Mitchum was limping because, as he had explained earlier during a crucial scene of the film, his concussion might well eventually lead to one-sided paralysis. He actually explains he is now experiencing to this to Domergue in dialogue at the start of the motel-room scene.
My problem with the film was the Hollywood-en ending. It really pees me off to see how all these great, dark, twisted films had to be diluted to conform to Hays Code "morality". At first I thought the plot twists were a bit melodramatic, contrived and trite, but then when the film settled into it's main thrust - a noir chase thriller - I found it compelling, and the more exaggerated elements of amour fou, romanticism and expressionism to be justified.
However, that ending totally kills the film's integrity for the following reasons.
(i) The suggestion that Domergue "got what she deserved for her sins" is extremely odious today given that we now know what we know about mental health. With the resolution as it stands, it basically seems like the film is saying mental illness is a curse that particularly afflicts "immoral" women, and they deserve what they get. If not, the only other explanation for Domergue's behaviour is that she has been a total cold scheming b*tch from day one, which is at odds with a lot of the earlier dialogue and exposition.
(ii) The truly nauseating closing scene of Mitchum's "true love" (O'Sullivan) forgiving all, dismissing his infidelity as merely his having been intoxicated by the "evil" mental illness of Domergue, and thus endorsing the disgusting messages suggested above.
In an ideal world, the ending would have been as follows, either:
(i) The Domergue character is shot by the police, but manages to limp literally just inside the Mexico border, and does her "confession" bit there before popping. This would have at least been ironic. As the coda to this, it would have been nice to see Mitchum's culpability also acknowledged, by Julie rejecting his sentiment of the "white rose" and walking off head held high into the camera. Her genuine human concern satisfied, she could have walked off with her integrity intact and thus been the only character in the film to retain any true dignity. Instead she sickeningly sprints into his room to console and make up with him.
(ii) The most suitably dark climax would have been if, when Mitchum came round in the hotel room and limped out the door, the camera had panned to the window and stayed there, whilst the existing dialogue and the gunshots drifted up from the street below. We would then have heard a van driving away - but not necessarily the one containing Domergue, although of course we would never know because it would fade out to "The End".
In my view an ambiguous ending such as this would have been perfect, as I feel both characters were just as "bad" as each other. God damn Hollywood! At least today's problem though is only that the entire films are a crock of s---. It makes things a lot simpler!
reply
share
ladynoir15
17 years ago
"Mitchum was limping because, as he had explained earlier during a crucial scene of the film, his concussion might well eventually lead to one-sided paralysis. He actually explains he is now experiencing to this to Domergue in dialogue at the start of the motel-room scene."
Okay, I see it now. Thanks for clearing that up. I must have missed that. So maybe that scene doesn't defy all logic.
"My problem with the film was the Hollywood-en ending. It really pees me off to see how all these great, dark, twisted films had to be diluted to conform to Hays Code "morality". At first I thought the plot twists were a bit melodramatic, contrived and trite, but then when the film settled into it's main thrust - a noir chase thriller - I found it compelling, and the more exaggerated elements of amour fou, romanticism and expressionism to be justified."
I am not too quick to blame the Hayes Code so much. It depends on what the director and the writers do with what they were able to work with at the time regarding the strict rules. I mean, yes, it sucked that they had to conform and make the endings good ones while the bad people never got a chance to get away with anything. But if you were smart enough you can make an ending conform to the Hayes Codes in an ingenius way. Ever seen Bette Davis in "The Little Foxes"? Her character is able to walk away and continue with life even though she was a horrible person but I love the way that she did pay for it in the end by losing someone who knew the truth. Also studios had a hand in cutting brilliant movies because of the crappy codes so they weren't always great. Maybe this movie was cut or orginally had a different outcome and the studio didn't back it?
"The suggestion that Domergue "got what she deserved for her sins" is extremely odious today given that we now know what we know about mental health. With the resolution as it stands, it basically seems like the film is saying mental illness is a curse that particularly afflicts "immoral" women, and they deserve what they get. If not, the only other explanation for Domergue's behaviour is that she has been a total cold scheming b*tch from day one, which is at odds with a lot of the earlier dialogue and exposition."
Same thing with the movie I cited above called "Woman on the Beach" Another one about an immoral woman (in this case a wife who cheats on her husband) who has clear signs of mental illness and a sadistic relationship with her husband and Robert Ryan plays one of the men she sleeps with who himself is suffering from delusions and paranoia. The portrayal of both of these characters who clearly have issues we descibe as mental illness today is also pretty odious considering in the end Ryan's character pays when he plays a soldier returning from WW2 with something like PTSD. Now I don't think today anyone could make a film like that one and have a marine coming home from Iraq suffering from the same ailments and portray him as a crazy nut who has to pay for the sins of being mentally ill. I completely understand your point and totally missed it when I watched the film.
"The truly nauseating closing scene of Mitchum's "true love" (O'Sullivan) forgiving all, dismissing his infidelity as merely his having been intoxicated by the "evil" mental illness of Domergue, and thus endorsing the disgusting messages suggested above."
Oh, god, yes, I hated how his ex just forgave him for everything in the end especially when like you said morally Mitchum's character wasn't much better than Domergue's. And I really thought Maureen O'Sullivan deserved a better role than to be a doormat for a jerk. I remember her in "The Thin Man" and thought she was a much better actress than the crappy roles she was given. But once again it was like Mitchum in the film Angel Face: he left a good girl in that one for another "crazy" dame but the good girl in that film had the decency to snub her nose against him in the end as she moved on with someone better. That should have happened here as well. Which would have definately made for a better ending. What's also good about Angel Face is that in the end Mitchum's character as well as the femme fatale pay and conform to the Hayes Code
in a pretty clever and unexpected way. Although i must admit after rewatching Angel Face again recently I really didn't like that one any more than this one but at least that one had a slightly better plot and outcome.
Cecil: Now don't shout at me - I'm in jail.
Jeffrey: Well, that's all right; we don't need you.
reply
share
398
16 years ago
1. Domergue "getting what she deserved"----I agree that the concentration on mental illness was unpleasant, but the fumbling efforts to come up with alternate endings show that this is not so easy. If they used the camera panning to the window and staying there while gunshots drifted up from the street below ending, I would never buy or watch the movie, and if I did it would end up on the trash heap quick. If I wanted to provide the ending to a story, I would write the story to begin with. I expect the craftsmen who create a movie to come up with an actual ending.
2. You guys seem to think there was some sort of deep relationship between Mitchum and O'Sullivan. Why? She was several years older than he was. The most he ever said to Margo was that Julie was kind to him. They seem to have dated some but that they were engaged or extremely close eluded me. They seem to have been just friends. Certainly, as they were not married, I don't see that she had any claim on him.
3. The ending does not say that Julie forgives him, if she feels there is anything to forgive exactly. It just seems to imply that what he did did not end their relationship, whatever it was, and it might never have been romantic.
4. My main complaint, though, is how anyone can possibly arrive at moral equivalence between Domergue and Mitchum. There would be no moral equivalence even if Mitchum were a married man, and he is not. Domergue has married a much older man for his money, stolen from him to set up a private nest egg, cheats on him regularly, lies to Mitchum about her maritial status, murders her husband and allows Mitchem to think he did it, flees from the law, and twice attempts to murder Mitchum. If you want to give her a pass on the mental illness excuse, that is your business, but this is a twisted chick. Mitchum may or may not be an accessory after the fact to murder--I don't know the law that well--but he never lied as far as I can tell to either Julie or Margo. His intentions toward Margo were honorable. He certainly was not directly, or indirectly, connected to the murder of Rains. I see you guys as more moralistic than the Hayes Code ever thought of being, but with a morality as twisted as Margo.
reply
share