MovieChat Forums > The Prowler (1951) Discussion > Great movie, but I saw 2 plot holes (I n...

Great movie, but I saw 2 plot holes (I need a expert in law) (spoilers).

posted 11 years ago by kbd1
6 replies | jump to latest

I saw 2 plot holes: I have a question to a lawyer: Webb couldn't have been arrested due to double jeopardy. He can't be tried for a crime that a court of law has already declared him not guilty.

The second hole has to do with this: If Susan had an undying love for Webb (and he didn't have that gun obsession) why didn't she just say: "I'm a slut. The person who impregnated me wasn't my former husband, or even my current husband, but a 3rd party." It probably would have ruined her reputation in 1951, but at least her one true love (or maybe even Susan herself) would not have ended up in jail.

[–] rayincumbria 10 years ago

Or...How about this one..

Susan invents a story whereby.. Before the killing..desperate to have a baby with her husband they seek out.. Ohh.. it could be some native American Shaman.. or a quack Mexican herbalist .. or some fringe religious sect..something like that.. they go through the mumbo jumbo.. far too embarrassed to tell anyone they are doing it.. not really expecting it to work.. It all gets forgotten about in all the fuss and the inquest... then "Hey, wow, waddayaknow.. I'm pregnant after all.. wow, what a miracle"
OK, Webb isn't named as the father.. but she gets all the sympathy.. he gets all the praise, kudos, respect for bringing up another guy's baby.. all doubts about 'Too quick a wedding' forgotten.. what a great guy.. He married her knowing all this.. he must really love her..

few visible scars

[–] William222 10 years ago

Regarding the two "plot holes":

1. I am not a lawyer, but I do know that Webb had not been tried for a crime. The "trial" that was depicted was a coroner's inquest, and if it had been determined that the shooting was unjustified, it would have been referred to the district attorney for prosecution.

2. For that scheme to work, they would have to find a man willing to falsely testify that he is indeed the father, and not only would he have to be the same blood type as Webb, but he'd have to be somebody they'd trust not to expose them. A pretty tall order.

[–] cookiela2001 9 years ago

Generally, in that day and age, murderous villains in movies (or even adulterers) weren't allowed to get away with their crimes.

This more than anything else is probably what forced the unhappy ending.Yes, the characters as drawn were certainly intelligent enough to find a way out of their predicament, but America in the early 1950's wouldn't allow that in popular entertainment.

.

[–] kbd1 9 years ago

I've been starting some threads on IMDB & am disappointed that many people are not focusing on my question, but instead are "off in the weeds" with their responses. Question one was answered that it was an inquest & not a trial. I guess on the second part I am wondering if she would be forced to present the real father. Like I said, it seems to be a plot hole.

[–] MrEdnablackadder 9 years ago

With regards to your two questions:

- Webb was never tried, as it was concurred that there was no solid ground for that.

- So, what are you suggesting Susan should've done? Claimed that she didn't know who the father was? The thing is: the child couldn't be her husband's, cause he couldn't have any (and the brother-in-law knew it), and she couldn't say it was Webb's, since people would've known they had previously lied during the enquiry. Now, whether Susan had to present the real father or not, it would've still arisen suspicions had she claimed not to know him or chosen not to name him. People would've still thought it was Webb, which would've meant that he had had a relationship with her long before their marriage and a good motif to kill the husband. As Webb feared, scandal tabloids would've made a great story about it and brought a lot of unwelcome attention. And, as previously mentioned, it would've been riskier to bring in a third player to play the father. So, the course of action they opted for was definitely the best one.

[–] elliott-43 8 years ago

Forget the plot holes, the film is far from a technical masterpiece. But as an unexpected, brilliant, engaging--because of Van Heflin's pulling off Webb's cartoon like 50's emblematic character in shifting roles of heel, heel-with-a-heart, selfish jerk, selfish-jerk-with-heart, psychopath, and psycho-with-heart, and the hyper-real b&w cinematography--an an epic monument to 50s angst. It all perfectly gels as its own masterpiece in the last scene- a film illustration of the Myth of Sisyphus. I guess I liked the film.