MovieChat Forums > Ace in the Hole (1951) Discussion > Lorraine made off with a lot more than a...

Lorraine made off with a lot more than a grand

posted 8 years ago by jgroub
7 replies | jump to latest

She was making a nice amount of money off of the diner/gas station each day, between the food, the gas, the trinkets. But she was making an absolute sh!tton of money from the admission to the ruins. The price went up from "FREE" to 25 cents, to 50 cents, and finally a dollar. Leo read in the paper that 2000 people were gathered out there, and even if that is an exaggeration, it is only a slight one. Sure, she had to pay the kid 5 bucks a day to collect all that money, but the rest is gravy. Then she started selling concessions to the carnival, and the money was really rolling in.

I say she left there with at least $3000, which would be worth over $30,000 today. That's a nice chunk of change to move on and start over with.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Which makes her not receiving any retribution for her role in helping to kill Leo, stabbing Tatum (who dies from the wound), and stealing all the money they made from Leo's parents, even more remarkable...and frankly, disgusting.

[–] jgroub 8 years ago

Heh, heh, you really don't like Lorraine, do ya? You really want to see her to get hers!

Well, let's break down your diatribe there. She didn't do anything to help kill Leo; she was not in on that meeting of the, ahem, minds between Tatum, the sheriff, and the head drill guy.

She stabs Tatum, sure, but it's not a fatal wound by any means. Tatum only makes it fatal by stumbling around in public all day long, bleeding, whoops, not bleeding all over everything. And besides, regardless of that, it's self-defense. You seem to have a tough time with that! You probably wanted to see Grace Kelly swing in Dial M for Murder!

And did she really steal anything? That place was Leo's, not Leo's parents. All the money that place made was theirs. And when he drops dead, he probably did so without a will. That means that money is hers, not theirs.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

No, I don't like Lorraine, but I guess you do, wanting her to walk off scot-free!

We've been batting this stuff back and forth on this and other threads, so I don't want to belabor it everywhere. I originally said that she stabbed Tatum in self-defense, and that it was he who let himself bleed to death, so Lorraine might be absolved on that score (though in Hays Code logic, who knows?). But she does overhear part of that "meeting of the minds" and quickly tumbles to what Tatum is doing, and clearly doesn't object to it.

But what makes you think the place is Leo's and not also -- or maybe entirely -- his parents'? Nothing is ever explicitly said, but the place isn't new (Leo had it before the war because he told Lorraine about it before they married), so it's almost certain it was Leo's old man who started the place -- at most, Leo is a co-owner. We can quibble about who should get what percentage of the "take", but the money isn't Leo's, and certainly not Lorraine's, alone. And even if you argue that for some reason she was entitled to all of it, what does it say of her that she leaves the bereaved parents flat by taking all the money, leaving them nothing?

Point is, we can debate her culpability on this and that, but without question she's an amoral person who connives to leave Leo in the cave and split, even if he gets out alive, with all the dough she can get. She's out for herself, period, and hurts others along the way -- Leo, his parents, even Tatum. She deserves some kind of comeuppance for that, at least by movie standards.

[–] jgroub 8 years ago

But what makes you think the place is Leo's and not also -- or maybe entirely -- his parents'?

Doesn't the sign on the place actually say that - "Leo Minosa, proprietor". Something like that?

And no, looking at Leo's dad, no I don't think the dad started the place. He's all shriveled up. And yeah, the place was started before the war, but not that much before the way. In that way, it's very similar to The Postman Always Rings Twice (again). Some guy goes out west, near a point of interest, on the way between hear and there, sets up a gas station/diner/souvenir stand. I imagine that kinda thing happening all over out west. Some places made it - they chose the right spot - and lots didn't.

I walk away from the movie thinking that that place is Leo's, start to finish, and that his parents only work there. Meaning, Leo puts them up, makes sure they're fed, gives them some walking around money, but otherwise, nope, they're not part-owners.

Again, Lorraine's not a wonderful person. But what kind of comeuppance can she get, other than death? She loses her husband. Okay, so obviously, that's not a big deal to her; she wanted to leave him. She loses her next "ride" - Tatum. Even that's not such a big deal to her - with her, ahem, whorish ways, she's sure to find another one.

I don't find her amoral so much as just looking out for herself - always. She married Leo without loving him, and now wants out. Or more to the point, has wanted out for quite a long time, and has made that explicitly clear to everyone all around - all 6 of them. It's not like she can go off to Kansas City for a week and have Leo's folks not notice. There's no love lost between them.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

You know, as much as I've seen this movie, I can't remember what the sign says -- you may be right, it may read "Leo Minosa - Proprietor". Regardless of technical ownership, it's clearly a family place, and we still can never know who or how many own it.

Well, we both seem to think Lorraine isn't any good, I just come down harder on her than you do. As to any comeuppance, no, she doesn't deserve death, but maybe she should have lost all that money she made, or something that hits her where she lives. Considering her sleazy ways and the fact that she is, in the words she uses about Leo, a "dumb cluck", one can posit that she doesn't live happily ever after. Maybe she ends up hitching a ride with a rapist-murderer. Okay, she eventually blows through all her money and ends up hooking in some dead-end bar in a dirty part of some Midwest town, drinking herself into oblivion and winding up a scuzzy lower-life stuck in some skid row section of a medium-sized city.

[–] jgroub 8 years ago

Maybe she ends up hitching a ride with a rapist-murderer. Okay, she eventually blows through all her money and ends up hooking in some dead-end bar in a dirty part of some Midwest town, drinking herself into oblivion and winding up a scuzzy lower-life stuck in some skid row section of a medium-sized city.

Goddamn! Did she give you the clap? Does she still owe you money? It's like you practically have a personal vendetta against her! :-)

You really hate her guts. Me, I don't feel so negatively against her. Sure, she's not a nice person; I wouldn't wanna be her best friend. But I also don't think she's evil incarnate, either. You do. What gives?

Your solution of her losing all the money somehow would probably have been a good one, without the descent into alcoholism, rape, prostitution, and STDs by the score. Heh, heh. It would have befit what befalls her character in accordance with the Code - that she not profit from her bad actions. I think that, in essence, is what we're talking about. I agree, that in that sense, you're right, the Code let this one slip by.

Just thinking out loud on how she could have lost the money. Maybe they could have charged her for the recovery effort? That must have cost a pretty penny.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

No, I don't hate her. I'm just messing with the situation -- having some fun thinking up appropriate fates for Lorraine. I actually feel some sympathy for her, trapped in Escadero with clunky Leo. But her actions go way beyond any legitimate reaction against him or his family. Besides, Leo aside, what has she got against his parents to treat them so badly and run off with all the money? She's just really mean.

But you hit it -- the Code dictated that she not profit from the situation. Forget the aspect about indirectly causing Tatum's death. She profits from her complicity in Leo's predicament. She shouldn't have been permitted that, according to the Code.