I read some time ago that Morgan Freeman tried unsuccessfully for many years to produce a remake of the French movie, GARDE à VUE ( Claude Miller, 1981) before getting Gene Hackman interested in the project; despite their notoriety, a few more years were required before the UNDER SUSPICION filming started, with the two players acting also as executive producers (Hackman's sole attempt to date, Freeman's second out of five ones). SPOILERS AHEAD SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES. Both movies have (of course) the same basic plot: a VIP, having found the corpse of a young girl, reports it and soon becomes the main suspect of two rapes and murders for the police, but also for his wife; the man, entangled in lies about his doings during the night of the first murder, and facing adverse testimonies in connection with the second one, is unable to reverse the growing inner conviction of the police; the last straw occurs when his wife supplies a piece of circumstantial evidence; he then gives it up and confesses crimes he is innocent of.. Both have four main protagonists: the suspect (Michel Serrault/Gene Hackman) and his wife (Romi Schneider/Monica Bellucci), two inspectors (Lino Ventura/Morgan Freeman and Guy Marchand/Thomas Jane). In both cases the marriage has previously crumbled. Not having read the "Brainwash" novel by John Wainwright, I do not know which movie is the closer to it. But the treatments of the films are very different. Claude Miller sets his story in a middle-sized country town of (presumably) the North of France, on a cold rainy night, and most of it takes place in the dreary ill-equipped defectively-lighted office shared by the two inspectors in charge of the inquest, thus establishing a grim depressive atmosphere; the necessary flashbacks are few and as short as possible. UNDER SUSPICION on the contrary is situated in hot and sunny Puerto-Rico, and the police office is large, clear, and apparently suitably fitted: hence we do not understand why Morgan Freeman, sole inhabitant of the room, complains about it; and the defective lamp, if it has its meaning in GARDE à VUE, leads to nowhere in UNDER SUSPICION; the colourful Carnival has atmosphere, but unfortunately the police precinct has none; and there are many lengthy flashbacks, in which Freeman is inserted as a witness,- a gimmick which soon becomes rather tiring.
CHARACTERS. The characters too are treated differently: in GARDE à VUE Michel Serrault is bitterly ironic, rather uncouth, and on the whole unattractive; he never met before stern chief inspector Lino Ventura, who relentlessly strives to establish his guilt; the other inspector is a bully, who beats up Serrault when left alone with him. Romi Schneider comes from a family with a high social position but no money. She willingly admits to Ventura that she married Serrault in her mid-twenties for his money, after having been his mistress for some time and condoning with his sex fancies though she has no physical needs; nevertheless they were happy till the Camille incident (see hereafter), when she shut her door to him; divorce is out of the question, - for the husband because divorce is looked askance at in the town where he has his office, for the wife because she is totally dependent on him for money. Gene Hackman is a more genial suspect, but his rather special tastes regarding very young prostitutes reinforce (rightly or wrongly) suspicion; inspector Freeman shared his youth and has remained in speaking terms with him; however, if the policeman has grounds for suspicion, he is also strongly jealous of Hackman's huge fortune and beautiful wife; he is therefore biased in his judgement - which complicates matters to no avail; the second inspector behaves more in accordance with his chief's politics than in GARDE à VUE, and is less important. Hackman has known his wife since she became an orphan, paid for her studies, and seduced her when she was 14. From the Camille incident on, their marriage has been just a front.
THE CAMILLE INCIDENT UNDER SUSPICION uses some of the GARDE à VUE dialogue - unfortunately, often not in situation; more, it is misused in connection with the Camille incident (Camille being the daughter of Serrault's sister in GARDE à VUE, but that of Monica Bellucci's sister in UNDER SUSPICION): on a Xmas night at her niece's home, Schneider enters unexpectedly the dim-lighted dining-room, finds her husband and her niece gazing raptly in the other's eyes, and realizes that they share a universe of their own from which she is excluded and shall never be a part of. She develops an instant hate for her husband. She says later to Ventura "He had no right to have her gaze upon him like a woman "; there is no inkling of any improper behaviour. Monica Bellucci goes into Camille's room, finds her very excited, in the company of her rather drunk husband: as she is convinced that he behaved badly, with the girl's consent, uttering the same words as Schneider is nonsense.
ABOUT REMAKES What with the number of movies and TV films, the shortage of original stories is unavoidable, and therefore you cannot object to remakes on principle, nor demand that they be carbon copies; but the changes brought must be as least as effective as the abrogated parts: in that respect, making Hackman a photography addict has a use; but other alterations are not so welcome. For instance, Serrault's wife does not want children, and her refusal can explain his unhappiness and attraction towards Camille. In UNDER SUSPICION, Gene Hackman loves children, (his speech leaves no doubt about it ), but he had been married for several years prior to the Camille incident, his wife says she is not sterile, and still they have no child no explanation is given hereof. Further, the discovery of the real culprit in UNDER SUSPICION is narrated (rather badly, what is more), not shown, and fails to attract your attention. And the discovery of a third victim, Ventura's admonishment, the ultimate suicide of Romi Schneider and Serrault's despair result in a far more impressive ending than Gene Hackman going back home alone and presumably leaving his wife for keeps.
THE CASTS The characters in GARDE à VUE are better delineated and more incisive than in UNDER SUSPICION, and give more opportunities to the actors: if Hackman is excellent, his character is less complex than Serrault's, who fits his to perfection; Freeman's performance is not one of his bests, while Ventura is outstanding as an inspector who fails to remain objective, and whose future accordingly is bleak; Romi Schneider's delicate features and calculating coldness are perhaps more suited to the story than Monica Bellucci's earthly beauty; Thomas Jane has not much to do, while Guy Marchand's sadistic impersonation earned him a Cesar, the French equivalent of Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The Puerto Rican bit-players are non-existent, where all the French ones are good (compare the native commissioner in UNDER SUSPICION, who has no substance and whose warning to Freeman to proceed carefully fall totally flat; on the contrary the French one is established in two scenes as a man of power, incisive and demanding).
END OF SPOILERS THE TECHNICAL TEAMS Many of the best directors love to lend a hand in the writing of their movies; such is the case for Claude Miller, co-writing a closely-knit script with Jean Herman prior to directing it, incisively and faultlessly; witty vitriolic dialogue by Michel Audiard and a perfectly suited musical score by François de Roubaix are priceless contributions. The result is a taut fascinating movie which never drifts from the trend of the story.
Viewing UNDER SUSPICION, you have the feeling that the writers brought most alterations regardless of their impact, for the sole purpose of justifying their salaries. As to Stephen Hopkins's direction, it is uneven; together with the loose treatment of the plot and its superfluous complications, it fails to ensure the unity required for such a film.
CONCLUSION. Those who have not seen GARDE à VUE can be attracted by UNDER SUSPICION 's cast and may find it a slightly better than average thriller; most of the others will judge UNDER SUSPICION the unnecessary
CHARACTERS. The characters too are treated differently: in GARDE à VUE Michel Serrault is bitterly ironic, rather uncouth, and on the whole unattractive; he never met before stern chief inspector Lino Ventura, who relentlessly strives to establish his guilt; the other inspector is a bully, who beats up Serrault when left alone with him. Romi Schneider comes from a family with a high social position but no money. She willingly admits to Ventura that she married Serrault in her mid-twenties for his money, after having been his mistress for some time and condoning with his sex fancies though she has no physical needs; nevertheless they were happy till the Camille incident (see hereafter), when she shut her door to him; divorce is out of the question, - for the husband because divorce is looked askance at in the town where he has his office, for the wife because she is totally dependent on him for money. Gene Hackman is a more genial suspect, but his rather special tastes regarding very young prostitutes reinforce (rightly or wrongly) suspicion; inspector Freeman shared his youth and has remained in speaking terms with him; however, if the policeman has grounds for suspicion, he is also strongly jealous of Hackman's huge fortune and beautiful wife; he is therefore biased in his judgement - which complicates matters to no avail; the second inspector behaves more in accordance with his chief's politics than in GARDE à VUE, and is less important. Hackman has known his wife since she became an orphan, paid for her studies, and seduced her when she was 14. From the Camille incident on, their marriage has been just a front.
THE CAMILLE INCIDENT UNDER SUSPICION uses some of the GARDE à VUE dialogue - unfortunately, often not in situation; more, it is misused in connection with the Camille incident (Camille being the daughter of Serrault's sister in GARDE à VUE, but that of Monica Bellucci's sister in UNDER SUSPICION): on a Xmas night at her niece's home, Schneider enters unexpectedly the dim-lighted dining-room, finds her husband and her niece gazing raptly in the other's eyes, and realizes that they share a universe of their own from which she is excluded and shall never be a part of. She develops an instant hate for her husband. She says later to Ventura "He had no right to have her gaze upon him like a woman "; there is no inkling of any improper behaviour. Monica Bellucci goes into Camille's room, finds her very excited, in the company of her rather drunk husband: as she is convinced that he behaved badly, with the girl's consent, uttering the same words as Schneider is nonsense.
ABOUT REMAKES What with the number of movies and TV films, the shortage of original stories is unavoidable, and therefore you cannot object to remakes on principle, nor demand that they be carbon copies; but the changes brought must be as least as effective as the abrogated parts: in that respect, making Hackman a photography addict has a use; but other alterations are not so welcome. For instance, Serrault's wife does not want children, and her refusal can explain his unhappiness and attraction towards Camille. In UNDER SUSPICION, Gene Hackman loves children, (his speech leaves no doubt about it ), but he had been married for several years prior to the Camille incident, his wife says she is not sterile, and still they have no child no explanation is given hereof. Further, the discovery of the real culprit in UNDER SUSPICION is narrated (rather badly, what is more), not shown, and fails to attract your attention. And the discovery of a third victim, Ventura's admonishment, the ultimate suicide of Romi Schneider and Serrault's despair result in a far more impressive ending than Gene Hackman going back home alone and presumably leaving his wife for keeps.
THE CASTS The characters in GARDE à VUE are better delineated and more incisive than in UNDER SUSPICION, and give more opportunities to the actors: if Hackman is excellent, his character is less complex than Serrault's, who fits his to perfection; Freeman's performance is not one of his bests, while Ventura is outstanding as an inspector who fails to remain objective, and whose future accordingly is bleak; Romi Schneider's delicate features and calculating coldness are perhaps more suited to the story than Monica Bellucci's earthly beauty; Thomas Jane has not much to do, while Guy Marchand's sadistic impersonation earned him a Cesar, the French equivalent of Oscar for Best Supporting Actor. The Puerto Rican bit-players are non-existent, where all the French ones are good (compare the native commissioner in UNDER SUSPICION, who has no substance and whose warning to Freeman to proceed carefully fall totally flat; on the contrary the French one is established in two scenes as a man of power, incisive and demanding).
END OF SPOILERS THE TECHNICAL TEAMS Many of the best directors love to lend a hand in the writing of their movies; such is the case for Claude Miller, co-writing a closely-knit script with Jean Herman prior to directing it, incisively and faultlessly; witty vitriolic dialogue by Michel Audiard and a perfectly suited musical score by François de Roubaix are priceless contributions. The result is a taut fascinating movie which never drifts from the trend of the story.
Viewing UNDER SUSPICION, you have the feeling that the writers brought most alterations regardless of their impact, for the sole purpose of justifying their salaries. As to Stephen Hopkins's direction, it is uneven; together with the loose treatment of the plot and its superfluous complications, it fails to ensure the unity required for such a film.
CONCLUSION. Those who have not seen GARDE à VUE can be attracted by UNDER SUSPICION 's cast and may find it a slightly better than average thriller; most of the others will judge UNDER SUSPICION the unnecessary
