Alternate ending?


Does anyone know if the script had a different ending?
Or if they shot another? It feels as if some studio know it not decided this film
should have the horrible happy tacked on ending.

reply

When Ballin goes into the water with a life raft and a man waiting in a boat, it was pretty clear to me that he would be back, and that there would be trouble. And that with Johnny married to his ex-wife, what that sort of trouble would amount to.

I disagree that the ending was "horrible." It was the last half of the movie that was "horrible."

The writers of this movie created first class characters and a fascinating situation for them to strut their stuff within. And then couldn't figure out what to do with them.

Put the blame on Mame.... as Rita said....

I suspect that makers of movies do not really know what to do with steamy women.

The writers of the (much lesser) recent film, Virtuosity, have the evil genius create two perfect characters.... a porno centerfold of a woman and a serial killer. Guess which character is thrown into the trash.

Mickey

reply

Don't know about an alternate ending, but the end did feel weird. I was laughing when Johnny came back at the end and made up with Gilda. It was ridiculous and completely unbelievable. The rest of the movie was enjoyable though (I loved Rita Hayworth and all of her amazing costumes).

reply

Yea, I just recently viewed a new restored version of "Gilda". The only thing I can say is that both characters are supposed to have been in love all the time (compare this with Rick and ilsa in Casablanca)but there is some misunderstandings and bad feelings that needs to be dealt with before they can get together. Listen to all the dialog. The characters are also nuts.

reply

Come to think of it, Gilda did too much running around with men and sexy dancing to be forgiven by Glen Ford. I am thinking it would have and should have ended in tragedy. Gilda was talking of "reaping at harvest" or expected to pay for her sins, hinting at tragedy.
But Hollywood probally thought viewers wanted a happy romatic ending. At the time it might have seemed right. Maybe. But it seems very unlikely today that the two could have gotten along. The wash room guy killing the German seemed out of character also.

reply

Come to think of it, Gilda did too much running around with men and sexy dancing to be forgiven by Glen Ford.


Umm... More like Glen Ford did too much to Gilda. He locked her in her room and refused to give her a divorce. I have no idea why she would ever go back to him. This movie is kind of terrifying as it shows how terribly women were treated a little less then 60 years ago.

reply

Yeah a lot of men with mental-illness at that time (as GILDA says too, in the final part of the film). Traumatised by WW-II? They destroyed other beauties like Marilyn Monroe, Gene Tierney and Veronica Lake.

reply

Umm... More like Glen Ford did too much to Gilda. He locked her in her room and refused to give her a divorce. I have no idea why she would ever go back to him. This movie is kind of terrifying as it shows how terribly women were treated a little less then 60 years ago.


Yeah, I don't know that I'd call that ending "happy" for Gilda in the long run. The two men in her life had a few screws loose and she would have been well shot of them both, not just Ballin.

I don't agree that noir always has to have an unhappy ending. That would be as predictable as always having a happy ending. And sometimes, happy endings are far creepier, anyway.


http://www.geocities.com/rpcv.geo/other.html

reply

[deleted]


)but there is some misunderstandings and bad feelings that needs to be dealt with before they can get together.

Of which we are given very little information


http://www.moola.com:80/moopubs/b2b/exc/join.jsp?sid=4d6a55744d7a45794e544d3d-2

reply

I think the film begins to unravel after "Put The Blame on Mame". It seems to be going somewhere after Gilda making a spectacle of herself by debasing herself and then it just stops. Having Johnny and Gilda walk into the sunset together at the end is wrong, in my opinion. This is Film Noir and one of the darkest of that form that Hollywood produced. Characters in Film Noir are mostly doomed from the very beginning.

The ending should have been weird...mysterious...unsettling... maybe the Production Code wouldn't have allowed that kind of treatment at that time.

reply

[deleted]

This movie had so much potencial but instead of developing it they just made it an inconsistent mess with a riduculous ending. And I also really disliked the several scenes and shots that show off Rita Hayworth way too blatantly. They could have just as well have someone come up on the screen and interrupt the film to tell us "Look at Rita Hayworth! Look at how beatiful and wonderful and perfect she is!"

I'm here, Mr. Man, I can not tell no lie and I'll be right here 'till the day I die

reply

The weird ending is the one reason I can't give this film a 10 out of 10. My sister and I wondered if maybe it had originally had a different ending, but the studio made them tack on a happy one, 'cause its utterly strange and ill-fitting. All of Gilda's pronouncements throughout the film that she feels she's approaching her doom are completely ignored. It's so anti-climactic and disappointing and just plain weird. Here I was thinking Gilda or Johnny or both were going to be killed, and instead they walked off into the sunset. The last few minutes are the one spot on an otherwise flawless film.

"He's already attracted to her. Time and monotony will do the rest."

reply

Sorry, but an ending with both being killed makes no sense. "Gilda" is not like "The Postman Always Rings Twice".

Gilda is a bad-good girl who pretends to be a femme fatale which is obvious for the audience very early in the film. Maybe an ending with Johnny being arrested by the police would have been good which could have suggested that Gilda and Johnny will be a happier couple in the future after Johnny "payed" for his ignorant and violent behaviour.

reply

Nah! Ballin kills Gilda just after she realizes and tells Johnny that she's through with the games and wants him. Johnny and Ballin have a ferocious fight where Johnny is wounded but manages to kill Ballin. Then he struggles to pick up Gilda's lifeless body and staggers out into the dawn. . . .

reply

I'd rather see Johnny dead for being such a big jerk, though I wouldn't want Gilda having to carry his lifeless body. ;-P

reply

For a long time I thought that the movie should have ended with Gilda's death. So much of her dialogue has her foreshadowing tragedy. She believes she's going to pay in some way. BUT since we know that Gilda is really not a bad girl, her death might feel undeserved (not that that isn't one way to end a movie)...so now I'm convinced that Johnny should die at the end. Thus, the tragedy Gilda foresees is the death of the love of her life. My only issue with Johnny dying is that he is also narrating the story in the past tense. That would require some restructuring.

reply

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Sex Bomb.

What's wrong with a little self insight in a troubled film noir male?

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

I was hoping it was based on a book, maybe - for a little more info to fill in some of the holes - but nope, just a "story by" and "scripting" credits.

From the sparse clues in the movie. Johnny was definitely "small time" (and lower class).

Gilda was WAY out of his league from the getgo (even if she was "only" a singer-dancer.)

So, they were a couple but Johnny was always jealous from his social status insecurities - and something happened one night (dialogue later on in the film: Gilda saying "Johnny, let me explain what happened that night..." but her explanation was never made.)

Of course Gilda always had guys pursuing her - and maybe she just didn't come home one night for some innocent reason (to her) - but Johnny thought the worst and had already just left town. It easier to see Glenn Ford as "young and naive" and really hung-up on Gilda. A little harder to see Rita Hayworth as just SO hung-up on Johnny, though. But it's possible - "the heart wants what it wants" and isn't always just "logical."

They are both older and wiser now - and Johnny (maybe) has some inherited wealth he can claim as his own, now - to help his insecurities - but I never thought they were STILL going to just "live happily ever after", based on their past and basic personalities. Like Gilda is going to suddenly stop going out/entertaining/flirting? And Johnny WON'T get jealous any more? I think the "happy ending" was meant as merely irony for every adult watching the movie - even in 1946. (BTW - WW2 blew up a LOT of marriages in the real world. The divorce/marriage ratio reached 42% divorces that year - an all time high for the USA. Basically for every 100 marriages - there were 42 divorces. The moral of this ending for those times was merely "don't jump to conclusions too quickly - and give your marriages a chance...")

reply

@justbobkc
When Gilda tried to explain about "that night" I thought she was referring specifically to the night Johnny picked her up in front of the Hotel Centenario. I thought she was trying to make him see that she didn't really do anything with another man that night.

reply

Dan,

Not a bad thought, certainly - since Gilda even showed some trepidation when she realized her new lawyer beau booked her there while he was going to get her annulment. And this conversation with Johnny happened in a room there as part of the plan to get Gilda back.

My own argument is more "from silence" and merely assumptions of their past - a past never spelled out in any detail.

I guess I just can't see why Johnny would have been SO emotionally concerned with anything Gilda did to Ballin while THEY were married - with Ballin now dead (he thought). If both he and Gilda were concentrating on that - "I only did those things to make you jealous" Gilda said (and marrying Ballin and sleeping in HIS bed every night wouldn't make Johnny jealous???) - then they were BOTH ignoring exactly why Johnny left her (BEFORE Ballin) and why Johnny certainly THOUGHT Gilda was cheating on him which is why he left her.

I guess it's all just a communications problem - "I think what we have here is a failure to communicate." (Cool Hand Luke ;-)

reply

Put the blame on mame would certainly be implying that she was blamed wrongly.

I think he saw himself and realised he was just jealous and that it wasn't like loving.

So, she could love him once he gave that up. Until that point she was being a tease but the point is that he allowed himself to be let down by it.

The anti-trust rang symbolically too.

But I guess it's up to oneself. Like it was for Johnny. It's just a movie ;-)

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

Put the blame on mame would certainly be implying that she was blamed wrongly.
...
But I guess it's up to oneself. Like it was for Johnny. It's just a movie ;-)


LOL

Its just a song - IN "just a movie..."

I have to laugh whenever ANYONE uses the "it's just a movie" argument in this forum. Why bother reading and especially responding in any of these threads?

Yes - we ALL know it's movies - but it is a tad more than "just" a movie - and has been for a very long time. Violent video games are MORE than "just games" and porn is MORE than "just porn" - when thousands of people start getting addicted to it to the point of wanting/needing treatment because it interferes with "normal life." Movies affect everyone who watches them - more or less and one way or another. Don't believe otherwise.

If a woman ACTS like she is "cheating" and puts on that public face - then how can it NOT be cheating? If she is "date raped" in one of her little adventures by a paramour that just won't take "no", is she perfectly innocent - and "faithful" anyway?

At a minimum Johnny wanted a woman for himself that ACTED faithful - as well as being faithful. This is very common and part of basic human sexual nature. Women like the same thing, actually.

And all the feminist propaganda in the world doesn't change it. It's not just the great unwashed who still occasionally murder their unfaithful spouses - but even University Professors with Ph.D.'s who sometimes do...

reply

Wellllll ... it's not just a song - it's the epitome of her - that she was blamed wrongly.

It's a well-established analysis of the movie I would have thought you would have read. Just one example.

https://fatallady.wordpress.com/2012/02/14/put-the-blame-on-gilda

Even her name is a pun on the word guilt.

So, I think it's a matter of trust and Johnny didn't trust her love. He was jealous, possessive and obsessed. But he found a way out of those feelings.

That's why it's sort of the best movie ever made.

I am aware you don't trust the happy ending.

I completely agree that it's more than a movie. It was an ironic statement - hence the ;-) - implying you need to trust.

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

Thanks for the link.

BTW - I only saw Gilda for the first time a week or so ago.

The only research I did on the movie was basically this forum - and was REAL surprised about the "homosexual" threads. Whatever.

Not so surprised about the "war between the sexes" threads - like this one - though.

And I apologize that I misunderstood your "it's a just a movie. ;-)" comment.

Now back to the gist of our different ideas - based on the very last paragraph in your linked article:

The male discourse that women are the route of all the problems in the world is not only seen in Gilda but in almost every film noir movie out there through the essential femme fatal character and the role she plays. Gilda, as the good-bad girl, is one of the few to counter this claim. Unfortunately at times her actions prove otherwise.


Does that "unfortunately" observation give you any pause AT ALL that Gilda really was "blameless" in her disastrous relationships with ALL men - not just Johnny?

What is it with women who so often "want their cake and eat it too"?

(Certainly there are men who want this as well - a faithful wife and often mother of his children at home - while HE wants to seduce other women. Sort of like Bill Clinton. ;-) But this movie is not about that dynamic - but rather Gilda and her failings. Strange you want to twist it somehow that it is really Johnny's failings. He should have shut his own eyes and just believed Gilda all the time because...??? And let me just add some additional observations. Johnny didn't run off and immediately marry another woman, or even shack up with one. In fact, there are NO other women in Johnny's live throughout the movie. Johnny was obviously more affected by his voluntary leaving Gilda than vice-versa. Gilda looks real fine the first time we see her (as opposed to how Johnny looked - at first) - and she married a real great guy that Johnny liked - PLUS the guy was rich. And yet Gilda IMMEDIATELY starts actually dating OTHER men. This is that "unfortunately" observation previously noted. And yet YOU think it is Johnny that has a problem and not ever Gilda?)

reply

The movie has been analysed for 70 years and you can trust my opinion since I have read a lot about it.

The link I provided was just one of many, so I am not going to debate or defind the paragraph you quoted. This link is perhaps more substantiated, but I recommend that you read some books about the movie since there is no point in me trying to supply you with links you can google as well:

http://megavitamin.hubpages.com/hub/The-Role-of-Sexuality-in-the-Film-Classic-Gilda

I am not saying she was altogether perfect but the solving of the key psychological deadlock was up to the male and his ability to dare to accept the woman and accept that he doesn't possess her. Eyes Wide Shut said nothing more and nothing less.

La Dolce Vita shows a man who wasn't able to understand women (as a concept).

Now take the batch.


"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

Quoting from the new link you provided me:

Her most famous role in the Columbia picture, Gilda sealed her iconic status in 1946. However, the character of Gilda was not just another supportive wife, with a gorgeous face and pretty singing voice lost in a sea of dominant men. Instead, her sharp wit and irreverent attitude set her apart from the typical housewife roles that were common for actresses at that time.


I may have just seen Gilda for the first time but I have watched a LOT of movies from the late 20's, 30's, and 40's and almost NONE of them just have women in them as "supportive wife" roles.

It's like this author never heard of Joan Crawford, Hedy Lamarr, Myrna Loy, Katherine Hepburn, or even Ginger Rogers.

I can name 2 dozen movies right off the top of my head with strong female leads - made BEFORE Gilda. Check out "Susan and God" now available on demand at TCM (1940 with Joan Crawford) or Dinner for 8 or ANY 1940's Hedy Lamarr movie.

I can also site just as many "hen pecked and dumb" husband roles as "supportive wife" roles back then. It just all depends on how actually HONEST one is in evaluating history. And if you only read current "women's studies" analysis you will never ever get the real truth.

The first real "feminist revolution" in the USA actually happened in the 1920's - with the acquisition of voting rights but also the widespread availability of the automobile and HOW women were portrayed in movies as key to "women's independence". I guess you have never heard of "Flapper girls" eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapper

reply

Well, that's another cup of tea.

"You couldn't be much further from the truth" - several

reply

Yes and no.

It's true that the whole Roaring 20's hedonistic lifestyle - including "free" and independent Flapper women - was greatly scaled back for most during the Great Depression, but Hollywood kept making at least some movies with that same theme.

By mere coincidence yet another such movie was just on TCM yesterday - "Strangers May Kiss" and this movie is also now available on demand at the TCM website for just a couple more days. You may want to check it out.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022435/

This is a 1931 precode movie and we do NOT have to guess whether the Norma Shearer lead girl ACTUALLY screwed around or not. It is very clear and she admits it herself. You will think the man she really wants to marry is just an utter hypocritical cad - as HE was married (and didn't tell "Lisbeth" of that when he seduced her into love) - but then refuses to marry her after divorcing his "Paris wife" but finds out just how promiscuous Lisbeth has been in his 2 year absence from her life - but ALL the basics of "Gilda" are still right here in this 1931 movie.

I am probably starting to bore you and I will give you the last word in this debate - if you wish it. ;-)

reply