Talk:Suspicion (1941 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removed Contradiction

Removed the following as the sentence that follows states that it is told from Lina's viewpoint: "The interesting device employed by the author is the use of an omniscient third person narrator." Clarityfiend 17:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the sentence "an alkali commonly used, but never suspected of being poisonous, and which leaves no trace in the human body for a post-mortem to find."

Wouldn't the substance in question actually be an alkaloid? An alkali like caustic soda may certainly kill, but these are usually clearly labelled as dangerous, and leave obvious evidence in the form chemical burns, meanwhile, an alkaloid like strychnine can be lethal in smallest doses and difficult to detect. I have not read the book, so I'm not sure if it's the mistake on the part of wiki editor, or book author; Still, a clarification is in order.

film noir?

I don't think this film is a film noir? The ending hardly is indicative of classic film noir genre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.194.71.191 (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:337126.1020.A.jpg

Image:337126.1020.A.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award

Joan Fontaine won the 1941 Oscar for Best Actress for her role in this film (the only Oscar-winning performance directed by Hitchcock, according to the article on Fontaine). And Suspicion was nominated for Best Picture, though it didn't win. Seems like these things should be mentioned somewhere. Not sure what the proper format would be, as I'm just a casual user of wikipedia - should there be a whole section devoted to awards? Could someone more familiar with the proper format could add this appropriately? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.85.139 (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Better late than never, right? — ^Wylie_Coyote 07:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intentions

Suicide or suicide/murder? There is no mention of Johnny's suicidal intention in this article. Quoting IMDB Suspicion 1941 Gradually, understanding comes over her, and as Johnnie explains, she realizes that he had nothing to do with Beaky's death, and that his fascination with poison is centered on himself. He meant to commit suicide rather than face his insurmoutable debts, and spare his beloved Lina the shame of seeing him in prison.--User:Brenont (talk) 02:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

This article, frankly, is poorly organized. A rewrite might be necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.60.105 (talk) 11:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie vs. Johnny

I'm interested that both forms of the name are used in both the movie and the Wikipedia page about the movie. In the movie, it's "Johnnie" all places except in the telegram he sends to Lina explaining that he can't come to see her, early on in the film. The telegram is signed "Johnny."

The Wikipedia page uses "Johnnie" except in the last instance (last sentence of the page). I'm sure that's just a coincidence and in fact, perhaps it's meaningless that it happened in the film as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liefhebber (talk • contribs) 04:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnnie's 'adultery'

The article identifies adultery as a crime. Not to be pedantic, but only in the interest of accuracy, I want to point out that adultery has been decriminalized in most western countries. see

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Adultery

"In most Western countries, adultery itself is no longer a criminal offense, but may still have legal consequences, particularly in divorce cases."

And although adultery is considered a moral transgression of some seriousness, the unmarried Johnnie could not have been guilty of it, since to be an adulterer you must be a married person.

I think the correct term for Johnnie may be 'philanderer'.

Bob.us30691 (talk) 18:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)Bob.us30691[reply]

Cameo entry

I've gone through the scene frame by frame and I do not believe that the man pulling the horse mentioned can be counted as a cameo appearance. From a visual inspection, it is doubtful whether it is Hitchcock and as there is a clear Hitchcock cameo later in the film, this should probably be deleted from this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wswaine (talk • contribs) 12:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]