MovieChat Forums > Notorious (1946) Discussion > About not taking Alexander Sebastian wit...

About not taking Alexander Sebastian with them.

posted 12 years ago by Strom-
18 replies | jump to latest

I'm talking about the scene in the end where Dev is taking Alicia to the hospital. He refuses to take Alexander with him and this really blows my mind. Lets analyze the situation shall we.

If they take Alexander with them:
a) Alexander survives and is most likely willing to cooperate in order to save his life
b) Alexander knows a ton of nazi secrets that can immensely help uncle sam, not to mention Dev's career
c) Taking Alexander with them will make it more likely that the other Nazis don't flee just yet
d) Alexander knows what kind of poison Alicia was given. Taking an antidote might be a question of hours - hours which will now be spent trying to figure out what the hell she was poisoned with.

On the other hand, if they don't take Alexander with them:
a) Everyone from the house will flee or be killed
b) Stuff will be covered up, leads will disappear, the investigation will run into a dead end
c) Alicia might very well die, because nobody has any clue what she was poisoned with
d) Dev can privately talk to Alicia in the car, about how much he loves her

It's scenes like these that won't let me enjoy this movie at all.

[–] Krista2882 12 years ago

I think Hitchcock was trying to create a sense of doom in this scene. Taking Sebastian with them would have been the easy way out. Not taking him is pretty much guaranteeing that he will be killed by his own people for being so careless and giving them away.

[–] Piperson 11 years ago

SPOILER

It just makes it a better movie to have it be a simple rescue and the bad guys have to fend for themselves.

[–] kelly-527 11 years ago

Dev was acting like a man in love, not a rational government spy. Besides what delicious irony for Sebastian to be killed by his Nazi cronies.

[–] ecarle (14979) 2 years ago

Dev was acting like a man in love, not a rational government spy.

---

I think that's the "Hitchcock statement" here. The OP is correct about much of what is lost in not taking Sebastian with them.

But Grant doesn't CARE. Its all about HIM, and HIS love for Alicia (whom, after all, Sebastian was trying to kill.)

What's really nasty about it is the idea that Grant was always the BETTER man than Sebastian, on the surface. More handsome. More cool. More loved by Alicia even when she had Sebastian. Devlin is adding insult to injury, giving up a pathetic little man to his Nazi cronies.

It was something Hitchcock could do, a lot: make us feel sad for the villain, and a bit disgusted by the hero...

Even if the sad villain was involved in a plot to blow up the world and bring back Nazism.

[–] viaggio1 11 years ago

Strom --- I was wondering about this at the ending too --- so much more for Devlin & Alicia & the Americans to gain by taking Alexander with them !

The only resolution I can come up with is that since Alexander was such a rotter, taking his Mom's advice to slowly poison Alicia, audiences probably would have howled in anger & derision if Alexander "got away with his life" by being "rescued" by the Americans. Much better perhaps, from certain points of view, or at least for 1940s audiences, that Alex "get his" at the hands of his cronies in retribution for his perfidy.

Actually, the movie is a bit of a cheat --- the only real villainous Nazis are "Emil's" assassin and Alex's mother --- the others are merely thugs, or else weak-willed narcissists like Alex. Therefore, we actually feel concern for Alex at the end of the movie --- if he had been much more truly evil, we would not have felt any ambiguity, and would have cheered at his imminent demise !

Of course, it's just like Hitch to create such a charming, semi-likeable villain, if for no other reason than to toy with our emotions !

"J'ai l'oeil AMÉRICAIN !"

[–] cathy-creswell 10 years ago

Very good analysis.

"et je dirai tout."

[–] viaggio1 10 years ago

Most kind of you, Cathy --- it's been fun watching a batch of Hitchcock movies I had first seen 15 - 20 years ago, and catching things I had missed back then !

J'ai l'oeil AMÃ‰RICAIN !

[–] camusimagination 10 years ago

Yeah, but then we don't get the great line "That's your headache". Plus whatever poison it was, wasn't fast acting. So a good stomach pump and letting her body do the rest, should do the trick.

It's scenes like these that won't let me enjoy this movie at all.

Really? Don't stress the little things so much, people in real life do illogical things all the time, why hold fictional characters to a higher standard?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

[–] deacon-mike 10 years ago

A 'stomach pump' wouldn't do any good, she was poisoned with small, incremental doses, not a single dose, over several weeks. Arsenic was used that way (see Napoleon). A heavy-metal would do it, such as thallium, but most long term are VERY difficult to reverse, and long-term heavy-metal almost impossible!

[–] pt100 10 years ago

I disagree most emphatically. She was actually showing only mild symptoms, not those associated with long-term arsenic poisoning. Based on the chronology of events in the movie, she had been poisoned with very small doses for perhaps a week or so.

It would be relatively easy to identify the poison. But even before doing that, they could start chelation therapy and probably save her with no major complications/after effects. For more info, go here:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/arsenicun4.pdf

[–] gonemoab 10 years ago

It's scenes like these that won't let me enjoy this movie at all.

This, as well as your entire analysis, is just all about you. It's got nothing to do with the movie whatever. But I don't agree with your use of the word "enjoy". You might mean to say "resolve".

Beer--now there's a temporary solution ~ Homer Simpson

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

????

How on earth is the entire analysis all about the OP?

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] Petronius Arbiter II 9 years ago

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038787/board/view/234070697?d=244890546#244890546

No way in hell should they have taken Alex along.

I have a much bigger problem with the fact that Alicia and Devlin apparently never even thought of the idea of having a quick copy made of the key to the wine cellar, well before the fateful party even started. Didn't seem to me that IRL, either would be that casual-mindedly oblivious to the obvious dangers of keeping the key in her possession so long.

"I don't deduce, I observe."

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

I don't think that Alexander would have been very helpful if they took him with them. He could have been armed and he could have killed both of them. They were smart to just leave him behind. I have no pity for him. An ex-Nazi....he deserved what he got in the end.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

[–] marktayloruk (2378) a year ago

Would have thought that the Hays Office would have insisted on them all being arrested.

[–] tmm_8705 9 years ago

It was definitely a deliberate move purely for Dev to say "f--- you" to Alex. He was thinking more with his emotions than the mission in this case.

[–] mark-1589 9 years ago

I agree with the OP that it would have made more rational sense to take Alexander with them. Before Devlin goes to the house to investigate, his boss cautions him because he still wanted to milk that situation. By taking Alicia away and leaving Alexander, he has clearly blown the lid off the assignment. That may even allow all the other "baddies" to escape capture.

On the other hand, leaving him there makes more "movie" sense. The film is over, and the ending needs some sort of closure. Taking Alexander with them would have required further story line. The code at the time required all criminals and wrongdoers to be punished at the end, so his killing accomplishes that (however, all the other bad guys presumably get away). Lastly, it makes emotional sense for the audience. Alexander is a "baddie", and he was attempting to murder Alicia, so he gets his just desserts.