MovieChat Forums > The Mind ReaderĀ (1933) Discussion > Great Film up until the very disappointi...

Great Film up until the very disappointing ending (spoiler!)


I wonder if others who have seen this film had the same reaction to the ending as I did. Chandra admits to murdering the man, but in self-defense, which was true. So why are we told that the law is putting him away for 2 years? Furthermore, after lying to Sylvia yet again that he was out of the "mind reader racket", he allows her to be put in jail for a murder she did not commit, she has found out that her husband has been lying for several months about not being Dr. Monro, whom she depises, yet when he visits her in the hospital and asks for a divorce, she takes him back yet again! That makes here a totally abused wife, with no self-esteem. Her taking him back made absolutely no sense. Therefore, the film's conclusion just about ruined what was otherwise a very good film.

reply

maestro7PL says > I wonder if others who have seen this film had the same reaction to the ending as I did.
I just watched the movie and thought pretty much the same things you did. I hated the fact Sylvia kept falling for Chandra's manipulations. That's what I think happened. He may have been trying to be sincere at that point, and really wanted her to divorce him, but he was so used to bamboozling people it was all he knew.

The guy ruined a lot of people's lives. Even if you believe the cheaters had it coming, I got the impression he made some of it up. Sylvia's friend believed her husband had been unfaithful even though he probably had not. He seemed to be an innocent bystander who got caught up in Munro's snare. There were also the deaths he caused, the money he took, and the lies he told.

By choosing to stay with him, Sylvia was condoning all he had done; including lying repeatedly about what he was doing for a living. She felt sorry for him but he took his sweet time going back when she needed him most. As a result she sat in jail a lot longer than she should have. Had she not taken ill she would have stood trial and probably convicted and hanged for something he knew she didn't do.

Chandra admits to murdering the man, but in self-defense, which was true. So why are we told that the law is putting him away for 2 years?
Actually Chandra told one of his pals he could get 2-10 years. That seems appropriate to me. He may have claimed self-defense but he fled the scene of the crime. That's always a no-no. Had he stayed an the investigation could have proved he was telling the truth. However, when the police arrived all the evidence they had pointed to murder with Sylvia as the prime suspect.

By the time Chandra/Munro returned it would have been hard to go from murder to self-defense. The only new evidence came from him. While they were willing to accept his version of events and release Sylvia, Chandra/Munro had to either accept a plea deal or risk being tried for murder and possibly getting many more years in prison.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply