If I’ve learned anything from Walter Benjamin (and lord knows I haven’t learned much), it’s the concept of the camera acting as the eyes of the viewer. In cinema, we are often told a story involving a series of events that culminate in some sort of dramatic twist or revelation. What we are not always aware of, however, is that the implications of such a story are drastically molded by a sense of perspective. The same story told from two different points of view, while essentially detailing the same events, can be carried out with radically different tones and messages. Stephen Heath discusses this idea of perception in cinema in “Questions of Cinema.” Perspective in cinema is inextricably linked to the camera itself, which, as previously mentioned, act as the eyes of the movie’s viewer. Thus, perception is framed by the camera’s focus. “Our field of vision is full of solid objects but our eye (like the camera) sees this field from only one station point at a given moment” (30). Thus, the director has the duty of finding the precise “station points” and arranging them in such an order as to convey the proper perspective as received by his characters. It is up to the director to best carry out this undertaking. How best can he convey the emotions and reactions of his characters? How best can he frame the shots to give the audience direct insight into the mind of the protagonists? Alfred Hitchcock’s Suspicion is a terrific example of how a director can frame a simple story with a brief series of events into the context of one character’s mind. At the beginning, the audience would most likely understand the unfolding movie to be centered on Johnnie Aysgarth (played by the incomparable Cary Grant), a smooth talking playboy who seems to have a strong interest in Lina (played by Joan Fontaine, who would win an Oscar for her performance). Given the title of the film, the audience is instantly clued in to essentially be suspicious of all activity in the film (in this case, the title helps to frame the perspective of the audience, as their senses are highly tuned into anything that might be perceived as odd in the movie). The audience quickly learns that, in fact, they are to watch the film from the perspective of Lina, and not Johnnie. This is made evident by Johnnie’s weeklong disappearance, during which the audience sits with slight suspicion and anxiousness for his return, as does Lina. There are earlier instances, however, that would clue the audience into the perspective of Lina. We first learn of Johnnie’s playboy nature at the same time as Lina, when she sits across from him on the train and sees his picture in a socialite magazine. This shot, where the camera shows the magazine as if we are reading it straight from her eyes, is used throughout the film in such instances as when Lina reads of the death of Beaky in the newspaper. Further, her suspicion of the man is quickly piqued when, despite appearing in the socialite magazine, Johnnie cannot afford a ticket for the train and is forced to ask her to pay the difference. When Lina arrives home from her initial walk with Johnnie, we hear her father speak of how she needn’t get married since she has a good head on her shoulders. This line serves multiple purposes throughout the context of the story. First, it allows the audience to subconsciously assume that Lina is a very smart, perceptive girl, and thus if she is to feel some sort of suspicion, then it must be justified. It also demonstrates the weight that her father’s presence will have on her shoulders throughout her life. Lina’s marriage to Johnnie is extremely hasty, especially for a girl with a good head on her shoulders. It is as if she did it simply to prove her father wrong. Yet his opinion still weighs heavily on her life regardless of her intentions. The massive portrait of her father, the general, in the house serves as a representation of this weight, as he is always there, always watching. When Johnnie’s actions become increasingly suspect (most of which occur off camera, adding to our intrigue as we often learn about his misdoings and gambling flaws at the same time Lina does), the portrait seems to be even more prevalent, especially after the general’s death when his will is read. Hitchcock’s brilliance in the film is the combination of framing the camera in Lina’s perspective and exposing Johnnie’s flaws simultaneously to the audience and to Lina. By doing this, Hitchcock puts the audience directly in Lina’s head, and they are clearly able to distinguish the palpable sense of mystery and suspicion that arises. The film is essentially a study in the sensation of suspicion, how it develops, how it complicates, and, ultimately, how it is subdued. Since suspicion itself is an internal feeling, the only way it can be achieved cinematically is through the eyes of a person. Thus, Hitchcock presents us with the forum of Lina and her mind. Bravo, Alfred.
I agree completely with your understanding of the film. Hitchcock did an outstanding job framing the film so that it followed Lina's perspective. Can you imagine what type of movie "Suspicion" would be if the same exact events occurred, but it was shot from Johnnie's point of view? It would be an entirely different kind of film. In fact, "Suspicion" would probably no longer be a suitable title. I thought it was interesting how big of a presence Lina's father is even after his death. Do you think that the fact that he is always watching suggests that he is equally as suspicious of Johnnie as Lina is?
I think you have great insights on the shifts of perceptions that occur during "Suspicion". You show how specific details, such as the portrait of Lina's father and the line about how Lina has a "good head on her shoulders", morph the audience's opinion of Lina and makes the transition from an aforethought Johnnie-driven film to a Lina-driven film much smoother. You maintain a skilled eye for detail throughout, and also take into account how the film itself is named "Suspicion" which immediately puts the audience into a specific mindset (much like this year's "Doubt").
I'd be interested to hear what you think of the ending, and how (or if) Lina comes to a conclusion about Johnnie. Is she simply held back because of societal pressures (remember how Johnnie derides her when she "interferes" with his business?), and is too cowardly to confront Johnnie? Or does she come to the realization that she has taken a negative, suspicious attitude towards Johnnie which has skewed her perception of him? Hitchcock leaves the audience to ponder these questions and leaves it up to us to decided (and to worry about the future safety of Lina).
The point you make regarding the emphasis placed on Lina's point of view is a fascinating one; because the story is told almost wholly through her eyes, the audience very quickly becomes entrapped in the web of suspicion that she seems to construct around herself. We live in her narrative space, and view the happenings of the film through a lens colored by her own understanding of things. We are very much not objective observers to the mysteries that seem to revolve around Johnnie; what Lina sees, we see, and the tenseness she feels is one that is shifted onto us by means of narrative space. We are "sutured" into the film by means of our identification with Lina and her suspicion.
Greetings Tom, This is Alexis...the person grading the blog component of the course. You do a good job of talking about the impact of perspective through the camera work of the film. It would be great to ehar more about the other technical aspects and how they impact the perspective of the viewer. I look forward to continuing to read your work! Best, Alexis
If I’ve learned anything from Walter Benjamin (and lord knows I haven’t learned much), it’s the concept of the camera acting as the eyes of the viewer. In cinema, we are often told a story involving a series of events that culminate in some sort of dramatic twist or revelation. What we are not always aware of, however, is that the implications of such a story are drastically molded by a sense of perspective. The same story told from two different points of view, while essentially detailing the same events, can be carried out with radically different tones and messages.
ReplyDeleteStephen Heath discusses this idea of perception in cinema in “Questions of Cinema.” Perspective in cinema is inextricably linked to the camera itself, which, as previously mentioned, act as the eyes of the movie’s viewer. Thus, perception is framed by the camera’s focus. “Our field of vision is full of solid objects but our eye (like the camera) sees this field from only one station point at a given moment” (30). Thus, the director has the duty of finding the precise “station points” and arranging them in such an order as to convey the proper perspective as received by his characters.
It is up to the director to best carry out this undertaking. How best can he convey the emotions and reactions of his characters? How best can he frame the shots to give the audience direct insight into the mind of the protagonists?
Alfred Hitchcock’s Suspicion is a terrific example of how a director can frame a simple story with a brief series of events into the context of one character’s mind. At the beginning, the audience would most likely understand the unfolding movie to be centered on Johnnie Aysgarth (played by the incomparable Cary Grant), a smooth talking playboy who seems to have a strong interest in Lina (played by Joan Fontaine, who would win an Oscar for her performance).
Given the title of the film, the audience is instantly clued in to essentially be suspicious of all activity in the film (in this case, the title helps to frame the perspective of the audience, as their senses are highly tuned into anything that might be perceived as odd in the movie).
The audience quickly learns that, in fact, they are to watch the film from the perspective of Lina, and not Johnnie. This is made evident by Johnnie’s weeklong disappearance, during which the audience sits with slight suspicion and anxiousness for his return, as does Lina. There are earlier instances, however, that would clue the audience into the perspective of Lina. We first learn of Johnnie’s playboy nature at the same time as Lina, when she sits across from him on the train and sees his picture in a socialite magazine. This shot, where the camera shows the magazine as if we are reading it straight from her eyes, is used throughout the film in such instances as when Lina reads of the death of Beaky in the newspaper. Further, her suspicion of the man is quickly piqued when, despite appearing in the socialite magazine, Johnnie cannot afford a ticket for the train and is forced to ask her to pay the difference.
When Lina arrives home from her initial walk with Johnnie, we hear her father speak of how she needn’t get married since she has a good head on her shoulders. This line serves multiple purposes throughout the context of the story. First, it allows the audience to subconsciously assume that Lina is a very smart, perceptive girl, and thus if she is to feel some sort of suspicion, then it must be justified. It also demonstrates the weight that her father’s presence will have on her shoulders throughout her life.
Lina’s marriage to Johnnie is extremely hasty, especially for a girl with a good head on her shoulders. It is as if she did it simply to prove her father wrong. Yet his opinion still weighs heavily on her life regardless of her intentions. The massive portrait of her father, the general, in the house serves as a representation of this weight, as he is always there, always watching. When Johnnie’s actions become increasingly suspect (most of which occur off camera, adding to our intrigue as we often learn about his misdoings and gambling flaws at the same time Lina does), the portrait seems to be even more prevalent, especially after the general’s death when his will is read.
Hitchcock’s brilliance in the film is the combination of framing the camera in Lina’s perspective and exposing Johnnie’s flaws simultaneously to the audience and to Lina. By doing this, Hitchcock puts the audience directly in Lina’s head, and they are clearly able to distinguish the palpable sense of mystery and suspicion that arises.
The film is essentially a study in the sensation of suspicion, how it develops, how it complicates, and, ultimately, how it is subdued. Since suspicion itself is an internal feeling, the only way it can be achieved cinematically is through the eyes of a person. Thus, Hitchcock presents us with the forum of Lina and her mind.
Bravo, Alfred.
I agree completely with your understanding of the film. Hitchcock did an outstanding job framing the film so that it followed Lina's perspective. Can you imagine what type of movie "Suspicion" would be if the same exact events occurred, but it was shot from Johnnie's point of view? It would be an entirely different kind of film. In fact, "Suspicion" would probably no longer be a suitable title.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting how big of a presence Lina's father is even after his death. Do you think that the fact that he is always watching suggests that he is equally as suspicious of Johnnie as Lina is?
I think you have great insights on the shifts of perceptions that occur during "Suspicion". You show how specific details, such as the portrait of Lina's father and the line about how Lina has a "good head on her shoulders", morph the audience's opinion of Lina and makes the transition from an aforethought Johnnie-driven film to a Lina-driven film much smoother. You maintain a skilled eye for detail throughout, and also take into account how the film itself is named "Suspicion" which immediately puts the audience into a specific mindset (much like this year's "Doubt").
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested to hear what you think of the ending, and how (or if) Lina comes to a conclusion about Johnnie. Is she simply held back because of societal pressures (remember how Johnnie derides her when she "interferes" with his business?), and is too cowardly to confront Johnnie? Or does she come to the realization that she has taken a negative, suspicious attitude towards Johnnie which has skewed her perception of him? Hitchcock leaves the audience to ponder these questions and leaves it up to us to decided (and to worry about the future safety of Lina).
The point you make regarding the emphasis placed on Lina's point of view is a fascinating one; because the story is told almost wholly through her eyes, the audience very quickly becomes entrapped in the web of suspicion that she seems to construct around herself. We live in her narrative space, and view the happenings of the film through a lens colored by her own understanding of things. We are very much not objective observers to the mysteries that seem to revolve around Johnnie; what Lina sees, we see, and the tenseness she feels is one that is shifted onto us by means of narrative space. We are "sutured" into the film by means of our identification with Lina and her suspicion.
ReplyDeleteGreetings Tom,
ReplyDeleteThis is Alexis...the person grading the blog component of the course. You do a good job of talking about the impact of perspective through the camera work of the film. It would be great to ehar more about the other technical aspects and how they impact the perspective of the viewer. I look forward to continuing to read your work!
Best,
Alexis