MovieChat Forums > Ace in the Hole (1951) Discussion > Lorraine gets away with...(SPOILERS)

Lorraine gets away with...(SPOILERS)

posted 15 years ago by hobnob53
19 replies | jump to latest

SPOILER ALERT! Numerous spoilers below! Don't say you haven't been warned! In capitals, italics and red yet!

When Ace in the Hole was released in 1951, the Hollywood Production Code was still very much in force, cracking only very slightly. I've always been amazed, therefore, at an incredible lapse in the Code's enforcement in this film of one of its most important regulations: that people must be punished for their crimes.

After her husband dies, Lorraine simply walks away from the trading post, trying to hitch a ride to another life...this, just a short time after she has stabbed Tatum with a scissors -- a wound which, left untreated (apparently an act of atonement-by-suicide by Tatum), kills him that night.

True, she stabbed him only in self-defense, after he had been choking her with the stole her husband had bought her for their anniversary. And granted, Tatum was still alive when she left, and she had no reason to believe he was as badly wounded as he was, or that he wouldn't seek medical attention before it was too late.

Nevertheless, however accidentally or justifiably (or unknowingly, since she left before he died), she did kill Tatum, in slow motion if you want, and according to the Code should have faced some kind of punishment for her crime, even if only a trial and acquittal or some other legal inconvenience. Hey, I'm not talking logic, I'm talking the idiotic Production Code. By its own standards, Lorraine should have to pay somehow. Yet she just leaves, and it's clear at the end she'll suffer no consequences for her act -- an astounding gap in the enforcement of the Code's usually rigid precepts.

While it was always known that the overseers of the Production Code were a pretty dim bunch, the fact that they allowed so obvious a violation of the Code to get by is truly astonishing. Not complaining, mind you -- I'm damn glad they missed it! -- but it's really quite surprising.

[–] brianh-7 15 years ago

I was a little stunned by this myself. You know she left with all the money earned over the course of that week, pocketing at least a grand. And that's the first grand she ever had.

Maybe the slap she received was ample punishment. Or the implied brutal sex she must've endured after Kirk grabbed her hair.

Having just seen the movie, I need to go take a shower.

[–] hobnob53 15 years ago

Yes, the money, too, which adds theft to her little list of misdemeanors. (Okay, she was entitled to some, but not all. I wonder whether the carnival money and the proceeds for the Leo Minosa rescue fund and all the other "rental income" really went to their advertised recipients?)

Slaps and rough sex probably were worth it for Lorraine. She was trash, but tough and out for herself, and I doubt it was the first time for her (certainly she must have encountered such treatment pre-Leo). No, she got away, free and clear and a grand or more richer -- probably a lot more than a thousand in fact, since that early calculation didn't include income from the carnival, etc., that came along later. The worst she seems to suffer is missing the bus and having to find a ride somewhere...which probably didn't take her long.

Of course, there's always the thought that maybe some sleazy guy picked her up on the road and murdered her in their motel room later that night.

This is a great film.

[–] timlin-4 15 years ago

I think the code is fulfilled by Tatum getting punished for his crime. Otherwise every film would have to end with a Shakespearean pile of bodies.

[–] hobnob53 15 years ago

That's probably what the Code enforcers figured. Of course, back then you could pile up all the bodies you wanted...as long as none of them was naked!

[–] timlin-4 15 years ago

I just listened to the interview with the co-screenwriter and he does indeed say that Code made it necessary that Tatum die, and the only way they could think of killing him was by the hand of Lorraine. I'm sure they could have found another way without resorting to the strangling scene, which makes Tatum seem insanely evil, since he tries to kill her because she isn't sufficiently remorseful for a murder that he committed.

[–] hobnob53 15 years ago

I don't think Tatum actually set out to kill her, he just got carried away by his own anger and self-loathing.

Ironically, that's precisely what happened to Jan Sterling while shooting that scene. Kirk Douglas had the stole wrapped around her so tightly that she actually was choking. When Wilder called "Cut" Douglas let go and she fell back, gasping for air. Douglas was horrified, exclaiming, "For God's sake, Jan, why didn't you tell me you couldn't breathe?" and she answered that he had had it so tight around her neck that she couldn't talk! Douglas was extremely apologetic and took it easier from then on. But it was a great scene.

[–] Stavren 15 years ago

"I just listened to the interview with the co-screenwriter and he does indeed say that Code made it necessary that Tatum die, and the only way they could think of killing him was by the hand of Lorraine. I'm sure they could have found another way without resorting to the strangling scene, which makes Tatum seem insanely evil, since he tries to kill her because she isn't sufficiently remorseful for a murder that he committed. "

A rare case of a film being improved by censorship interference. Tatum is in many ways evil, but it's clear in the scene that he hates her for not caring about her husband, even as he makes his final attempts to show her that he loves her. He hates himself even more.

[–] joedonato234 12 years ago

This probably got passed the Production Code because the stabbing was the act of self defense, which was allowed. If it wasn't, EVERYBODY at the end of every Western would be dead.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I agree, it was probably the self-defense angle that saved her from the usual fate imposed by the Hays Office. Also, she wasn't really trying to kill Tatum, just stop him from strangling her. Not to mention that Tatum could have easily saved himself if he'd gone to a doctor or hospital. He had plenty of time. In that sense, Tatum was a slow suicide.

[–] demersonw 12 years ago

Yes, Tatums stabbing was self defense but seeing as she willing went along with Tatums scheme to keep Leo trapped for a week, even thanked him for it, I figured that makes her just as evil as Tatum and an accessory to Leos death. So I still think its pretty surprising she was allowed to just walk away at the end, with assuming a lot of profit.

Not that I dont think the ending is great however, just surprising with the production codes.

before you can get rolling, your life makes a beeline for the drain.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Yes, you'd think she would suffer some moral retribtuion for being a greedy accessory to her husband's death. I'm not sure whether the Code demanded this but ordinarily the audience would want such satisfaction. That fact that she just walks away, unrebuked and probably with all the money the place has earned over the past week, is probably another reason why audiences in 1951 disliked this film. About the only "punishment" we see is that she misses the last bus as she's leaving and has to try to hitch a ride...which, knowing Lorraine, she'll probably manage to do without much difficulty!

[–] jgroub 8 years ago

Y'know, it's funny, I didn't even think of the Code while I was watching this. When I saw The Asphalt Jungle about 10 years ago, I was loving the whole movie, until mid-movie, I remembered the Code. And I knew that all the bad people were going to have to get theirs. And that sucked - made the movie completely unenjoyable for me. It's a heist movie, and my momma always taught me to root for the criminals in a heist movie. But you just couldn't there, because the ending was pre-ordained. There was nothing to root for.

Here, I completely forgot about the Code; and I didn't think that what Tatum had done was worthy of Code-ly retribution, as it were. Meaning, I was sort of surprised by his death. Oh, not entirely; I knew he was going to die after he got into the car with Herbie and he forbade Herbie from taking him to the hospital. But comparing that stab wound to, say, the other "stabbing with scissors" movie I know of, Dial M for Murder, there just wasn't any way he should have died from that wound. Or to put it differently, there wasn't any way he should have died from that wound without bleeding all over everything and everybody to the extent that he'd either pass out, or Herbie would just say, "F this, I'm taking him to the hospital right now." That part was silly to me.

But getting back to your point, there were two contrary forces at play here - to make sure that the bad person got theirs. But who was the bad person? Was it Tatum? Was it the wife? They set her up not to "get hers" because she was acting in self-defense. As for the money - and it had to be a lot more than a grand - well, that made her a bad person, but not Hays Code bad, y'know?

No, Tatum was Code-worthily bad here because he "killed" Leo as surely as he had gunned him down in a Western. Tatum had to die under the Code. Good thing I was able to forget about the existence of the Code for once and enjoy the movie.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Of course, Tatum pays for essentially killing Leo by losing his own life...although he does so by choice -- not seeking medical attention, which could certainly have saved him early on. I suppose that act of self-destruction, of in effect punishing himself, satisfied the Code's dicta. But Lorraine gets away unpunished. Whether for her complicity in Leo's death, or just her general greedy, bad nature, she should have suffered some retribution. Forget the Code -- the audience would want to see her suffer.

But I often cheer for the crooks too (as in The Asphalt Jungle), and I suspect millions of people back when did too. Maybe not murder, but stealing, that kind of thing. But the Production Code wouldn't allow them to actually see the bad guys get away with it. Today, of course, people can get away without punishment. Lots of people like it better that way, but what does that say about modern audience morality?

[–] jgroub 8 years ago

Yeah, the friggin' code really f'd up The Asphalt Jungle for me. Here I am, great heist flick, of course you're rooting for the burglars. Who wouldn't be? And then it hits me, mid-picture, that they CAN'T get away with it. It's impossible. Just really p!ssed me off, realizing that.

Here, I didn't think about the Code because there were no Code-worthy activities that had to be dealt with - not until the very end. Then, yes, of course, Tatum "gets his" by deciding to commit suicide.

But Lorraine? What has she ever done except be an unsatisfied wife? All she wants is out of this marriage - which, although she is ready to do it right at the start of the picture, she decides against. No, like a good wife of the Fifties, like a good Hays Code wife, she stays, even though she doesn't want to. It is only when he's dead that she leaves. And even then, we don't see her leave. She tries to get on that bus, but it pulls away before she does.

No, Lorraine has done nothing that deserves the Code's divine retribution.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Oh, I disagree. Maybe not death, but she is a liar, cheat and thief and is complicit in Leo's suffering, so certainly deserves some rebuke. Also, she's not a good little 50s housewife -- remember, she once went off with some guy in a big Cadillac -- must've cost $4000 easy -- and got all the way to Kansas City before Leo caught up with her. The only reason she sticks at the beginning of the picture is because Tatum pushes her into it with the lure of thousands of bucks by the end of the week, not because of any Hays Code morality. She's just a greedy whore.

And we do see her leave. She misses the bus, but keeps walking out and turns to try to hitch a ride. By the time Chuck and Herbie pull out later on, there's no sign of Lorraine, so obviously she got picked up...a not-uncommon experience for her.

The wind-up of The Asphalt Jungle is frustrating on an overt level but the film never disappointed me because I realized all along they'd never get away with it. But the core aspect of that film isn't the heist, it's the personalities mixed up in it. The crooks were humanized, rare in those days, while it was the cops, particularly the Commissioner, who are portrayed as heartless, ruthless types. That's what made the film so great.

[–] jgroub 8 years ago

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Damn, as Sally Field would never have said, you dislike her, you really, really dislike her!

It's not that I like her or don't like her. I think that I am - of course - watching this with a 21st century perspective. So, she doesn't like the guy. So, she wants to leave him. So, she has left him in the past, and has come back. To me, this is nothing new. I don't dislike her because of that. That just seems like something that happens - bad marriages. Being in one myself, and trying to get out, I actually have plenty of sympathy for her. But to a 1951 audience, yeah, I get it that's more than a little shocking/off-putting.

But greedy whore? What was the population of that "town" of Escudero - 6? SIX? Who the f would ever want to live stuck all the way in the middle of nowhere out there? It's just like The Postman Always Rings Twice, which I don't remember completely. You're a looker, you've married the wrong guy, you want out! I don't remember exactly what happens in TPART, but if you're as hot as Lana Turner or Jessica Lange, sure, you f the next guy to come along, so long as he gets you out of that self-imposed hellish exile.

What I do remember in TPART is that they both actually kill the guy. And semi-get away with it. Here, as Tatum said about Leo, Lorraine is nothing more than a bad wife. She didn't kill him, she didn't do anything wrong - according to me and my analysis, anyway. She made no secret about wanting out in the past and now here's her chance. She takes it. What's wrong with that? But again, I look at this with modern - and sympathetic - eyes.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

No, you don't understand me. I don't care that she wants to get out. I don't believe in maintaining bad marriages. She doesn't belong there, she should leave. I'm all for her bolting. Leo is a dope, so mind-numbingly delusional and pathetic that it's hard to believe anyone could be that stupid, so in a way he deserves to get a (figurative) sock in the jaw from Lorraine just to knock some sense into him.

That said, Leo is a decent guy, and Lorraine is not a decent woman. When she split with the guy with the Caddy Leo should have let her go. He was too stupid and naïve to do so, but he doesn't deserve the fate that befalls him. Plus when Lorraine finally does leave, she grabs all the cash and just leaves behind a dead husband whom she used during the last week of his life to earn all that money, even leaving his poor parents without a cent. She doesn't even stick around for the funeral. What she does is not right. That's my problem with her -- not her wanting to get out of a bad marriage.

Incidentally, it's pretty clear she was a prostitute before Leo married her. Remember that exchange between her and Tatum:

--"I bet he took you out of some dime-a-dance joint."

--"Night club."

--"Saloon."

--[shrugs] "Okay, saloon."

That's Hays-Code code for whore. This was definitely a marriage that should never have been. Not that it would have changed Leo's fate (thanks to his insistence on going into the cliff dwelling and Tatum's dropping by), but he would have been happier with a woman who cared for him and not just herself.

[–] jgroub 8 years ago

That's Hays-Code code for whore.

Heh, heh - I completely agree. Okay, fine, she's a whore. Well, was a whore. Remember, there's only 5 other people in Escudero, and she's related to 3 of them.

Plus when Lorraine finally does leave, she grabs all the cash and just leaves behind a dead husband whom she used during the last week of his life to earn all that money, even leaving his poor parents without a cent. She doesn't even stick around for the funeral. What she does is not right. That's my problem with her -- not her wanting to get out of a bad marriage.

Okay, I think I understand now why you're so deadset against her. Yeah, these are bad, selfish, self-centered things. But you kinda paint her out to be almost evil, basically, y'know? Again, I can only view the movie with a 21st century perspective, and I shrug at your litany of wrongs she's done. My reaction comes down to, "Eh. That and $2.75 will get you a ride on the subway."

See, the thing is that Lorraine doesn't engineer "the fate that befalls him." That's all Tatum. Lorraine goes along with it, sure, I'll buy that to a small extent - but it's not as if she knew from the get-go that because they were stretching it out to 6 or 7 days, that Leo was going to die. I don't think anybody knew this. I sure didn't; I didn't expect Leo's death at all until he's dying (which is another problem I brought up in another thread).

Under the Hays Code, sure, she's a nasty one. But I can't see it personally from me that she's as terrible as you're arguing her to be.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] hobnob53 8 years ago

Well, while it's true she didn't know Leo would die, she was happy enough to go along with keeping him buried unnecessarily for a week to let the money pile up. I don't hold her having been a prostitute against her -- it's not a point in her favor, but these things happen. What I dislike about her is she's a user. The fact that she fell for Leo's description of his business is her problem (and maybe a touch of irony, given her greed). And while I blame Leo for being dumb enough to want her back, by the time he gets trapped she has nothing left in her but contempt for him. She doesn't even have any normal human feeling for his predicament. I just don't like her amorality and utter selfishness. She's trash.

Like I said before, better all around had she left earlier.