Why, oh why, did the film end the way it did? The tacked on happy ending detracted from the film and made what would have been a masterpiece in the study of poverty and its effects on the human psyche, and nearly turned the theme upside-down. Did the studio require this happy ending or something?
My Reviews - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=195926&view=public
Did the studio require this happy ending or something?
Yes, it did. Murnau and Mayer wanted the film to end with the doorman's death, but the executives over at Universum Film pressed them to conjure up a happy ending in order to maximise its economic potential... which they did, even though they were openly against it (hence the undertitle).
The tacked on happy ending (...) nearly turned the theme upside-down.
Not quite 'upside down' in that it's pretty much impossible to look at these closing moments as anything but an alternative ending to an admittedly dark film. That is not to say it doesn't detract from the overall experience; it does, it's just not as blatantly conflicting with everything else as you're making it sound because you get the fleeting impression that the filmmakers knew what they were doing and that it wasn't by any means the right thing to do. So you're clearly not alone in feeling that way.
On a different note, some people like to think of this conclusion as a sarcastic send-up of the quintessential happy-ending, but I don't see it. The whole thing comes absolutely out of nowhere and it doesn't even build on any of the film's earlier themes (anti capitalism, the tragedy of growing old, and so on). It's simply tacked on - and not in an intelligent, reflexive way (a meager title card doesn't cut it). Overall, a fascinating film, marred by a inadequate ending and a couple other technicalities.
Thanks for the response. Very insightful!
My Reviews - http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=195926&view=public
I like to look at it almost as two films--the more realistic story of the doorman's decline (obviously the first two-thirds of the movie) and then the "happy ending."
I would also argue that it would be pretty easy to read the happy ending as sarcastic. The title card helps, but also everything about the ending--the acting, the props, the staging--is so over-the-top that for me, it's hard NOT to read it as an ironic commentary on the traditional happy ending--I mean, for heaven's sake, the guy gets rich because a stranger dropped dead in his arms in the john!
The main problem I have with the happy ending is that... well, its morals are a little dubious. The doorman is clearly the good guy - popular, successful relative to his neighbours, noble, humble and hardworking... all the ingredients that set us up for such a crushing blow when he is demoted. Suddenly he is without his "glamorous" job and everyone, even his own family, is either ashamed of him or essentially bullies him for it. The way the doorman is introduced seems to suggest that he is popular because he is a friendly and kind man, but it turns very sour when he loses his job. And then, when the happy ending arrives, "tacked on" or not, there's no resolution. He is happy and not destitute or lacking in dignity, yes - but has he just abandoned his family and neighbours?? After how cruelly they treated him, maybe he did, and you couldn't blame him for it. But if he's such a classic virtuous and humble character.... it just doesn't make sense.
One good thing I'll say for the happy ending though, is this.... very rarely have I seen films that are so relentlessly sad as this. I know there are WAY bleaker films out there that I've seen and that I've yet to see... but it touches on my own personal feelings for the elderly in society. To see them disregarded and stripped of diginity in this way deeply affects me more than anything else I can think of. 'Der Latzte Mann' hit me hard for most of an hour. So it made me happy to see him happy again, despite being devoid of his family. And also, it was made very clear that he didn't lose his sense of humility and comradeship with the hard-done-by... which I suppose ties up some potentially loose ends in his character.
All in all, a very effective film... visually remarkable in several places and very emotional. 8 out of 10, points knocked off for the studio-pleasing ending.
....Actually, the key scene in the film happens in the epilogue when the doorman goes down to the wash room. After pointedly ignoring the attendant at first, he finally sees this little guy who seems happily content with his lowly "station" in life, totally unlike his own reaction to the same circumstance. and here the doorman has his epiphany. After rewarding the attendant, he tops it off by giving the beggar outside the hotel a lift in his carriage. I like to think that last shot was from the beggar's p.o.v.
The ending of this film is very important and not just tacked on as a poor afterthought. I don't think that it can be viewed as anything other than blatant satire and a mockery of the American-style happy endings of films of the time period. This segment contrasts greatly with the rest of the film both ideologically and cinematographically. as was pointed out earlier on this board, the acting was extremely over-the-top and it called attention to itself. In fact, the paragraph which preceded this scene really serves to shatter the illusion created by the film and admits directly to it being a film and not reality. The purpose of this ending is to point out the absurdity of both itself and of every other film with an unrealistically happy-go-lucky world view. So, rather than being viewed as a detraction from the film, or as a poorly tacked on ending to make the viewer walk away happy, this ending should be viewed as a creative and somewhat unique satirical epilogue to what would have otherwise been, although exceptionally well filmed and acted, just another straight-ahead depressing, somewhat unimaginative social commentary, like so many other films to come out of Germany in the 20's.
oh, and seriously, the guy he inherited the money from was named A.G. Money... it's easy to miss if you're not paying too close attention the the newspaper article at the end, but yeah, it doesn't get too much more blatantly sarcastic than that.
[deleted]
"American-style happy endings"
This interpretation is flat out wrong (this isn't merely a social commentary but a character study about a man with massive delusions) but more importantly...
America made plenty of films back then that LACKED happy endings and other countries made tons of films WITH happy endings.
Come on, this should be so obvious by now.
According to the "Making of" Documentary that comes with the Eureka! MoC release, the ending was Emil Jannings' idea. It actually is of a piece with the rest of the film: the film satirizes the idea that "the clothes make the man" -- as soon as he loses his uniform, he's lost everything, both in his own eyes and in those of his neighbors. The ending shows that he's learned his lesson -- he's come to realize that if you have money, the rest is irrelevant.
shareWhat is so fascinating about the tacked-on happy ending besides what could be labeled as its sarcastic tone is that it leaves the audience wanting more.The porter is at core a good man to everybody who surrounds im and we do not want to accept the possibility that he has forgotten his family and neighbors therefore a few minutes of movie would have bought a fair conclusion to the story.Its somber tone does not detract from the fact that technically the movie is brilliant. What a big advance all the moving shots done by the dolly. The intercutting between the Hotel atmosphere and the porter shots and his neighborhood.The fantastic dream sequence and that shot when the two ladies go in to the apartments to tell the gossip and the camera focuses only on the closed door behind them. The acting is great and most performers look very real.Emil Jannings is on a par with Lon Chaney as one of the great actors of the Silent Screen. Among the movie many messages one is for me very clear.Growing old and losing your dignity is something terrible to happen to anybody but growing old with a lot of money makes a big difference.
share[deleted]
It's simply tacked on - and not in an intelligent, reflexive way (a meager title card doesn't cut it).
I thought so too. But even if the studio made him create a happier ending (which doesn't seem very typical for a European studio; there were a lot of down endings in the foreign films even of those days so why ask a happy one of this film?), Murnau definitely played up the satirical elements of the happiness. Not only does he actually say that this would never happen in real life, but those entire last scenes see him contrasting with most of the rich people you see in the rest of the movie. Two of the blatant themes in this film is 1) the disparity between rich and poor, and 2) the apathy of the rich, aka the beginnings of decadence. The ending is like Murnau saying "here, people of money, act more like this!" And all during that scene, whenever Emil does something charitable, those around him actually, well, laugh at him, giving each other winks or confused looks. Like they can't even fathom why somebody would go out of his way to care about the poor. The ending is so full of satirical jabs like this that I can't see it as either tacked on or ruining the film, and I suspect Murnau wasn't forced to film it.
It also helps that the ending contains the single greatest tracking shot of the movie: when it pans backwards showing the people at the tables against the wall, then switches rightwards and forwards to Emil's table, with the plate of meat(?) covering his face. God what a beautiful shot, not just moving the camera but timing the action and choreographing the placement of objects. Without the ending, we wouldn't have such an advanced shot, so just for that I say it's worth it.
If it wasn't Murnau's precise desire to end the film this way, he definitely turned it towards his own ends.
It's a fantastic ending - it parallels the dream sequence earlier in the film and it really plays into the doorman's pretentions, his delusions of grandeur. Absurdity is spread throughout the film, so it really isn't much of a leap. Seems completely natural to me.
Exactly. Even if it was a bit forced, I felt it was purely ironic. Besides, the dark film has just shown how people can be thrown out from the high society just like that. What security do we have that he will not drop out of it after a few days?
share