Good movie, but that ending . . . - Nora Prentiss (1947) Discussion

[–] rubyredjewel 17 years ago

I always think 2 things when I see this movie.Why don't they recognize him since he still looks like the doctor just older? Also I'd think they would have lifted the doc's prints at the office while trying to find the murderer's prints to link the two of them being together.
´¨¨)) -:¦:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
((¸¸.·´ ..·´ Jewel-:¦:-
-:¦:- ((¸¸.·´*

reply

[–] martyolech 17 years ago

Yup, lots of loose ends. But it's still good stuff!

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sdc100 15 years ago

> Robert Alda surely knew that Thompson was actually Bolton. He knew him
> before his accident (noth in Frisco and NYC) and surely he would have
> seen Bolton's picture in a newspaper article about the court case?

I assume you meant that Thompson was Talbot (not Bolton). Keep in mind that this was a San Francisco case and Dinardo (Alda) had re-located to NYC. There was no reason to believe that the case would have received widespread coverage in NYC. In fact, Talbot had to buy a San Francisco newspaper in NYC to read about his own death, and even then, it was just a blurb. And even if it got reported in NYC, it was unlikely to include a photo of Talbot before he got disfigured. First, there was no reason to do so. How the victim, Dr. Richard Talbot, looked was irrelevant to the case. If there were any photos, they would have been photos of the disfigured Thompson, which would not have helped Dinardo link Thompson to Talbot. Keep in mind that Dinardo had never known Talbot as Talbot; he was Thompson from their first meeting, and they had met only a few times.

Secondly, 1947 was before the time when photos were easily transmitted through telefax so most newspaper articles relied on sketches or no photos at all. This would be especially true for a San Fran story reported in a NYC paper. Photos were expensive to transmit and print.

Please see my other post re: proving Talbot/Thompson innocent.

reply

[–] sdc100 15 years ago

> Why don't they recognize him since he still looks like the doctor just older?

Actually, he looks quite different. Not only is the distinctive mustache gone. but by the trial, Talbot was heavily disfigured. Compare shots of Talbot with his family and how he looked during the trial.

Also keep in mind that people were convinced that Talbot was dead. That means that there was no reason to recognize Thompson as Talbot. Studies have shown that even if there was slight recognition, the mind would convince itself that it was a trick because it conflicted with known facts. If you saw Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson today, wouldn't you convince yourself that you must be mistaken or tricked?

> I'd think they would have lifted the doc's prints at the office while
> trying to find the murderer's prints to link the two of them being together

There is no record of Dr. Richard Talbot's prints in any database because he had no prior record. Just as there is no police record with my prints (and presumably yours!). So if they found Talbot's prints in his office, they would have just assumed that they belonged to the killer, Thompson (who, of course, is really Talbot). But more importantly, there was no reason to dust the office since the office is not linked to the crime in any way. There was no signs of a break-in or that anything was taken. For the same reason, the police wouldn't dust my home if I was mugged on the street. In fact, the police probably never visited the office which is why they didn't know about the note (where Talbot wanted to tell his wife about the divorce) until his partner reported it.

Please see my other post about Talbot not wanting to be proven innocent.

reply

[–] freya44 15 years ago

Dr. Talbot's innocence could have been proven by 1) exhuming the body of the man who was thought to be Talbot and comparing his teeth (and Talbot's also) to Talbot's dental records and 2) having fingerprints lifted from personal objects in Talbot's home that only he could have touched and checking those against Talbot while he was in jail. Everyone has things in their home that no one from the outside has ever touched. Talbot's wife could certainly find something suitable for them to liftprints from. Talbot had been "dead" for a while at the time of the trial, but his wife would still have plenty of personal items in the house with usable fingerprints - things that the alleged blackmailer would have no access to.

reply

[–] sdc100 15 years ago

> c'mon. Either the doc or Nora just had to explain to the defense attorney (or
> to somebody) what really happened. No one would really go to jail (or face
> the death penalty) when they can absolutely prove they didn't do it

I think you missed the point of the last ten minutes. Dr. Richard Talbot was a defeated man, racked with guilt, who saw no reason to live. He did NOT want to be proven innocent because he was NOT innocent. While not guilty of killing Dr. Richard Talbot, he was, however, guilty of 1) adultery, 2) abandoning his family, 3) faking his own death, and 4) medical misconduct (by not following procedure after the death of Bailey; in fact, he never tried to save him).

I think that's what Talbot meant when he said, "I could never prove my innocence. You know that. They'd never believe me. If a man commits one crime, it's easy to suspect him of another." In other words, if he proved that Talbot wasn't dead, he'll have to explain who the dead body was. How can he prove that he didn't kill his patient Bailey? There was no way to prove that the heart attack wasn't induced (i.e. by fright or stress), or occurred because of Talbot's misdeed. Besides, the body was presumably burnt to the point where an autopsy was impossible. As Talbot points out, if he admits to having committed this fraud, then "it's easy to suspect him" of killing Bailey too.

He wanted his children to remember the perfect father they had, untainted by admissions of adultery. He also realized that he could never practice again because of the ethical violations and bad publicity so his career was over (think Michael Jackson's doctor, Conrad Murray). How was he to make a living to support his family and Nora? By the way, if Talbot was discovered alive, his family would have to pay back all the life insurance money, which they've presumably already partially spent. In other words, the family would be in debt with no income. Finally, he felt that his disfigured face made him unworthy of a glamorous showgirl like Nora.

All in all, Talbot did not want to be exonerated because it would have made things worse for everyone involved. I think you'd find this clear from the dialogue in the very last scene where Talbot says his final goodbye. Here it is:

===

Nora: I'm not going to let you give up this way. You've got to tell them the truth.

Talbot: What would I gain by telling them?

N: Your life.

T: What kind of a life would it be? Where would I go? What could I do? Could I go back into practice? Or back to my family?

N: Yes, they'd forgive you.

T: Forgive me? Would they forgive me for ruining their lives? That's just what would happen if I told the truth. Nora, you saw my children in court. You heard them talk about their father. To them, he was a good man. Their memory of him was a good memory. I want to keep it that way.

N: But I...

T: Look at me! Take a good look at me. Don't you see that I'm no possible good to anybody? To you or my family or myself. I could never prove my innocence. You know that. They'd never believe me. If a man commits one crime, it's easy to suspect him of another. Besides, I am guilty of killing a man. I killed Richard Talbot.

N: If there was only something I could do.

T: There is. Keep this to yourself. Never breathe a word of it to anyone. Promise.

N: You can't ask me to go on living remembering that I could have saved you and didn't. You can't do that.

T: If I can die remembering that, you can live remembering it.

reply

[–] sleepybone 14 years ago

Great post,sdc! It was a perfect--if very sad--ending, and as you pointed out, perfectly reasonable. One thing, though; Dr. Talbot DID try to save Bailey, he was preparing an injection for him when he died. It was just too late. Remember, Talbot and his partner had said that Bailey had only a few months to live.

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

Remember, Talbot and his partner had said that Bailey had only a few months to live.

Oh, and that makes what he did okay? I don't think you mean that. After Bailey died he didn't report it. He deprived the man of a proper burial. There's still a crime on the books that has to do with mutilation of a corpse. Even after someone dies, you can't just do whatever the hell you want with their body.

He charred Bailey's body beyond recognition and passed him off as himself. That's despicable stuff in my book. You can't go around using people, alive or death, for our own personal benefit. If we do, that makes us a certain kind of person. He technically did not kill Bailey but he committed enough other crimes that he deserves to be right where he is.

Oh, and let's not forget, he came pretty darn close to killing Phil Dinardo. He would have kept getting farther and farther away from who he used to be; someone who used to save lives to someone who was willing and able to destroy them. He would have eventually killed Nora too; he had already started smacking her around.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] Local Hero 14 years ago

All three of your posts, taken together, form a very thorough and convincing reply to the OP. The ending is highly dramatic and improbable, sure, but the logic of the story's ending does cohere and doesn't break down under analysis.

reply

[–] cnicknz 11 years ago

I found it ridiculous that Rosemary De Camp didn't recognize her husband of many years, even with the changes he had undergone. His bone structure, etc. would have been things etched in her brain. It reminded me of Ricky Ricardo failing to recognize Lucy in a mustache, but with all of her usual make up.

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

cnicknz says > I found it ridiculous that Rosemary De Camp didn't recognize her husband of many years, even with the changes he had undergone.

Of course Mrs. Talbot recognizes her own husband. They have two teenage children so they have been married a long time. Here are some other points to consider.

1. During the trial Richard keeps his head down but when she's on the stand he's asked to raise his head. When she sees his eyes, there's a clear moment of recognition.

2. She's not asked if she recognizes her husband. She's asked if she's seen Robert Thompson before. Obviously she has not because he has a different face and is going by a new name. Therefore she's not lying when she says no.

3. She neither helps nor hurts his case. To have said yes would have meant there was a link between Thompson and Talbot. Saying no means she keeps the secret and protects her kids. Richard's fate is his own.

4. Mrs. Talbot is good at lying and covering things up for the right reasons. At her daughter's birthday, she supplies the gift then without skipping a beat she lies to her daughter; acting as if Richard had gotten her exactly what she wanted.

5. During the trial when the lawyer says the only one who can clear him has had his lips sealed by death; Mrs. Talbot looks directly at Nora. Obviously she knows who Nora is to Richard and she knows Nora could clear him. Nora meets her gaze then quickly looks away.

6. Early in the movie Mrs. Talbot talks about the importance of discipline. She is disciplined enough to keep the secret for the sake of her kids; to not let them know their father isn't the good man they think but someone who could turn his back on his entire family and everything he knows to take up with some woman.

7. Mrs. Talbot knows Richard was taking money out of their account for a while and keeping secrets. She may not know all the details but she knows he does not have clean hands. He did something he was willing to keep secret from her. Well, so be it. Now he can go on keeping his secrets.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] vocalistbob 15 years ago

They needed a "noir" ending and that was the one they came up with - maybe they could have done better. Also, don't forget that the "Film Code" stated, in those days, that a criminal was required to be punished for his crime(s). The only crimes he really committed were abuse of a corpse and fraud, neither of which are capital offenses.

The ending didn't ring true, which was too bad because the basic plot was quite original.

Also, this is one of the few times Robert Alda played a good guy. Nightclub owners were always portrayed as underworld, strong-arm types because real nightclub owners WERE tough guys. Alda's character seems too good to be true.

I suspect the film was running too long, because it looks like they cut a big chunk out of it. There's a scene where he's in his hotel room waiting for Nora - all dapper and spiffy - and then in the very next scene he's all disheveled, hasn't shaved and appears to have been on a bender for a few days. It didn't make sense.

Better editing would have made this a crisper, more fast-moving film. The transition between the 2 scenes I described could have been added in if a good editor cut some of the extraneous, talky bits.

reply

[–] oldmotem 14 years ago

Yes, this is a noir. The ending is a tough nasty one, just like the events in the movie. It is noir. All the way through. The very final scene where she is walking away is classic.

At times this went to melodrama, beyond noir. But a good movie anyway.

Great period piece. Loved those autos.

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

oldmotem says >> The ending is a tough nasty one, just like the events in the movie.

I disagree. I don't think the ending is tough and nasty. I think it's perfect in its irony. It's wonderful and there could be no better ending. It's what makes the movie great!

First, you have to remember the movie starts at the end and we go full circle. The rest of the movie is really a flashback that explains everything and provides the answers to the questions the lawyer asks of his client.

Murder: How can he kill himself?

>> Dr. Talbot was a fine man. He lived in the same house on the same street year after year. Everyone admired him, looked up to him but something happened. He did something; something that gave you a hold over him. What was it? What was he hiding? What did he do? What was it? What was he hiding? What did he do? <<

'Thompson' is on trial for having killed Dr. Talbot and, in essence, that's exactly what he did. He killed off and destroyed everything Dr. Talbot had been. As a result, Talbot no longer exists. The man that we see now, who is going by the name Thompson, bears no resemblance physically or otherwise to the man who was once Richard Talbot. He says it himself to Nora in the very end, 'I am guilty of killing a man; I killed Richard Talbot.'

Blackmail: How is this even possible?

>> The District Attorney contends that you're not only guilty of murdering Dr. Talbot but that you were blackmailing him. That means you must have had something on him. What was it. It's our only defense. Better think it over; better think it over. <<

Thompson is indeed blackmailing Talbot. Here's how. He's keeping his own secret. His 'get out of jail free card' (so to speak) is to tell the truth but knows he cannot. The only thing left of Talbot is his memory. In the minds of the people who knew and loved him, he was a good and decent man; a good doctor; a husband and father.

If he admits who he really is, he may reclaim his old identity but it won't be worth anything. It won't be the same identity he had. It will be tarnished and even the memory that's still good will be gone. This is his predicament and punishment.

If anyone thinks he's being honorable and noble by taking responsibility for his actions and choosing to pay the price for his sins, think again. He is paying the price to keep his own secret. If the secret gets out, he may no longer have to pay that price (being in jail) but he will be ruined and he'll forever be paying in other ways. He cannot win but behind bars at least his reputation remains intact. That's the reason people pay off blackmailers to keep their secrets.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] taylorje 14 years ago

I think Talbot's wife and partner did recognize him. When his partner was on the stand, he looked at "Thompson" like he was wondering where he had seen him before. Mrs. Talbot seemed icy cold as she looked at "Thompson", and I think she decided not to admit he was her husband. There seemed to be chemistry between Mrs. Talbot and the other doctor on the night of Bunny's party. Mrs. Talbot had a lot of time to think, and may have figured out her husband was having an affair. She would want to protect her children from the scandal, plus as someone pointed out, there was the loss of the life insurance money if Talbot came back to life. Mrs. Talbot had moved on, and whatever sordid scandal her husband was involved in, she wanted no part of it.

Good ending, though.

reply

[–] Dcamplisson 11 years ago

She definitely recognized him. I am watching this film on a DVr. When he raises his head as instructed by the judge she is startled and almost says something, thn she clearly composes herself.

reply

[–] IloveMuggy 11 years ago

Agree with those who think the doctor didn't look so different after the accident. No way his wife wouldn't have recognized him. I like the theory that she *did* know who he was but chose to pretend she didn't.

reply

[–] irvberg2002 9 years ago

The part of the ending that doesn't make sense is the motive ascribed to "Thompson" for killing Talbot - he was blackmailing Talbot. But the only one between the blackmailer and the blackmailee who has a motive to kill the other is the blackmailee, in order to avoid having to pay off. The blackmailer, however, only wants the blackmailee to stay alive, keep earning and paying off. Yet the attorney for "Thompson" never points out this obvious fact and no one on the jury seems to realize that the defendant not only has no motive to kill Talbot, but has every incentive to keep him alive and paying off.

reply

[–] liscarkat-2 9 years ago

I think Talbot's wife thought she recognized him in court near the end, but after a couple of seconds she realized that she must be mistaken, and she did not think it was him.

reply