MovieChat Forums > The Roaring Twenties (1939) Discussion > No two ways about it- Eddie was gonna le...

No two ways about it- Eddie was gonna let George kill Lloyd.

posted 16 years ago by Ralph Monroe
7 replies | jump to latest

Even though he was portrayed as a gangster with a sense of honor, Eddie Bartlett had no intention of trying to stop George (Bogart) from killing Lloyd. There's the fascinating scene where Jean goes to Eddie at that dive bar and asks for his help in saving her husband Lloyd. Eddie looks at her incredulously and says, "Well, what do you want me to do about it?" Then he tells her George has warned Lloyd, to which she responds something like, "But Lloyd has to do what he has to do." And Eddie matter-of-factly says, "And George has to do what he has to do." I really found that interesting. It really demonstrated Eddie was still an immoral guy- especially considering he was just gonna walk away from the whole thing once George said he was still going to kill Lloyd. I mean, if George hadn't made the mistake of trying to kill him, Eddie would have just walked out the door and forgot the whole thing and let George gun down Lloyd.

So, to sum it up in legal terminology: Get lost, you bum.

[–] Altho73 16 years ago

That's not the way I see it. The movie portrayed the three male leads as -

George Hally - the bad guy with no redeeming features
Eddie Bartlett - the bad guy with redeeming features
Lloyd Hart - the good guy

George was totally evil, a psychopath and this fact is made evident very early in the movie, in the WW1 trenches when he takes great pleasure in killing the 15 year old German soldier - a few minutes before the Armistice, an act that gained nothing and that he had no need to do. Later on in the movie he double crosses Nick Brown in order to work for Eddie, then he kills his former army sergeant due to a petty personal vendetta, tries to get Eddie killed by setting him up for Nick Brown, cheats Eddie by buying his fleet of cabs for a tenth of their worth etc.

Eddie was not exactly a criminal by choice, he got into the bootlegging business by accident and with an intent to take advantage of an unpopular law to make money and give the public what they wanted - banned alcohol. He was a flawed character in many ways, his prominent flaw in being naive, he failed to recognise George's psychpathic nature, after the WW1 shooting - he should have kept him at arms length, after the Sergeant Jones killing he should have got rid of him and after the Nick Brown set up he should have had no doubts whatsoever.
Quite honestly what could Eddie have done to prevent George from killing Lloyd (apart from killing George himself)???? and he had declined to do that in the past when he had every reason for doing so.

Even Lloyd was not exactly 100% a good character, he got involved in Eddie's bootlegging business which was after all a crime!!!! He stayed with it for a long time, before he drew the line at the killing of Sergeant Jones. Also look at the house that Lloyd and his wife lived in near the end of the movie - way beyond the salary of an assistant district attorney, which suggests that Lloyd had made a nice earner out of Eddie's business and had probably invested it wisely to become rich.

[–] CharteredStreets 16 years ago

Having just watched it, I think that Eddie couldn't understand why Lloyd would feel he had to talk; if he kept his mouth shut he'd be fine. But Jean knew that Lloyd would have to out of a sense of duty. Eddie didn't want to go talk to George because what good would that do? If Lloyd talked George would go to prison, or the electric chair. What was he gonna say to George to talk him out of it? He doesn't want to go talk to George because he doesn't think there's a thing he can do about it. But then he realises how he'd do anything for Jean really, and therefore there IS something he can do about it.

If I have to tell you again, we're gonna take it outside and I'm gonna show you what it's like!

[–] snsurone 8 years ago

Yeah; Lloyd had inside info that Japan would attack Pearl Harbor and made a killing on war bonds!!
;-)

[–] aciolino 12 years ago

Wrong.

IMO, Eddie was being VERY moral, according to the "morality" of his world-view. Lloyd was being an obstinate fool, thinking he could prosecute a big time gangster without getting into trouble. He had to have his wifey go ask for help??? Weak. Eddie was being being true to his code. Llyod knew what he was getting into, why should he (Eddie) risk death for it?

Nope. Eddie was the victim here.

[–] novastar_6 12 years ago

Lloyd didn't have Jean talk to Eddie for him. George's men waited until Lloyd had left for work to go to the house and threaten his wife. She then spent all day trying to track Eddie down so she wouldn't have had time to tell Lloyd about the visit she got.

And, I think something else we should consider, when Eddie went into George's house he got patted down, so he couldn't have done much on his own IN the house, when he turned to leave, George thought he was going to go to the cops, and he was going to have Eddie killed when he walked out, there wasn't much from that vantage point that Eddie could do from there other than what he did. It could be that he went in figuring if nothing else after they talked, he would wait for George to leave the house and then kill him. Who knows?

[–] marktayloruk 9 years ago

If LLoyd informed on George,he had it coming.

[–] foster11 7 years ago

I have to disagree

As is said, Eddie wasn't a nice guy, but he didn't want Lloyd killed.

He wouldn't squeal to the cops, probably get a couple guns and gun George down the next day

He was still in love with Jean but wouldn't tell her that, and wouldn't let George hurt Lloyd

You don't have to stand tall, but you do have to stand up!