| Reid Lemker |
Suspicion plays on glorious 35mm at the Heights Theater on March 27th as part of our collaboration on the 2025 Hitchcock Film Festival. For tickets, showtimes, and other series information, visit trylon.org.
If you learn one thing after watching Alfred Hitchcock’s 1941 film Suspicion, it should be this: don’t ever go out with a guy that refers to you as “Monkeyface.” I don’t care where they are from, how much money they claim they have, or even if they look like a young Cary Grant.
Suspicion tells the story of a young couple, Lina and Johnnie, who get together despite Johnnie’s pet name for Lina, Monkeyface, and the warnings articulated by Lina’s family. Over time, Johnnie reveals himself to be a duplicitous liar. Still, Lina stays with him, even as she worries that he may be plotting to kill her for her inheritance (I am not judging Lina by the way, I would also give a 35-year-old Cary Grant the benefit of many doubts). What I found most fascinating about Suspicion was how Johnnie’s masculinity felt both of its time and simultaneously, so unbelievably modern. Johnnie’s vices—sports gambling, gaslighting, impersonating wealth—are all the same issues at the heart of contemporary discussions of masculinity and what it means to be a young man in America. Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that the nefarious aspects of masculinity persist across generations as I myself grew up a boy in the good ol’ US of A. But watching this film with an eye on today’s climate, where the think pieces, podcasts, and hot takes on the future of masculinity abound, I was reminded that our contemporary anxieties about masculinity are timeless.
Much like many men in 2025, Johnnie has a sports gambling issue. He quite enjoys spending his money at the races, which creates an almost romantic view of sports gambling during a time when it hadn’t completely infiltrated the sports viewing experience (fast forward a couple of decades and Minnesota’s regional sports network is now named after an online casino, FanDuel Sports Network). These days, you no longer need to travel anywhere to wager on your favorite horses or teams, it can all be done from a smartphone. Unsurprisingly, young men have a much higher risk of developing a gambling problem than other demographics. A recent poll from the Associated Press indicates that 10% of young men in the United States show behavior that suggests a gambling issue. In Johnnie’s case, he racks up a hefty gambling debt at the track and is forced to sell two of Lina’s family heirloom chairs to repay it. Of course he does all of this without bothering his wife Lina, because the only thing more masculine than incurring gambling debt is not communicating your struggles and insecurities to your partner until after you’ve done something drastic.
Apart from his gambling issues, Johnnie expertly wields another timeless tool in the masculinity toolbox: gaslighting. Once Johnnie and Lina get married, the film falls into a common formula: Johnnie does something drastic, makes little attempt to hide it from Lina, and then explains away the drastic action by gaslighting Lina into believing his actions were necessary. Take, for instance, their honeymoon. As soon as they move into their home, he reveals to Lina that he has been broke his entire life and therefore had to borrow one thousand pounds in order to afford their honeymoon. Of course, as any great gaslighter would, he explains that it was all for the sake of her happiness. Seconds later he reveals that he also isn’t able to pay for their new home and expects to use her family money to pay for it. By the end of this conversation, Lina appears to recognize what the audience already knows: Johnnie married her for her money. Unfortunately, Lina appears to misunderstand Johnnie’s nefarious strategizing as harmless masculine incompetence because she tells him, “Johnnie, I’m just beginning to understand you, you’re a baby.” Throughout the film, Johnnie is constantly lying to Lina about his intentions, finances, and his job, but it never seems like he is trying very hard to hide the fact that he is constantly lying because why put too much effort into your lies when you have no qualms gaslighting your way out of any situation?
Of course, no master manipulator can succeed on their own. What’s one thing a gaslighter needs to be successful? A complicit friend of course! Someone to get in on the gaslighting action and reassure the unsuspecting wife that all of the erratic behavior exhibited by their old pal is completely normal. For Johnnie, his friend Beaky plays this part to perfection. Beaky plays it so well, in fact, that I had a hard time believing he wasn’t in on the act with Johnnie. Can he be so naïve that he believes all of Johnnie’s lying is just entertainment and cause for laughter? I struggle to believe that any human being can be so obtuse. And even if he is, his inability to recognize the gravity of the situation, the escalating nature of Johnnie’s lies, and his lack of action on Lina’s behalf is completely inexcusable.
What pushed Lina into this relationship with a snake like Johnnie? The same thing that still pushes countless couples into marriage—familial and cultural pressure. Lina and Johnnie’s first kiss, and ultimate marriage comes about because Lina overhears her family discussing her dismal marriage prospects (it seems “glasses” are enough to make Joan Fontaine unfit for marriage). The family pressure directly pushes Lina to Johnnie and the prospect of marriage. It reminded me of the newest season of Love is Blind which took place in Minneapolis. In this Netflix-sponsored “science experiment” contestants regularly state that they have never been in a “serious relationship” but they are “ready for marriage.” The terms of the marriage and the person they are marrying feel almost secondary to checking off the life stage signifier of “marriage.” At least on Love is Blind Lina wouldn’t have to worry about those pesky spectacles ruining her chance of finding a beau!
I would like to believe that aspects of Johnie and Lina’s courtship do feel dated. A quick Google search after their first date may have revealed to Lina that this man was broke and saved her from this whole mess. Also, I have never been a young lady courted by a handsome man, but I have to believe that the “You must take your glasses off for me to find you attractive” thing feels out of date now, right? Sadly, so much of the relationship dynamics in this film feel incredibly prescient and the outlook for where we are headed doesn’t appear much brighter. Here’s to avoiding the Johnnies of our world in 2025.
Edited by Olga Tchepikova-Treon