MovieChat Forums > A Letter to Three Wives (1949) Discussion > *SPOILERS* Did Addie Run-Off With Porter...

*SPOILERS* Did Addie Run-Off With Porter and THEN Brad?


I have a question about the ending: does any one think that it could be that Addie first ran off with Porter and THEN Brad? After Porter came home after realizing that he loved his wife, is it possible that Addie then found Brad and ran off with him? Could Porter have known this...or perhaps not? Then it would make everything that he said to Deborah completely in earnest, because he doesn't know what Addie did next.

Some of the things that made me think this were:

1)The story begins with Addie telling how Brad was the one who gave her her first kiss, this (maybe?) implying that he was her true love and that she was most jealous of Deborah.

2) That the relationship between Brad and Deborah was the least developed and the couple that seemed to have the least attraction.

3) That when Deborah comes home to the telephone message left on the piece of paper the voice that reads it is ADDIE ROSS. This must mean something, and it seems to be the biggest piece of evidence.

4) Deborah's glass tipping over at the end showing the sad fate of her character.

Now, to be clear, I really hope this is not true and I hope someone can disprove it. I felt really sorry for Deborah's character and I think it would be devastating if her husband had left her, especially because she seems to be such a fragile and insecure character.

Let me know what you think.

reply

I do not believe that Addie got anyone's husband that Saturday in May.

First, I believe that Porter did consider it and was the target of Addie and he was at the station - who best to target but the man who was unhappy in marriage and unhappy in the thought that he loved a wife that didn't love him back - see end of the movie.

Second, Brad did say he might not be back in time.

Third, when Porter confesses he is putting to the test what Deborah has just said, that his wife is in love with him. He desperately needs to know and so he comes clean. He happily discovers this is true - his wife truely loves him and changing his mind and returning and testing his marriage was the right thing to do. You can just see that these two will now have a happy life together. He also did this to relieve Deborah of her suffering. That's why the Kirk Douglas character says, "you're quite a guy" - it's a huge risk to publically humiliate your wife with a possible infidelity.

Fourth, he told Deborah, not only to test his marriage but to free Deborah from an unhappy and really terrible night of pain and anguish until Brad walked through the door. I didn't think for one second that Brad left Deborah - too obvious and our director is much better than that!

Fifth, Addie is not triumphant in her heigh-ho but melancholy, very unlike her more haughty attitude at the beginning of the movie. She tried and failed to break up one of the marriages. Love prevailed and she was defeated - thus the broken glass. Deborah's glass was just a glass.

The director himself thought all the above was obvious but it seems that he didn't count on people making connections where he didn't intend them to be made.

Others disagree with this - even though his son has stated this was his intent -others continue to disagree, funny that they think they know more than what the director intended, ha! Hope this helps.

reply

I like your explanation much better. Thank you for clarifying. :)

reply

I own this movie and saw it once more tonight. I thought before that Paul Douglas HAD left with Addie, but reneged on the deal. ANd he was telling the truth when he confessed. But tonight 2 things make me doubt it: 1) After Jeanne leaves, he says, "She'll know in the morning." As though he's just deferring her pain. And Kirk Douglas tells him what a great guy he is to, in other words, falsely confess to something that would put his own marriage at risk just to save Jeanne Crain's feelings for the night.

So now I don't know WHAT to think. Did anyone read the Cosmopolitan novel that this movie was adapted from? Did anyone see the TV movie that was a remake of this? Maybe it would be clearer. Course, back then 'Hollywood endings' made everything come out right, and it's just because I've seen recent movies that end badly, as in real life, that I now doubt.

The fact that Jeanne Crain refused to medicate her pain with booze makes me think that, whatever is the truth, she'll be OK>

"He who swaps his liberty for the promise of 'security' deserves neither." Ben Franklin

reply

She'll know in the morning refers to the fact that Brad will walk through the door thus George saying what he did to Porter - he relieved her suffering at great risk to himself. Yes, she would have found out in the morning but she would have suffered all night. I think it's obvious but I guess not if others can infer something else.

Anyway, if Brad was with Addie she would have sounding a lot more triumphant in her heigh-ho!

reply


Yes, after I wrote this, I watched the comments of the director's son on the movie. He also thought at first that Brad was the one to run off with Addie, but his father told him no such thing was true. So I'm left with the same question, "Did Porter start to leave with her, then renege ..thus his statement about 'having a hard day'?
"He who swaps his liberty for the promise of 'security' deserves neither." Ben Franklin

reply

Yes. I believe Porter considered leaving his life behind because he didn't believe his wife - whom he loved - loved him back. He came back because he did love her and Addie couldn't match what he felt for her - which is pretty impressive considering how much he held Addie in high esteem.

All couples lived happily ever after and Addie stayed the party girl.

reply

"As though he's just deferring her pain. And Kirk Douglas tells him what a great guy he is to, in other words, falsely confess to something that would put his own marriage at risk just to save Jeanne Crain's feelings for the night. "

Don't forget that Deborah gave him a challenge. She said his wife really loved him. "Wah wah wah I'm so sick of hear you whine...don't you know how much Loralee loves you". This is shocking to him because he knows he loves her - he didn't leave with Addie but came back. He didn't do this just to bring relief to Deborah but to also test - once and for all - how his wife felt about him.

reply

Even if Mankiewicz said all that, I don't think that means much. He's a great director, thus an artist. An artist's work can be very personal. This is not to say I definatively believe that Brad ran off with Addie, just that Mankiewicz knew he was leaving it open to interpretation, regardless of his supposed denial of this. And not that I can really think of a reason, but he could have had reasons for the ambiguity. The director knew what he was doing when he made his movies, and I don't believe for a second that he thought that the movie had an obvious ending.

reply

First off, you really ought to drop the "if" and "supposed" routines. There are multiple primary sources directly reporting what Mankiewicz said on the subject. Furthermore, when you listen to his son talk about it, either on the DVD commentary or when I caught him hosting the film on TCM, he talks about it in terms of "he never understood how people got that interpretation". The way that he talks about it makes it very clear that he is not talking about one or two conversations; but a repeatedly stated consistent stance over a period of quite a few years (something that the son is in an almost unique position to know) because the question kept resurfacing from various people.

---------------------------

To the people discussing the theoretical line "She'll find out in the morning.", it's important to quote a line correctly before interpreting details of meaning. The actual line is "She'd've found out in the morning, anyway." It's spoken by Rita, but tacitly confirmed by Porter when he shrugs off the implied needlessness of his confession with the "she'd've had a rough night" (or was that last adjective "tough" or "hard"; not sure off hand, but that choice of adjective isn't remotely as important as the difference in verb tenses).

To focus on the verb phrases, and expanding the contractions, we're looking at the difference between "will find out" and "would have found out". The future simple version "will find out" (which nobody in the movie ever says) means that it is something that *is* going to happen, and in this case implies that there is something that Deborah doesn't yet know left for her to discover later. Given what Deborah knows at that point, that would have to be that Brad has run off. The conditional perfect version (yes, I had to look up the name of that tense) means that it is something that is now *not* going to happen, in this case because Deborah already knows everything that she could possibly find out about the situation. What Deborah knows at that point, and the phrasing of the actual dialog in the movie says is correct, is that Addie had been referring to Porter and that Brad will be back in the morning.

---------------------------

To the people discussing the final shot of the glass tipping, I have a couple thoughts.

First I want to address the sound, Addie's last voice over "Hi ho. Goodnight, everybody." Throughout the entire movie, all of Addie's voice overs had been delivered in tones that were upbeat, enthusiastic, optimistic, gay (in the traditional sense of the term). Given the circumstances, one could also describe that vocal tone as "self-satisfied" or the more disparagingly tinged usages of "perky". However, that last voice over is delivered entirely differently. That last line comes out quite downbeat and deflated. I would go so far as to describe Addie's tone of voice for that line as "defeated". It certainly is not the line delivery of someone who has succeeded in winning a husband away from a rival.

Then there is the visual of the glass tipping and breaking. Yes, if you take a bit of time and think back to where everyone had been earlier in the scene, you can work out that that might have been Deborah's glass ...... if it had been anyone's; that glass could have been one set at the seat that would have been Brad's. However, the last shot does absolutely nothing to make that obvious or to call attention to who's glass that may have been. Within that shot that glass is much more "a glass" than it is "Deborah's glass".

In fact, I would even go a step further than that. Given how the glass tipping is paired with Addie's voice over while no other characters are around (and that it's not a glass that we've actually seen anybody holding): for the purposes of the movie's symbolic intent, I think that glass is meant to be considered as "Addie's glass". What the glass being tipped over combined with Addie's farewell line evoked for me was the image of a chess player tipping over their own king to indicate that they are conceding the game to their opponent. That also fits perfectly with Addie's vocal delivery of her last line, as I discussed above. Another symbolic reading of Addie's champagne glass being broken (and it does break when it tips over) is that Addie has reached the point where "the party's over", figuratively speaking.

----------------------

For the people who have suggested that maybe Porter was telling the truth, but then Brad ran off with Addie after that, I have to wonder how far all of the implications of that have been thought out.

Either Addie was planning on running off with both of them, or only one.

If she had planned on taking both, then either she told the men that they were to be a threesome or she had let them each assume that they would have her to themselves.

If she had planned for both of them without telling them about each other, I can't see how she could possibly expect that to go through without a "scene" (probably a really ugly one) at the train station. It's a completely stupid idea that is almost certain to backfire in a huge way. I can't see this being how Addie set things up.

So what about a planned threesome that Porter had backed out of. First off, I don't see either of those two male characters agreeing to that. But leaving that aside for the moment ...... That would mean that Porter knows at the nightclub that Brad was gone. In that case none of Porter's behavior and dialog in the last scene makes any sense at all. This possibility just doesn't fit what we see on screen.

So, let's look at the other half of the truth table where Addie only wanted one and got Brad as a fall back position after Porter backed out. In that case, either Addie had made arrangements with Brad in advance or she hadn't.

If Addie had made arrangements with Brad in advance, then it would have had to have been on the basis of "if I call you at the last minute, maybe". It would all end up sounding like "running away with you isn't what I really want to plan, but I might change my mind and want you at the last minute". I really don't see Brad being *that* star struck by Addie that he would ever agree to ditch his whole life (wife, career, etc.; he's not like Porter in terms of owning his business) on that kind of fickle basis.

And if she hadn't made any prior arrangements with Brad, then you would have to believe that she had been able to call him at work and convince to ditch his entire life right this second, on a whim, and go straight to the train station to meet Addie and whisk off with her. I don't see Brad being remotely that impulsive. He's way too organized and methodical of a character in general for that.

In short, none of the scenarios in this whole general concept make any sense to me.

--------------------

The basic upshot of all of this:

I agree with Mankiewicz. I've never seen any ambiguity in the ending of this movie.

reply

Just when I sadly thought that Brad had gone off, leaving Deborah is her continued sad, poorly adjusted state, the idea was posed that this did not occur. Perhaps it took someone older than me, who would have a better sensing of a 1949 movie's meaning, to say I got it all wrong. The IMDB discussion clearly shows my simple 2011 impression was not definately correct. Reading the other comments, I now see a more plausible resolution- outspoken Porter was telling the truth and not just a line so Deborah would have a good night. And because he came back, his wife is more attracted to him (scene of them dancing and her hand grasps him with true passion. hat Brad and Deborah were the least developed characters makes one think they are the one's split up, this was a clever manipulation of the audience. I suspect Deborah and Brad go on together- Deborah with her continued doubts (remember the scene in the beginning with the Vogue magazine was not a flashback but an ongoing stress point in their marriage). Very interesting!

reply

To expositor, I don't believe that Porter's wife was "more" attracted to him because he came back, as Deborah had said, she was crazy about him. She just didn't know that he really loved her, but his deciding to come back to his wife rather than running away with Addie showed her that he did love her.

As for the scene with the Vogue magazine, yes, Deborah had some doubts about herself, BUT, she seemed to overcome those when she believed that Brad had left her for Addie. At that point, she gained confidence, reflected in the fact that she went with her friends that evening rather than staying home, she didn't drink (remember, she drank continually in the beginning when she wore her catalogue dress) which showed that she could handle things without alcohol, and the most glaring proof was when she came downstairs in her beautiful evening gown and Ann Southern states something to the effect that she is the most beautiful thing she hates. Deborah and Brad will be fine, Deborah has finally grown up.

And for those who believe that Addie may have run off with Brad, that is just not supported anywhere in the movie. Porter states that he was the one who was to run off with her but he "changed his mind". Porter didn't have to admit this publicly, but he states that Deborah would've found out in the morning anyway but she would have had a rough night. This is so obvious that maybe some are trying to read more into a very obvious comment. Deborah will know that Brad did not run off with Addie when Brad gets home in the morning, BUT she would have had a horrific night believing that he had run off with Addie. Why allow her to go through such trauma? To think that he would put his own marriage in jeopardy just to postpone Deborah's learning of Brad's running off with Addie makes absolutely no sense! If Brad had run off with Addie, she would have had more than one "rough night" so why postpone the inevitable when doing so might jeopardize your own marriage?

As for the comments about artists wanting others to interpret their work however they view it, are you kidding me? Maybe in abstract paintings, but in many works, the artist actually is making a statement! If you don't perceive the artist's statement, that doesn't mean there isn't one or that you can change the artist's statement to be your statement! Sheesh, this is a movie! The director has stated what the ending was. If you want it to be different, that is your perogative, but not even viewer arrogance can change the director's intent. It isn't yours to change!

reply

I got involved in an argument very similar to this on the "Seven Year Itch" message board. I think there are just some people who don't like straightforward films, and have to make up some kind "ambiguity" to satisfy themselves.

reply

Even if Mankiewicz said all that, I don't think that means much. He's a great director, thus an artist. An artist's work can be very personal. This is not to say I definatively believe that Brad ran off with Addie, just that Mankiewicz knew he was leaving it open to interpretation, regardless of his supposed denial of this. And not that I can really think of a reason, but he could have had reasons for the ambiguity. The director knew what he was doing when he made his movies, and I don't believe for a second that he thought that the movie had an obvious ending.


Good grief. you people are unbelievable. Here you have the director ANd Screenwriter telling you exactly what happens at the end and you choose to put your own interpretation on it. I bet your kids find you IMPOSSIBLE to live with.

is everything a lie to you?

It has been said Mankiewitz was a sophisticated writer and didn't necessarily spell it all out by the dialogue. He let the actions speak for themselves.
Brad said he might not be home but he would leave word, which he did.
The letter is addressed to all 3 women, not just Deborah.
Deborah is insecure, Brad is not.
Porter was insecure and so was Lora Mae. Brad was not in love with Addie at all but Porter was still a little in love with Addie when he married Lora Mae. So it is much more likely he ran off.

The only reason Porter admitted to his folly was to spare Deborah. He knew he didn't even have to do it, because Brad was coming home the next morn, but he said she's just a kid. He wanted her to be able to sleep that night.

I think it is very clear.
However, in the last 10 years movies have been made that are very much open to interpretation. In 1949, a movie like that would not have been popular. The war was recently ended, men died, and didn't come home, and no one wanted a movie that didn't have a happy ending!!

Nowadays these ambiguous endings are all the rage.

reply

I would think that someone with the word artist IN THEIR NAME would be able to comprehend this. Most artists, or more specifically, good directors, want people to interpret their work however they interpret it.

Don't get defensive on his behalf. He'd probably tell you to shut up.

reply

good directors, want people to interpret their work however they interpret it.

I think that you're over generalizing.

I think that it is pretty obvious in many movies that the writer and / or director (of course, in this case Mank was both) is trying to make a point, is arguing for one side of an issue and has no intention of leaving things ambiguous enough that different audience members could conclude that the movie was advocating contradictory things. For example, I don't think that there is any mistaking the stand on racial politics that Norman Jewison taking when he made In the Heat of the Night. From today's perspective, that point of view may seem so self-evident that it doesn't really count as "taking sides" by the movie; however, in the late 1960s that was still a very volatile and contentious issue. Some movies, like Casablanca, go so far as to put what amounts to a "movie's manifesto" in the mouth of a major character near the end (of course, Casablanca is also a movie that justifiably can be described as "war time propaganda").

Naturally, there are also plenty of cases where the writer / director intends to raise issues / questions and leave the interpretation or drawing of conclusions to the viewer. I'm just saying that I don't think that this is nearly as universal as you seem to be claiming here.

reply

Well Jewison, though I liked MOONSTRUCK, is no Mankiewicz. Hell, he wasn't even a writer. Writers are a different breed of artist. Mank, to me, was a far superior writer than director. More artistic as a writer. I see your point though. I see everyone's point. My opinion is resolute.

reply

OK, so when you said "good directors", what you really meant was "pantheon level writer - directors"?

Fine. Let's talk Charlie Chaplin. Is there really the least bit of doubt about which side Chaplin was taking about fascism in The Great Dictator (which, unlike Casablanca, was *not* a wartime production) or about industrialization in Modern Times? Any doubt that Chaplin would have been horrified if audiences had interpreted Modern Times as being pro-industrialization?

So now that we've disproved the universality argument (as matter of pure logic, one counter-example is enough to disprove an "always" sort of premise / argument), we are left with having to consider each movie on a case-by-case basis.

In the particular case of the Brad - Porter question in A Letter to Three Wives we happen to know what Mank had to say (repeatedly) on the subject (namely: it *was* Porter, and only Porter). That's really the point at which I fail to see how any argument for "intentional ambiguity" can possibly fly. One might be able to argue that Mank had been unclear enough that there was some ambiguity left; but not that he purposely made it ambiguous.

reply

FWIW, I was confused, too. I imagined that it would end "happily," with Addie not winning over any of the husbands. So I was very disappointed the first time I watched it. The first time I watched the ending, I thought Porter was lying to Deborah about going to meet Addie, just to make her feel better, when everyone at the table knew that Addie really had run off with Brad. When Rita says that Deborah would have found out in the morning, I thought she meant that Deborah would have found out for certain that Brad was the errant husband when he failed to show up the next morning. Apparently I was wrong. What she meant was that Deborah would have learned that Brad did *not* stray when he walked through the door the next morning.

Glad to know I'm not the only one who was confused at first.

I do think the symbolism of the glass tipping over was like Addie tipping over her king in a game of chess, so I guess now it all makes sense to me. At first, I couldn't quite get why the director threw that in.

reply

When Rita says that Deborah would have found out in the morning, I thought she meant that Deborah would have found out for certain that Brad was the errant husband when he failed to show up the next morning.

But that is not what "would have found out" means.

Maybe that's one of the root causes of the split between the people who (along with the writer - director) who always thought it was crystal clear that Porter was telling the truth and the people who thought that he was lying just to give Deborah one last good night's sleep: How clear and intuitive of an understanding different people have about what those different compound verb tenses actually mean.

reply

They all ended up with their own hubbies. Addie got not a one.




"What color are the trees?"
"What color were they last year?"
"And next year?"
"It's a bore."

reply

The fact that people are debating the ending points out the major weakness of this movie. Why should the screenwriters & director leave any ambiguity? This is romantic drama, not quantum physics. Weak ending to a fairly good picture. Interesting how 62 years ago people knew that smoking causes cancer, and were debating the over-commercialization of our daily lives.

reply

The fact that people are debating the ending points out the major weakness of this movie. Why should the screenwriters & director leave any ambiguity?
I'm no brain surgeon, and I didn't find anything ambiguous about the ending at all. It amazes me that anyone who saw it from beginning to end doesn't understand that Brad had a conference and was possibly spending the night in the city. It's clearly stated in the first scene of the movie. The ending wouldn't work without this plot point, as we wouldn't be surprised to find out it was Porter who left with Addy instead of Brad.

Maybe the writers and director just overestimated the intelligence of the audience.






I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...

reply

Commentary said Gen MacArthur demanded an explanation of the ending. I think time has heightened the confusion because nowadays men are so emasculated that one would never admit to almost running off with another woman. But since Porter is the only man who never thought his wife loved him, and who unexpectedly returns, there is no reason to really doubt that he was the one. But I think it would have been better if the narrator made it clear that the letter was a gift to her friends, not a nasty parting shot from a slut

reply

I think what makes a great film is getting involved with the film even after it is over.

Would this happen with a movie today? How awesome people can talk intelligently about a film from 1949.

You can make a case for both: that Addie ran away with Brad and that she ran away with Porter. Brad's note "he will not be home tonight" is general and leaves you thinking. Porter's confession and then "can't a guy change his mind?" is also believable.

Now that their feelings are on the table, I am sure he and Lora Mae would be able to really be a loving married couple. She would forgive him. If Brad was the one to go, could Debra survive? Maybe. But not in Addie's black dress.

And Celeste's "hey ho. . . " sign off is also cool because she does not sound like a bitter loser nor a triumphant winner.

The bottom line is--relationships are risky. Don't get married! :)

reply

In our world today a lot of movies have been made in the last 10 years with ambiguous endings. and that is a lot of fun to debate and some are done very well. Others are crap.

So we see this old movie and think the ending cannot possibly be the TRUTH as we are shown.

I have seen the movie 3 times and the first time 3 years ago, I was sure that Porter just made it up and that Deb would find out the next day that her husband was gone.

I could not have been more wrong. After watching again a few minutes ago, I know that Porter--- out of all the husbands--- was the ONLY one who would have done run off with Addie.
He was sort of in love with Addie when he married Lora Mae. He had her picture on his piano.
And Porter was never sure about Lora Mae, the way Brad and George were sure of their wives.

Look at George and Rita's faces at Deb's house. They were worried that Brad might be gone, & they wanted Deb to have a drink! However at the dance, when Porter said he was the one, they believed him. Their faces are calm and happy.

If George thought Brad had really left her, he and Rita would have gone with her, or kept Deb there!
No, Porter was the one who left Lora Mae, and he had also been seen at the station! He had second thoughts, just like he said. Lora Mae believed he left and she forgave him.
The ending is sweet and there is no "twist" or clue buried in there.

Think about the time in which it was made. After the war...no one would want to see a movie where you can't tell what really happened. Not after what the world had just come thru.

But that kind of ending has become popular only in recent years.
Brad was coming home the next morning and Deb would have known then, like GEorge said.
But Porter knew that a young woman worried, might become despondent or even pack up and leave.

he couldn't take that chance or let her leave worried.

reply

Why bother putting *spoilers* in the subject line if you're going to PUT THE SPOILER RIGHT THERE ANYWAY? Good grief!

reply

Actually, this is a question that's bothered a LOT of people ever since the film came out in 1949. Apparently, Joseph L Mankiewicz was contacted by an aide to Douglas McArthur asking the very same question.

As best as I can tell, it was Porter who was going to run away with Addie and changed his mind. Brad really did have a weekend conference and George, as it turned out, was directing a high-school play.

The moment when he confesses what he was going to do publicly, basically handing his wife grounds for divorce, is both hilarious and genuinely touching. Paul Douglas and Linda Darnell were seriously underrated actors.

reply

It's possible… I mean, he never comes back, does he - and the other husbands were under suspicion for much less!

I never liked Deborah though… if you act insecure then you're almost goading or driving somebody into cheating, even if they never do it.






"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"

reply

I just saw this movie on TCM hosted by Robert Osborne. He said he read the book on which the movie is based and there are several differences between the book and movie. For one, the book is called A LETTER TO FIVE WIVES and it features five women, not three. Also, said Osborne, in the book it was George who ran away with Addie, not Porter. So, there we have it - in the movie it was definitely Porter who ran away briefly that day with Addie. I think Osborne knows what he's talking about.

reply