MovieChat Forums > Suspicion (1941) Discussion > The ending is a Rorschach test

The ending is a Rorschach test


I’m just thinking out loud here, spit-balling ideas you might say. But I believe the ending to Suspicion is a Rorschach test. In other words, if you look at the ending and see a scoundrel who wants to change his ways and take his medicine, and a wife who decides to support him, it could mean you are the eternal optimist. You hope for the best; you believe that sometimes our worries and fears (suspicions?) can be worse than reality.

But if you see in the ending more lies, a man who is still manipulating his wife, it could mean you are the eternal pessimist. You expect the worst to happen in life; you focus on people’s faults; are always ready to believe the worst about them.

So think it over. Perhaps, like a Rorschach test, Suspicion’s ending has no correct interpretation. Perhaps what you say about the ending tells us more about you than it does about the movie.

reply

You bring up an interesting point, jdown. I had taken the ending at face value, given the era it was made in (damn Hayes Code!) but now I kind of like the possibility that Johnnie is just telling more lies and manipulating his wife. IMO it makes for a better and more satisfying ending.

reply

A very workable perspective, jdown, but I would suggest one refinement, if I may. The viewer has to be optimistic or pessimistic specifically about a person's ability to reform, to change their bad inclinations and habits. They have to be cynical or non-cynical about this aspect of human nature.

Many people who are optimists in many areas like enterprises, competitions, and their own programs may be leery or cynical about whether the hobo in O'Henry's Cop and the Anthem avoids spending next Christmas in jail. Or whether Johnny's pattern of failure/redemption-failure/redemption signals he will leave scoundreldom behind... For the cynics, despite Johnny saving lives, not enough evidence...

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains.

reply

Using labels about people, their totality can be summed up in one word; makes you optimistic, a positive force? That's funny. ha ha ha.

reply

Your idea is true to an extent. How one views the ending is affected by one's identification with the characters and in particular Lina. If one is persuaded that Johnny loves her in spite of being a cad then the possibility of redemption exists. If one is persuaded that he is too duplicitous to trust then the possibility that he is a murderer exists.

I don't know how a viewer can decide one way or another because the film is riddled with ambiguity.

Away with the manners of withered virgins

reply

Poppy,

Excellent point. The binary reduction of the OP ignores the ambiguous elements in the film. My take on what happens next, which is what the question really is about, will depend to some extent on whether Lina obtains evidence showing Johnny was in Liverpool or Paris. If Paris, then obviously redemption is not likely, as Johnny has already in effect caused Beaky's death. If Liverpool, then just the opposite.

Of course the mere fact (if it so turns out) that Johnny was not in Paris does not mean that he has already achieved redemption. Even that take on the film means Johnny may well have any number of future falls from grace. But at least he would not have crossed that line of causing another's death, and if that is the case, then Lina may be satisfied with a future with such a man as Johnny, however difficult that might be.

Conversely if it turns out Johnny was in Paris, he would likely face some criminal charges, and it might not even be a question of Lina's preference.

Ftr I am aware of the FAQ notes both on how the book ends and even the referenc to Hitchcock's supposed preferred ending, but since neither of those are how the film ends, they would not appear to be the least bit binding on this discussion.

One other item of interest, is if Johnny in fact was in Liverpool, I do not know of any impediment to him getting Beaky's money, other than some ultra vires claim by his estate, which presumably would be deemed to have some stock ownership in the corporation. But that would be a difficult case, given what we know about the papers that were drawn up. I presume in this connection that Johnny could not resort to use of those corporate assets to pay off his debt to Captain Melbeck before the film ended since the matter of Beaky's death was still under investigation. But later, if he was not in Paris, would be a different matter.

Having said all of the foregoing, which do I personally think is most likely to happen?

First of all, despite Johnny's being a congenital liar, I find it hard to believe he would think he could rely on the Liverpool alibi if it were totally without basis. It would evaporate too easily, and he would know that. I also think the paper trail of his attempt to draw on the life insurance policy on Lina would also cause him some caution. Anyone thinking about it would have to see what that would be seen as if Lina later died in mysterious circumstances. But if instead Lina can help him hold off Captain Melbeck, and Johnny is not drawn into a finding of responsibility in connection with Beaky's death, then there is actually some light at the end of the tunnel, however transitory, for the couple.

Call it a skeptic's analysis leading to a guardedly optimistic prediction.

reply

Romantic, optomist, believer in magic and fairtytales, here.

My real life's too full of $hit for me to go looking for it in films.

Do the P-I-G-E-O-N

reply