MovieChat Forums > Five Came Back (1939) Discussion > Why did Vasquez not do the final job di...

Why did Vasquez not do the final job differently?

posted 16 years ago by Oblomov-2
6 replies | jump to latest

Ever since I saw Five Came Back or the remake Back From Eternity, I have wondered why a streetwise revolutionary like Vasquez, who must have known every trick in the book and then some, did not make better use of the 2 remaining bullets to mercy-kill the elderly couple and then himself, rather than allow himself to be captured by the savage headhunters. In both films, it was very obvious that the professor and his wife knew that was the only answer and surely would have co-operated if Vasquez had offered to kill them both with a single bullett by placing the barrel deep inside the prof's mouth with the couple standing back to back / neck to neck. That has been mentioned in countless books and a man like Vasquez would have certainly known the technique, grisly as it sounds. That would have left the final bullet for himself as the natives closed in.

[–] monescu4 16 years ago

The professor clearly wanted his wife to die in a moment of "blissful ignorance" (i.e. without fear of her final moment), and Vasquez's noble lie to the professor allowed the latter to believe that that could happen without any of the three facing torture. I've no doubt (do you?) that Vasquez shot her first, so that she didn't even suffer or fear for that fraction of a second between shots. As you say, Vasquez no doubt knew of the technique you mentioned, but was making an ultimate humane sacrifice.

[–] blue__yoshi 13 years ago

Talk about missing the point. Screenwriters can only be a slave to reality for so long before they have to start using fiction to tell their stories. So you'll accept all the other story contrivances except that one? Really? It was done because it was more dramatic that way. Your proposed ending sounds really anti-climactic and unsatisfying, making Vasquez's sacrifice and redemption utterly pointless. Please don't start a career as a film maker. I see enough of reality in everyday life.

[–] TongueFu 12 years ago

Doesn't seem that logical a proposition to me. In order to be fatal to both parties, the bullet would have to pass through two different skull cavities pretty much intact with little to no fragmentation with lethal force. There's no certainty that it would have killed both the professor and his wife. It might kill the first one, but only seriously wound the second. In that case, Vasquez still wouldn't have been able to save the second bullet for himself. What book has this possible scenario been mentioned in? Why would there be countless books on the ending of this movie and possible alternative endings? The film wasn't that popular.

Simply put, a more gruesome and/or explicit ending wouldn't have made it past the Hayes Commission back then, the censorship body that caused the ruination of a lot of American movies since its inception.

[–] superdavey 11 years ago

The final scene was of this often trite and predictable movie was powerful and poignant. Hard to believe it could have been better, Hayes office or not.

[–] mikekrit62 11 years ago

I just watched this, and Vasquez checked the gun and told the professor there were three bullets left. So why would he have to kill the prof and his wife with a single bullet? That would have been a rather gruesome, unnecessary scene.

We also don't know that Vasquez didn't use the last bullet on himself. All you saw was the approaching feet of the natives, and a blowgun rise out of the brush.

[–] tiller088 11 years ago

You obviously missed the fact that Vasquez lied to the professor - he said there were still three cartridges left, but he opened the gun to the camera and revealed there were actually only two. He wanted to fulfill the professor's wish to have him shoot his wife when she wasn't looking to spare her any last second fear, while having the professor believe he still had the means to take them both out.

You can argue the tiny element of doubt that Vasquez may have been able to escape the headhunters alone, but it's a thin argument in my opinion - seems to me the intent of the director is to clearly point to an implied, selfless and gruesome end for him.