MovieChat Forums > The Prowler (1951) Discussion > Loved it, BUT (Spoilers)

Loved it, BUT (Spoilers)

posted 14 years ago by tsegal-1
50 replies | jump to latest

... the whole ending seems a bit rushed -- and far-fetched, especially the doctor's behavior.
I can, in best suspension-of-disbelief tradition, buy that he recognized the couple & remembered all about the shooting, the scandal (even though it's months later and happened way back in LA). But what in the situation made him run for the police? HE didn't know Susan's first husband was sterile -- that detail didn't come out at the inquest (why would it?). So, why wouldn't he just assume the baby was fathered by the DJ, months before he was shot? For the doc to think "hmmm -- she's having a full-term baby...that means she & the cop did know each other before...OMG! that cop deliberately murdered the husband!" makes him pretty omniscent.

And don't get me started on the whole ethics of him KIDNAPPING their baby.

[–] bnl771 14 years ago

Re-watch the final scene between Susan and Webb. He asks what she told the doctor and she says she told him to take the baby and run. It is implied she told him EVERYTHING between the moment we see the doctor go in to calm her down and when he comes out with the baby.

[–] rivergirl301 14 years ago

Right, but. . .still the story line that a woman had to account for who fathered her child (it HAD to be her husband if she was married, etc.) is dated and a little bit hard to take with a straight face. I mean nowadays, if you had suspicion in your voice when you asked who the father was, you'd be told to F off! And rightly so.

[–] Local Hero 14 years ago

No, but it was more than an old-fashioned question of a baby being born out of wedlock. If the baby was conceived four months earlier, and if the baby is not the first husband's, then it shows that the second husband and the wife were having an affair during the first marriage and lied about not knowing each other under oath. And most importantly, it provides a powerful motive for murder and creates great suspicion that the two of them planned it all. The real scandal here is murder, not paternity.

Or do you simply mean that she could say it was anyone's, e.g. the milkman's?

[–] corriganville 14 years ago

Hi Local Hero,
If your response was directed to me, that's what I was trying to say but not as well as you did. I wasn't trying to implicate the milkman!

"And most importantly, it provides a powerful motive for murder and creates great suspicion that the two of them planned it all."

[–] Local Hero 14 years ago

Hi, corriganville. No, my response was to the post above mine by rivergirl. I haven't read your posts yet but I'll do so now.

[–] liscarkat (16530) 6 years ago

Dated? It was made in 1950, and is not dated for 1950. When you watch an old movie, it is ridiculous to think of it in terms of today. Forget about what people would do now, and allow yourself to enter into the time the film was made, if it's a contemporary story, or the time it depicts, if it's a period movie.

[–] nutsberryfarm 14 years ago

very good movie. tho, what about at the end. the shot in the back. from 1/2 mile away??!

I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "... I drank what?"

[–] maxima128 14 years ago

I still can't believe they'd shoot an unarmed man in the back. I guess back then, just running from the police was cause enough to kill you, even if they weren't sure that you'd done something wrong.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

I thought the end was a bit contrived and rushed, too: Webb suddenly loses all control, flees, the cops show up, etc. (and how did the doctor get hold of the cops in that deserted setting so fast anyway?). And what was the point of Susan having the doctor take the baby? Tell him to get away, yes, but was she afraid Webb would do something to the infant too?

The cops shooting him was par for the course in movies of that era, but after all, he hadn't been convicted of anything and was (I think) unarmed at that point. He was only trying to get to the top of a hill...and then what, anyway? Run to the top of another hill? It would have been more believable if he'd been shooting at the cops and they shot him in self-defense.

But overall, a good, if kind of odd, noir. Very unusual to have a psycho cop and an out-of-wedlock pregnancy depicted in a film then. I love the fact that their motel room has the movies' requisite double beds, even though we learn right there that they've been sleeping together for months!

[–] chipe 14 years ago

I liked the end best. Some of your points are good, but I liked the music and cinematography at the end -- very exciting. It mimicked the excited mood of the bad guy.

Good point: why did the doctor run out with the baby? It would only slow him down. But: (a) maybe it was to prevent the baby from crying (thus alerting Van Heflin) if it was left alone, or (b) maybe they were afraid Van Heflin would kill everyone (including the baby) to hide the pregnancy, and with the baby safe away, it would be pointless for Heflin to kill the wife.

Contrary to a point in this thread, Van Heflin and the girl had a good reason to fear coming up with a baby conceived before she remarried: her ex-husband's brother knew that the ex was sterile, so he'd at the least alert the cops that the wife was unfaithful/estranged from her husband and that she might have conspired with Van Heflin.

As said above, Heflin told his wife he was going to kill the doctor, so the wife told the doctor to flee.

[–] corriganville 14 years ago

I enjoyed the movie but there were a lot of things that were a little tough to take:

More spoilers ahead!!

The brother-in-law (Emerson Treacy)- "That Webb is a swell guy!" (something like that) Geez, he shot & killed your brother! And married your now wealthy from the insurance policy sister-in-law!

A cop shoots and kills a law abiding (maybe no gun permit?) citizen, and although the shooting is found to be justified, marries the widow not long after? Nobody wonders about this?

In the beginning the two cops leave the house after checking on the prowler, the next scene is Van Heflin in civies hanging out and having a beer with Evelyn Keyes in her living room. What!! I must have missed something so this one may be my fault.

Evelyn Keyes not realizing that, although her dead husband was sterile, being 4 months pregnant at the time of her wedding might tip off the cops that something did not add up. Could she be that dumb?

Sure, one of the dead husband's records got mixed up with the record collection they hauled off to Calico. Sure. (Well, it was in a "secret" compartment of the phonograph.)

Webb's partner believing that both Van Heflin & Evelyn Keyes don't recognize each other at the inquest. One maybe, but both? And Van Heflin is also not supposed to remember the fancy house. Nor does the prowler incident ever come up before the inquest between Van & his partner?

Why is Van Heflin out on patrol BY HIMSELF when the shooting occurs? I don't know the LA police policies of 1951 but he was with a partner when the prowler was investigated.

The dead husband locks up his Lucky Strike cigarettes with his important papers so that Van can conveniently find his will.

Like I said, I enjoyed it. It would be easy for me to ignore a lot of these points but that first one with the dead guy's brother , yeesh!

[–] HoferPM-1 14 years ago

I had to jump in here to give a few of my thoughts, I was 12 years old in 1951 and was an avid movie goer because there wasn't much else to do living in NYC. Everyone has to remember this was 1951 and things were a lot different in those days. Cops behaved differently. I started to watch The Prowler last night, having never seen it before, while waiting for The Event and then I couldn't take my eyes away from this movie. Love Evelyn Keyes and even though I never cared for Van Heflin (no offense), I thought this movie was great and I never went to The Event. In this movie, Evelyn really thought Van killed her husband on purpose, but I think she foolishly believed he did it because he loved her so much. That's why she protected him at the hearing. I felt bad for her because after she discovered a gun in his belongings I think inwardly she knew exactly what kind of man he was. Again, I must say "Great Movie" !

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

A little off the subject, but HoferPM-1 -- there wasn't much to do in New York City in 1951? I was born in the city in the 50s and have lived around there most of my life and if there's one place on Earth where there's always something to do it's NYC. Good thing you weren't born somewhere like western Nebraska!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rsbrandt 11 years ago

"Susan did pester the daylights out of him. He was trying to break it off."

Actually, he wants it to SEEM like he's breaking it off with her...that gives him cover when he offs the husband. As he asks her later: What possible motive would he have?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

You make many good points, corriganville.

I also wondered at the brother-in-law's being so taken with Heflin: Oh, gee, you killed my brother, but he was tough to like, so that's great by me, and why don't you marry his widow? I was a bit taken aback by his immediate friendliness in the drug store. A more reserved or even cold attitude, followed by a gradual thaw, would have been more realistic. The quick marriage was a bit hard to swallow too, especially after she called him a murderer in court.

You might in fact have missed something between the time the two cops check on the prowler and Van's hanging around in his civvies. In between he comes back to her, alone, and rather too readily makes himself at home. They discover they're from the same town in Indiana, and she used to cut his picture out of the local newspaper there when he was a big basketball star! That's a bit much. But we also learn that he lost his basketball scholarship to college, had to drop out, and instead of being a broker in an office making a lot of money, he could only become a cop, which he hates. In addition we learn of Keyes's failed showbiz career and her marrying this radio jerk. That scene cuts (a little abruptly) to the later civvies scene you mentioned.

Their not recognizing one another at the inquest is also bizarre, made more so by his partner's partial complicity in the deception. Obviously the cops couldn't pretend they had never been there (as it's on the record and mentioned at the proceedings), but the couple's feigned ignorance of one another is not only not credible but highly risky. Heflin had never met the husband, and no one knew they were lovers, so why pretend not to remember one another? There was nothing incriminating about that. Much more suspicious to deny it altogether and risk being exposed in a lie.

I'll add something else: Van wants to live high, in a house like hers, but after they're married and she's inherited the money, they move away from her big $40,000 house ("in this market", as the partner says!) and go live in that fleabag motel he always wanted. Some path to riches!

Still, it's interesting that we can cite all these flaws and still find this movie compelling.

[–] corriganville 14 years ago

Hi hobnob,
I did see the scene when they talked about Indiana and basketball. I guess I forgot (12 hours ago! I'm getting old!) that in his first solo appearance at the house he was still in uniform. What got me was, as you put it, he "rather too readily makes himself at home". And she goes right along with it!

In an attempt to explain myself further, if I remember correctly (a big if), the two partners are deciding who will drive the car back to the station and the next thing you know, Van is back at the house hanging out. That's where I thought I might have blinked.

Check out the Calico website - http://www.calicotown.com/ Take a look at the picture with the church. Isn't that the hill Van climbs at the end behind the church?

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Hey corriganville,

I checked out the Calico website and it sure does look like the same place...even ghostier after another 59 years, despite the tourists. Unfortunately there's no info on this site (IMDb) under "filming locations". How did you recognize this? You must be familiar with the area.

No, I don't think you blinked anywhere along the line. Van brings his partner home, offering to drive the car back to the station house, but instead goes back to Evelyn and really starts to make himself at home. (Of course, he makes himself even more "at home" later on, if you get my drift....) He pulls the same thing later on, cruising around while waiting for the report of another prowler (him) around the house, so he can go back and blast hubby. (Oh, and ultimately get congratulations from his brother and sister-in-law on a well-timed shooting.)

There's another thing: why does Van bother to shoot himself with bathrobe guy's gun? If he wanted to claim he was shot first it might make some sense. (That's what I thought he was planning at first, and I remember thinking the powder burns would belie any claim that he was shot from a distance.) But Van didn't say anything contrary to the physical evidence, and claimed he was shot close-to after he shot the husband. I thought that was not only pointless but also risky, as the coroner might have said the man was killed instantly -- as indeed seemed to have been the case -- and hence incapable of firing a gun...you know, post-mortem and all.

The more I ponder the flick, the more discrepancies and illogical moves pop up. I still liked the movie, which I'd never seen, but the scriptwriters certainly could have exercised a bit more care in many of their key scenes.

By the bye, after they became lovers, do you think Evelyn gave Van the keyes to her house?

Sorry.

[–] corriganville 14 years ago

Hi hobnob,

That's a good one about Van telling the inquest he (Van) was shot after he shot the husband. I suppose there could have been earlier testimony to the fact that the husband's wound may not have caused instant death but I agree with you. Van should have handled that story in a more credible fashion. I was sure he was going to say he was shot first and only returned fire to defend himself.

I must confess that another poster mentioned Calico, either in a message or plot summary. But I am very interested in locations in that area and would have googled it anyway. I make yearly trips out there to check out old movie locations and had Calico not been turned into a tourist trap, I would have considered it for this year's trip. As a matter of fact, I was near there last year in the Lucerne Valley checking out the rock formations seen in the movies "Tarantula" and "It Came from Outer Space".

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Ah, two of my faves from U-I, especially Tarantula. Did you find the formations? They were pretty cool. How about The Monolith Monsters?

It's too bad, but thoroughly expected, that a place like Calico would by now be a tourist trap. I suppose the fact that it even still exists is something to be happy about, but "restoring" places like this just robs them of their true identities.

I wonder if they have any of the food and household items Van and Ev brought with them on display in the town "museum"?

[–] corriganville 14 years ago

Hi hobnob,
The 'Tarantula' rock formations are Dead Man's Point in Lucerne Valley CA, not far from where the stagecoach chase was filmed in 'Stagecoach'. I had been keeping my eye open for them on our travels but never did come across them. Finally was tipped off by an internet blog.
Interesting discussion you guys are having. Personally, I think because my brother and I are good friends (and I don't mean to imply that any other posters do not have close relationships with their siblings) that the brother-in-law's reaction to his brothers killing caused me to scrutinize the plot more closely than I might have otherwise. I suppose I would have shrugged off the 'making himself at home' issue as the movie went along.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Hi corriganville,

Thanks for the tip -- next time I'm in CA I may try to go looking for the site.

I don't think one has to have a friendly brother to wonder about the b-in-law's overly solicitous attitude toward Heflin after both the shooting and the nasty inquest. It's just too odd a reaction to withstand much scrutiny, at least in the circumstances as depicted in the movie. Same with many other of the plot points here. But as I said someplace, it's probably a tribute to the movie that it keeps you in its grip for almost an hour and a half despite its numerous illogical and improbable plot points. It's only after it's all over that we begin to reflect and wonder about those numerous inconsistencies. Perhaps, looked at from this perspective, The Prowler is an example of good filmmaking overlaying bad.

[–] rsbrandt 11 years ago

"That's a good one about Van telling the inquest he (Van) was shot after he shot the husband. I suppose there could have been earlier testimony to the fact that the husband's wound may not have caused instant death but I agree with you. Van should have handled that story in a more credible fashion. I was sure he was going to say he was shot first and only returned fire to defend himself."

Van is careful that his testimony reflects everything that happened in its correct sequence, since, for example, a neighbor could easily have overheard him crying out "Halt!" three times, then the two shots. And I assume it would have been easy to determine if he was shot from a distance instead of at extremely close range (powder burns, etc.). So even though returning fire in self-defense might sound like a better case to us, he wants to stick as closely to the facts as possible.

[–] Local Hero 14 years ago

I'll add something else: Van wants to live high, in a house like hers, but after they're married and she's inherited the money, they move away from her big $40,000 house ("in this market", as the partner says!) and go live in that fleabag motel he always wanted. Some path to riches!

Yes, that's an amusing point, but I think there is an explanation that goes to the heart of Trumbo's script. First, she has memories in the old house of her husband, and assumedly would want to leave. Second, and more importantly, the motel dream is all about Van's ego. He does not want to live in another woman and man's house; he wants to have his own business (if not his own little empire). The entire story is about twisted class envy; it's a kind of dark parody of the American Dream.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Yes, what you say is true. I think it's less the house they're moving out of than the place they're moving into. The motel was Van's dream, but then he'd also told her before the shooting that he couldn't marry her because she'd been accustomed to wealth all her life. Yet he still takes her and dumps her in this crummy motel. Since she's already inheriting her ex's money -- and presumably must have something of her own, coming from a well-to-do family -- you'd think he'd ditch the motel idea and look for something loftier...and richer. (I know she's horrified to learn near the end that he'd seen the husband's will and knew how much she'd inherit, but even if he hadn't seen it he'd have known she was in for a windfall.) But your take on the underlying point of the story is dead on (so to speak).

[–] Local Hero 14 years ago

I take your points (and agree), but I think his holding onto the seedy little motel as his dream of glory-- even when the financial means might have made a grander dream possible-- is a reflection of his seedy little mind (or to put it in classist terms, it's a working class slob's tacky dream of power and prestige). But we're allowed to see things from Evelyn's point of view, to feel what she must have felt right away and would have come to feel more and more with time-- the tawdriness of the place. Most specifically, I love the sound of the highway traffic roaring by whenever they are at home. It's such an unsettling sound of transitoriness and ugly, well, mobility, that it feels like an aural symbol of Van's entire conception of the American Dream.

I also love the way he checks the motel's books with such child-like satisfaction.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

All true. Van should've aimed higher in life. Just proves money can't buy taste.

[–] Local Hero 14 years ago

Corriganville,

I can see why you mention all of these as moments in the film that were hard to believe, but I think that everything on your list can be explained, EXCEPT for one detail that struck me on first viewing as well: Why does Van's partner not bat an eye when both Keyes and Heflin say they've never seen each other before. Yes, we get the line about him finding it amazing that Heflin could forget a body like that (the sort of lascivious line that previously would have been given to Van, and not the partner who stands as the embodiment of monogamy, domesticity, and social propriety in every sense), but how could he swallow that neither person remembers the other. Yes, it's possible, but, as another poster pointed out, the lovers' instinctive response of total denial is far more risky than simply admitting, "Yes, I once saw him/her during a routine prowler call."

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Of course, everything can be explained (or, perhaps, explained away), but the issue is how credibly one can do so. There are a lot of occurrences here that could happen, yes, but simply don't seem logical. I recall the old adage, "Audiences will accept the impossible -- they will not accept the improbable." Many things in this film just seem to stretch the bounds of expected or logical behavior, and more's the pity because all of it could have been fixed with just a few short expository sequences.

I think we did mention the partner's odd complicity (up to a point) in backing Van's and Evelyn's preposterous claim that they had never seen one another before. You're quite right, the partner's behavior is at total variance with the type of character we've been led to believe he is -- honest, upright, etc. But it's part and parcel of the entire denial aspect of this scene: it makes no sense and serves no purpose; in fact it would needlessly complicate things. And also, since Evelyn wasn't talking to Van after the shooting, how would they make sure before the inquest that their lies would back one another up? All this is simply not credible, or, as they say, probable. (I was the one who pointed out the riskiness of this ploy, as well as its utter pointlessness, even within the film's plot.)

[–] Local Hero 14 years ago

Well, I think I could go over the list if necessary and explain what I think was the logic in each case. But certainly the adage you cite about improbability and impossibility is an excellent one.

And yes, I know that two of you already cited the partner's seeming blindness or complicity during the court process-- I was confirming that as a point that struck me, too.

That said, as improbable as it is that the partner doesn't object to both parties saying they haven't seen each other before, and as unnecessary as it seems for the parties to choose to deny any previous acquaintance, this, too, could be justified, at least in part. Van and Evelyn have not conspired beforehand to get their stories straight, and although Van is quite methodical in his scheming, the choice of total denial on both their parts could be said to be a believable choice based on a paranoid and desperate attempt at total risk aversion ('No! I had NOTHING to do with her/him at all! There is NO suspicious connection that you can make out of it at all!'). And from a writer's standpoint, the total denial ups the level of tension during the trial for the audience, as we feel the risk and the paranoia involved for the characters.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

My point exactly -- any of us could go through the troubling aspects of the plot and come up with "logical" explanations for each. But the very fact of having to stretch so many points and deal with so much improbable behavior, so many unnecessary or pointless twists and turns that have no real bearing on the story, adds up to a tale with simply far too many unbelivable aspects...especially as we're asked to believe that Heflin's character is a coldly calculating cop with some knowledge or experience in schemes and alibis. There are just too many problems -- not plot holes as such, but unnecessary or off-key plot twists -- to make the film seem reasonably credible after a time. A couple such turns or a degree of improbable behavior you can deal with. Having to explain away so many things makes the film less and less believable.

[–] Local Hero 14 years ago

We can quibble about the degree of believability of various details-- and of course believability is ultimately a subjective matter-- but in a sense I can also agree with your larger point, except that I suppose I accepted a lot more because the film felt so highly stylized to me, a kind of wild allegory of American class barriers, veering off into such dark and lurid places along the way, so that I accepted the plot more readily. I mean, simply having a couple marry after the new husband had killed the old-- no matter how well the details are coordinated-- automatically puts us in the land of the extraordinary and extremely improbable-- more the realm of Greek tragedy than sober realism.

[–] hobnob53 14 years ago

Good observation, and I suppose it's a tribute to the filmmakers that they could sweep you up so thoroughly in a film which does have more than its fair share of plot problems, its overall quality notwithstanding.

[–] Chytilova 12 years ago

Damn I guess even with older people with regards to old films people are still obsessed with everything in a film being logical and realistic (oddly enough life usually isn't logical, but no complains about that). Who cares if there are plot holes that don't adhere 100 percent to reality. I could explain (not explain away, but give obvious answers to) your questions, but the answers are meaningless and barely pertain to the overall picture. It's all about what the director is trying to get across. This isn't an realistic story and shouldn't be judged as such. Just like no one should dismiss Only Angels Have Wings (1939) just because the basic idea of their business and what they are doing is silly. It's about deeper issues and does a brilliant job at presenting them.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Aside from the stupidity of your "older people/older film" rant, which apart from being gratutitous is irrelevant and makes no sense (and isn't logical or realistic), the fact is that this film suffers from its inconsistent script. It isn't a matter of the film's being "unrealistic" as it is that some of its plot elements make little sense within the film's context. Lapses in logical narrative development or character behavior, or dragging in absurd plot devices for no apparent reason, can and do harm a film, and do so here. That doesn't necessarily make it less enjoyable, but it does undermine the audience's acceptance of what the director may be trying to do.

A film as a whole may be unlikely or even illogical but as long as the various plot elements work within its overall context there's no problem. It's when those elements conflict with the principal structure of a film that the movie suffers.

We don't need anyone to "explain" the plot, its problems or its supposed meaning to the rest of us, we're capable of understanding what's going on without assistance. There's nothing very "deep" or complex about this film, and one can still appreciate what the director was trying to "get across" (even if some of that lies in your own mind -- each individual sees films, plays, books, etc. differently). One can manage this even with the knowledge that in several aspects the film doesn't hold up well.

Incidentally, your analogy to Only Angels Have Wings is entirely off base. First, in that film there aren't any unlikely plot holes of the kind there are in The Prowler. Second, they're two entirely different kinds of films. Third, the central dramatic background of the men's business in OAHW isn't silly, as several such outfits did, and do, operate, in South America and elsewhere.

[–] Bodine 12 years ago

"In the beginning the two cops leave the house after checking on the prowler, the next scene is Van Heflin in civies hanging out and having a beer with Evelyn Keyes in her living room. What!! I must have missed something so this one may be my fault."

My sentiments exactly! At first I thought maybe I'd dozed off and missed something. More likely a connecting scene went to the cutting room floor...

[–] rsbrandt 11 years ago

"Why is Van Heflin out on patrol BY HIMSELF when the shooting occurs? I don't know the LA police policies of 1951 but he was with a partner when the prowler was investigated."

Van calls in to the station telling them that he's on his way back from dropping his partner off when he takes the call. He always makes sure to drop his partner off before he gets up to his business.

[–] rivergirl301 14 years ago

Maybe the wife (were they married?) told the dr to take the baby. . .

[–] chipe 14 years ago

yes, Van Heflin married the Evelyn Keyes character(Susan Gilvray) near the end of the movie. She told the doctor to scram with the baby.

[–] Local Hero 14 years ago

Exactly. And just to be clear-- since there seems to be a lot of confusion over this point-- she tells the doctor to run away, in part out of a sense of moral responsibility for his life. She rightly fears her husband is about to kill the doctor. And she also senses that a complete break with the now-desperate husband is imminent, and that when he realizes that his wife is no longer cooperating with him, he may do anything, such as running off with their child. In other words, the doctor doesn't run off with the child; she gives it to him (assumedly, temporarily) for the sake of the child's safety.

[–] nutsberryfarm 14 years ago

life was in black & white back then & he was in the black!

I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, "... I drank what?"

[–] emmanuelandme 7 years ago

The cop DID say halt three times!!! Guess that's what was needed in those days.......NOT now, of course!! Great film and Evelyn Keys should have gotten an Academy Award, she was brilliant! Love this film too!

[–] artistathome 13 years ago

very good movie. tho, what about at the end. the shot in the back. from 1/2 mile away??!

I just watched it on TCM, and it was no half a mile a way. you can't even see someone all that clearly 1/2 mile away. He was as close to the policeman as animal the policeman would shoot if out hunting.

but i agree why not shoot to injure and not kill?

I guess because everyone was sick of the movie and wanted to end it and go home!!

[–] artistathome 13 years ago

Considering all the plot holes i don't think this qualifies as a good movie.

The reason we can't turn away is because it is so bad. Some movies are like that. Like "what in heck are they gonna pull of their hats now?"

Like a soap opera with ridiculous plots, you still watch it.

[–] LadyJaneGrey 13 years ago

The plot holes AND the writing, which I felt was a bit contrived, forced, and bordering on camp. I really only liked this movie for the moody atmosphere and the oddly fascinating hold the bitter cop has over the DJ's wife. All those years ago she saw him in basketball games and cut his picture out of the paper and boom here he is on her front porch. And then he so callously leads her down the garden path because he knows about the windfall insurance money. Just like someone you'd have liked way back when.

This apparently is writer James Ellroy's favorite movie, and I can see why.

Am I anywhere near the imaginary cliff?

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] latz-1 14 years ago

I got hooked on this last night. The court room scene was interesting in that it was totally understated. Quite risque for it's time.

[–] gema6 11 years ago

I really enjoyed reading everyone's take on the plot holes.

There were elements about the movie that kept me watching, and one was that I was wondering what odd thing was going to happen next.

In the end though, I was disappointed. This could have been a very good movie if the writers would have used their heads and not produced all the plot holes to begin with. Many of you commented on what could have been different. If the writers had thought out the reasons for things and allowed them to be believable, it could have been something very good indeed.

I did like the atmosphere and I kept waiting for the characters to do something smart, but they repeatedly did things that felt wrong...the least of which was have the baby in the desert alone.

I realize divorce was different then, but why not simply let relatives (no need to broadcast it) know they fell in love, were pregnant, and were getting a divorce to get married. There are lots of motels around, so they could have moved away, possibly changed their names and lived a good life. People did survive scandal back then.

Yes, I realize that if they never caused a predicament, then there would be no point to the movie, but still...

It had real possibilities, and as I said before, I was disappointed.

[–] MrEdnablackadder 9 years ago

Personally I don't think anyone brought up anything that's actually closer to a real plot hole here. I actually think whole 'plot hole' concept gets too much emphasis on, these days, and is often people's definition of something completely different, i.e. thinking they may've not behaved the way a particular character did. Human beings are different and don't always act the way you would expect them to, you know. By these preconceptions, a strong script should feature predictable characters and situations.

The deputy shooting Webb in the end acted the same way any policeman of the time would have. I think this kind of behaviour may be a problem in a film like 'Crossfire', where you get Robert Young playing a modern man ahead of his time, who makes sermons about the ignorance of violence and then shoots the unarmed Robert Ryan in cold blood because he didn't stop at the first warning . That may be out of character. But here it wasn't.

Well, the brother-in-law may have been overly friendly to the man who had accidentally shot John; I had that impression as well. But I guess he was a simpleton type, immediately divulging his brother couldn't have kids (Webb had to know he knew) and, overall, this unique example of character interaction made the story even more original and entertaining.

So, Susan told the same lie Webb did during the enquiry; that was very believable. She acted out of fear and didn't want anyone to suspect her relationship with Webb which would have brought up many further questions. Even if the second cop may have attested that they had previously met, it's very possible that they could've forgotten. And this point was addressed in the script, anyway.

I think everything else has already been addressed.

This was a brilliant script from Trumbo, with a very unique plot and characters. Van's Webb is definitely a creation for the ages. One of Losey' masterpieces along with 'The Servant' and 'The Go-Between'. And it rightly gets a lot of adoration from cinephiles and pros. You can find Tavernier's take in the DVD's bonus features.