MovieChat Forums > Tell Your Children (1938) Discussion > They never did provide closure for that ...

They never did provide closure for that 'hit and run' subplot did they?


Here's the scenario that we all love and enjoy: Jimmy, our young and naive teenage boy, becomes seduced by the perilous clutches of the pot pusher Jack and his dangerous wacky weed and, driving at break-neck speed, runs over an elderly pedestrian trying to cross the street. A little while later, Jimmy sobers up and realizes his crime. He could be sent up the river for his little mishap! Later, Jack informs Jimmy that the elderly man he ran over passed away in the hospital and Jack will keep his mouth shut about the whole affair as long as Jimmy cooperates with him. While Jimmy tries to keep his cool, ol' Jack gets killed by crazy Ralph Wiley and the lone witness (besides the nearby onlookers who were only able to provide some of the license plate numbers) that could of lead Jimmy to the big house is silenced forever. Overjoyed, Jimmy is in a full smile when we see him next. However, his sister Mary is less fortunate and winds up shot in the back during a scuffle between Jack and Mary's drug-induced boyfriend, Bill. So...what might become of our good pal Jimmy and his deep, dark secret that could land him a position at the nearby prison chiseling rocks and mopping up floors?

Simple...by employing the use of a cheap screenwriter who doesn't pay attention to details, the subplot never found an ending and Jimmy led the rest of his life with the burden of a murdered man on his shoulders until he left this world at the healthy age of 74 from accidentally suffocating himself to death by tying his bow tie too tight. Sounds like a happy ending, eh? From the writer's perspective...well, I doubt they ever had a "perspective" since this little inconvenience in the story went unchecked by the film crew, the actors and basically everyone else involved in the shoot.

Yep, the "hit and run" subplot is never resolved on-screen and even with the combined efforts of three (count 'em, three) writers, this gaping-wide hole in the script went unnoticed...until now.

So in short, my hat is off to you Lawrence Meade, Arthur Hoerl and Paul Franklin for doing the seemingly impossible by leaving this subplot unresolved and, as an extra piece of credit, for helping make Reefer Madness the hilarious joke that it is today!

A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
- Vladimir Lenin

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I know it's been years since this thread was started but I didn't want to start a new one.

So yeah, I agree - Jimmy got away with vehicular manslaughter. Smoking pot is BAD! but killing someone with the car? Meh, no point in pursuing that.

Also, I noticed at the end that Jimmy and his mother (Mary's family) were all hugging Bill. WTH?

reply

I hear the sequel was going to focus on Jimmy after the end of the first film and SPOILER

he runs over his own left testicle.

reply

Did the pedestrian really die or was Jack lying to frighten Jimmy into being quiet? The police told Mary he was still alive.

reply

That's right, Jack was lying about the death of the pedestrian. From what the police said, we get the impression that the pedestrian was not seriously injured, which is probably why it was not felt necessary for Jimmy to be punished.

reply