautiful man
42:06
rocks up in the train next to her or rather opposite there we go so there's madeline carroll i know it's
42:11
it's not a particularly good image but there's madeleine carroll um with glasses on
42:17
robert dona approaches her and suddenly um the glasses are removed and this has
42:24
been repeated throughout a lot of hitchcock films here we have igri bourbon in spellbound
42:31
um we have mitch in um vertigo with her glasses on uh we have
42:38
this particular film which i thought was fantastic strange on the train we have we have the
42:45
the girl who's obsessed with the macabre and the girl who's obsessed with sex and
42:51
in the middle we have the brilliant mrs wilson from rope who's kind of you know trying
42:56
to relive her very vivacious past um but the glassiest thing is very symbolic
43:02
and before we sort of go back to looking at alters i just want to show you a couple of quick slides again linking what we're
43:09
just about to talk about this is a scene from dinner where they're talking about an undetectable
43:15
poison there's a very concerned lena there's a very interested johnny in terms of the
43:22
conversation about poison and look at the metaphor here look look at how the the chicken is used as a metaphor
43:31
as they're talking about poison and they're talking about autopsies and they're talking about
43:36
the guy saying well you know i i did an autopsy recently on someone who died from poisoning
43:42
and it cuts to a close-up of him carving through a whole chicken so lots and lots of
43:47
symbolism here um i think i'll come back to me for a bit because i'm again uh like yourself chris
43:54
i'm a bit aware of the time so i'll rattle through a few alter tropes and if i have got time at the end
44:00
uh we'll leave five minutes for questions would that be all right about five minutes i think so can we do
44:07
a little bit more for questions rob so we've got some really good ones now oh great okay well what i'll do i'll
44:13
i'll sort of i'll go for about five minutes and then we'll just do a q a oh it's okay to run on a little bit if
44:19
we need to so don't worry about fantastic no you know if you haven't i've got a plane to catch
44:25
okay um right so auto tropes and suspicion and classic hitchcock
44:32
you've got to look at trains and tunnels um you have to look at the whole sort of trains and tunnels thing
44:37
you mentioned north by northwest earlier i mentioned strange on a train you know they meet on a train um dining
44:44
scenes you know we've talked a lot about dining scenes uh in we talked about the dining scene in
44:51
bringing up baby yes a howard hawks film but dining scenes are really important to hitchcock and
44:56
when you see the film if you haven't seen it have a look at the dining scene it's absolutely pivotal
45:02
in appreciating character narrative and again sort of reinforcing that level
45:08
of tension that for me maintains on a wire throughout the film
45:14
um i mentioned marriage earlier myself my partner sort of watched it and we talked about um you know how it how it maybe
45:22
represents the institution of marriage at the time and how you simply just have to get married
45:27
i nicked a quote um on that from a guy a bit of a sort of a bit of a interesting character himself
45:34
that the chris is probably very familiar with say the very least um they saw him rw r.w fassbinder sort of german playwright and
45:42
director um he looked at the film and he suggested it was a critique on the
45:48
institution of marriage and social class and he said um the most he called it the
45:54
most drastic film against the bourgeois institution of marriage i know now slightly over the top
46:02
but i have to say you know it's a for me and my partner and for many it's a real
46:08
critique you know on on marriage and social class
46:13
and how maybe people will kind of you know put all of their morality and values to one
46:20
side in order to get what they want which is what i said earlier johnny money and lena security and when it comes to
46:28
that you know there's a scene in the film again no spoilers there's a team in the film where obviously he's a playboy he hasn't got a
46:34
job um lena hilariously suggests that he might have to have to get a job because obviously you
46:42
know the money's running out and he replies if worse comes to worst i'll just have to borrow more money you
46:49
know this is a really vicious critique i think on sort of you know bourgeois
46:54
on the bourgeois playboy who's kind of you know who doesn't want to work he lives this completely hedonistic
47:01
lifestyle and if he needs money he'll either steal it he'll sell stuff to get it or he'll just
47:06
borrow some so again i think the whole idea of sort of you know weak characters for me runs through the
47:13
film now if i've got time i think i will um i'll kind of introduce this this clip
47:20
this is the this is the train meeting this is um where they first meet
47:25
and i think it's an important scene because you as an audience are introduced to characters um you're
47:33
introduced to um someone that for me becomes a very weak character
47:38
and who is manipulated by johnny but but johnny who is a very weak character
47:43
himself i think enough talking about it chris rob what i'm going to suggest is that
47:49
let's you also use this clip as the watershed so when we come back from this clip
47:56
all bets are off in terms of talking about the ending so if you really don't want to know the ending
48:01
this is the moment to tune out because a couple of the questions are about the ending and i think we do need to address
48:07
it all right so here it is this is an opening scene well one of the opening scenes from the film
48:28
so you take a sweet
48:37
thank you miss okay i'm afraid you're in the wrong compartment sir it's a first class
48:43
compartment yes brother i'm all right this is a third-party
48:50
so what sort of line is this selling third car stickers at first class prices i'm very sorry sir that will be uh
48:56
five and four points extra sir you haven't changed the five i have yes sir oh and then don't bother because i
49:02
haven't got one
49:10
yeah now do you suppose the line would settle for five and top and second
49:24
acquaintance but have you any change well i'm afraid
49:35
thank you very much there are five double take me and three happens five and problems
49:42
i was legal tender or boy legal tender
49:48
write to your mother
50:04
[Music]
50:15
okay um you know how how do i'll go a minute on this just quickly analyzing it will take some questions
50:21
how did they get how did she she he just asked a stranger on a train for money
50:27
why did she you know called the police or or or certainly chastity she went for her
50:32
purse and this is before she found out that he was you know she looked at the society pages and saw a picture and thought oh i might
50:39
be in here not only is that he's absolutely beautiful looks like he's well connected
50:44
you know she she presents as this initial prim and proper stereotype and he absolutely savagely manipulates
50:51
her with the strength of his personality you know she's this kind of bookish prudish woman
50:56
reading a book on psychology um and he clearly is you know a bit of a chancer and i i'm
51:04
stunned that she gives him money and the whole sort of stamp legal tender thing is fantastic you know apparently still to this day
51:11
you're not you're not obliged to accept stamps as money but you know retailers
51:18
can you can go into a shop with stamps and say look i've got no money but here's some stamps
51:24
and it's brilliant it's absolutely brilliant and he says oh it's legal tender oh man it's legal tender
51:29
and he just looks at him and walks away and and for me you know even what he says he's very
51:34
sort of hitchcock thinking about sort of you know notions of the mother in hitchcock films he says to him with the stamps write to
51:42
your mother which is absolutely brilliant and very hitchcock and then the infatuation starts you know she looks at the society
51:49
pages um and then she views him in very different ways because she thinks he's
51:56
connected so we've got two very weak characters that meet on a train and of course the narrative then then
52:03
develops from that moment thanks rob so yeah exactly
52:08
come for film studies uh go away with financial advice about how you can use our four-year-old stamps um
52:15
brilliant and that is such good like and one of those you know having started this lecture by saying you know dialogue isn't really of
52:22
interest to hitchcock he's much more interested in the visuals you know don't forget that you know he
52:27
still used some absolutely brilliant that that scene is not in the book i might add so you know that's been added
52:33
by one assumed samson rifleson and you know that wouldn't be out of place in the philadelphia story or something would it
52:40
i mean it's a brilliant brilliant scene now we've got a few minutes left and fiona and the audience if you don't mind let's
52:48
let's run over slightly uh if people don't was that right for you no you're not going to cut us off
52:53
um i wouldn't do that don't worry so let's let's tackle the end i'm going
52:59
to try and uh cover some of the other questions on the chat as well so more than one person quite rightly
53:06
has either said the ending is very weak the ending is a bit weird the ending is
53:12
out of place and a couple of people have asked directly did the studio interfere with
53:18
the ending um well the answer to that is yes very much so the studio did interfere
53:24
but one of the things that i found really interesting researching uh the screenplay um
53:31
is this this was always going to be an issue i think hitchcock and uh rayfelson spotted this problem
53:39
really early on in the adaptation they knew they had a book that was more progressive than
53:46
you know remember as well this is in the kind of height of hollywood kind of you know code uh you know sort of censorship
53:55
so they'd already started to self-censor in the in the drafting of the screenplay
54:01
they're already thinking where are the bits in this book that we just can't go to they're just too grim they're too complicated they're too
54:08
weird then carrie grant comes on board and that you know becomes an extra complication for them because he
54:15
is you know the hero of the day and and hitchcock wants to use him in this kind of ambiguous way but can they
54:22
go the full way and make him a murderer not so sure you know and so
54:29
so there are and where this has ended up is that you know i mean i can't you know i'm not i'm not
54:35
doing uh you know um research of this of my own i'm only going by what what we can find in the biographies
54:41
and the the critiques that are out there so it's kind of got lost a little bit now in the midst of time
54:46
in terms of how much did hitchcock and rifleson kind of narrow it down
54:53
versus how much did rko interfere and rko definitely did interfere so
54:59
hitchcock went to new york for two weeks doing something
55:04
else you know on a different project or something when he came back um he discovered and it was pointed out
55:12
to him that the the the powers that beer rko had taken his nearly finished film
55:19
and edited it down to such an extent that it actually only ran for 55 minutes
55:25
and they'd taken out all the bits where carrie grant could look as if he was a murderer so so not just
55:33
the ending but any kind of earlier hints where it looks like carrie grant might be going somewhere a bit dangerous
55:40
they'd all been cut out of the film now of course hitchcock was able to then wrestle it back he had
55:46
enough power as a director to reclaim his film and put quite a lot
55:52
of that stuff back in um but apparently they they certainly wrote and i think they even
55:58
filmed some alternative endings all lost somewhere i might be great if somebody found them in an attic i guess but
56:05
but there are apparently alternatives to the ending that we we now know as the ending of suspicion
56:12
and yeah you're right it's like a kind of handbrake turn no pun incendi because obviously they're in a car at the time
56:18
but it's like really is that how you want to finish the film i mean i find it massively disappointing i mean
56:24
truffaut as i said earlier on is generous of saying oh you've kind of invented this whole different film
56:30
and it's like yeah i think it's rob do you think it's a disappointing ending well i mean as you know i mean i i you
56:36
know there is a school of thought not nodding not the most popular school of thought that
56:41
hitchcock did actually uh you know want it to end that way you know in the same way that that
56:47
vertigo about sort of 10 or 15 minutes before the end of vertigo
56:52
he shows the audience the scene where gavin is pushing um madeleine off the bell tower and then
56:59
you see judy writing the letter to scotty that he never receives so he tells the audience that at the time
57:06
so he does it later i'm not saying he's got a track record for it i i think you're right chris i think you
57:12
have to say you know rko did get involved and they did um probably you know dictate up to a
57:20
point you know how the film ended but you know hitchcock wanted to make a film about
57:25
someone that had a female fantasy life you know he he he liked the idea of female fantasists
57:31
and i suppose you know whichever way you cut it you know he achieved that you know in whichever
57:37
whichever ending we talk about it was a film about a female fantasist yeah and that's a that that brings us to
57:44
another question on the chat because that idea of uh you know the psychology of lena i mean it's interesting
57:50
in the film it's even more interesting in the book and uh you know the the ending of the
57:56
book is is very strange and and the more you look at it the more
58:01
ambiguous because you start to question is it literal or not i mean i encourage you all to go out and read
58:07
before the fact by francis isles and um you know you could so so so the
58:13
question was um you know would we now look at the lena the joan fontaine character
58:19
and and basically in fact let's find the question because it's very well phrased but is it basically victim blaming i think that the question
58:26
has said so in other words you know what where should our sympathy sympathies lie
58:32
um are we being unfair when we say that lena is a weak character you know maybe actually
58:38
johnny is an abusive husband an abusive figure and actually you know that's where our our sympathies
58:45
should totally uh sit with with lena so you know so it does i mean like so suspicion is not
58:51
really a heavy film i don't think but it does at least touch on some really quite heavy and pertinent
58:59
uh themes now even around sexual politics and of course
59:05
one of the things we've not had time to do today and again i really kind of wish these sessions were like three hours long or something because
59:11
we've talked about other hitchcock films what we've done in the previous ones is we've managed to go outside
59:17
uh our main film and talk about others i would love to have talked about the two versions of gaslight
59:23
um so you know two other films with fascinating histories and fascinating
59:29
uh themes themselves but but you know there there's a play and a film that has even given now
59:36
uh you know a a phrase or a word a new meaning to our language the idea
59:42
of gaslighting somebody of you know sort of putting them in a state of mind where they start
59:47
to question uh you know their own sanity and i think suspicion is a bit like
59:52
gaslight in that sp respect you know you look at lena's uh mindset and you think you know what
59:59
how is johnny manipulating her in that kind of way i i think hitchcock you know wants us to
1:00:06
dislike her i think he wants us i think he actively wants us to think you know that that
1:00:11
she should you know that this is not an appropriate way to behave i know we've
1:00:16
talked about male and female representation before i mean i'd scribble down while you were talking some other films
1:00:22
where he does it again janet leaves marion crane in psycho does she really think she can get away with
1:00:28
stealing all that money um eva marie saints eve kendall um you know she said i chose to fall in
1:00:35
love one weekend uh kim novak's judy who thinks she can actually get away with
1:00:41
with playing madeleine you know i think you know i think you've got to look at hitchcock as a
1:00:46
as having an interesting view of women and maybe a not altogether positive view of
1:00:51
women that that for me comes through with the leaner representation yeah i think they're there there's
1:00:57
there's a big understatement to almost finish on isn't it there's that they're just two very quick things
1:01:02
because they're more kind of factual things rather than discussion things but they're in the chat let's just cover them off so um
1:01:09
i'm sorry i've lost the name now but somebody asked about some the music in suspicion apologies uh
1:01:16
whoever that was because there's a lot in the chat and i can't quite find it but um uh yeah i mean obviously hitchcock's
1:01:22
music and hitchcock's uh composers massively massively important um so much so that i
1:01:29
can't forget i can't remember who it is in suspicion is it is it waxman rob can you remember not bernard herman
1:01:36
is it it's too early for burn at home and he's busy working with um alfred with uh orson welles at this
1:01:41
point of course i'll tell you about teddy i think it's franz waxman but um i mean later on bernard herman becomes
1:01:49
kind of like hitchcock's go-to composers certainly for some of his bigger films at this stage he's probably working with
1:01:56
whoever the studio has available but you know don't forget it is blacksmith isn't it yeah so
1:02:02
uh you know studio composers at this time were you know serious business i mean people
1:02:08
who you know had some scores that stand up even if you don't watch them alongside the film
1:02:13
some really excellent pieces of music and again you know arguably the music and suspicion is one of the
1:02:20
stronger elements in the film and uh you know go away listen to the soundtrack uh if you
1:02:25
didn't enjoy the film and then one other thing that again you've already picked up on but but other people in the chat
1:02:31
are picking up as well that whole german expressionist thing and the idea of
1:02:37
particularly because this is actually this is interesting is it because this film is and rebecca as well to some
1:02:44
extent are generally seen as although they're hitchcock's first american films first hollywood films
1:02:51
they've still got very english settings and they feel almost like a continuation of you know
1:02:56
39 steps sabotage all those english films he made before and the way most of the film looks the
1:03:03
way most of suspicion looks is generally quite flat you know it's not a million miles away from the way
1:03:09
something like 39 steps looks for the most part until you get to that kind of sinister staircase
1:03:15
ending when like you say you get all of those expressionist shadows and i think you're right that's
1:03:21
really deliberate it has all that stuff around you know imprisonment and cages and
1:03:27
weird mindsets and probably is meant to make you think of nosferatu and and uh metropolitan always getting
1:03:34
metropolis in every week don't know because it's behind me um and uh yeah and i think it is it's
1:03:40
about changing the mindset of the audience from here's something that looks very genteel in english to something that
1:03:46
looks really a bit weird and sinister yeah yeah completely i absolutely agree with that