MovieChat Forums > Angel Face (1953) Discussion > Disappointing ending? (spoiler)

Disappointing ending? (spoiler)

posted 17 years ago by patronus
16 replies | jump to latest

I was surprised that she takes him down with her! It gives the story closure, but it made no sense! Earlier she wanted to confess her crime but cooperated with her lawyer to *save* Mitchum. Then she turns around and kills him? The story was driving home the point that she felt remorse, a weight on her conscience. I can understand the Code demanding that the murderer die, but the innocent man? (Yes, he lied to his girlfriend in the beginning of the film, but that hardly seems to justify his death!)

Was Preminger rebelling against the Code the only way he could in this instance?
Does anyone know if there's a story behind this ending?

Other than the ending I thought this was an above average noir. I liked that Mitchum's character was able to see through her scheming yet still get caught up in the mess.

(Starting a different thread because my question isn't about predictability but whether the ending works.)

[–] AlanSquier 17 years ago

She had to possess him one way or the other. She couldn't face losing him, so the only solution for her was to deliberately kill herself and take him with her.

I killed him for money and for a woman. I didn't get the money... and I didn't get the woman.

[–] ladynoir15 17 years ago

I think Diane's so called "remorse" was play acting to keep Frank in her web of lies, deceit, craziness (LOL), etc.

I too was a bit suprised when she took him down with her. I knew she was going to take herself down but I guess if she had to go, so did Frank as well so that no one else would ever have him.

Cecil: Now don't shout at me - I'm in jail.
Jeffrey: Well, that's all right; we don't need you.

[–] patronus 17 years ago

Excellent points, both of you. Thanks!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AliciaHuberman59 16 years ago

I was totally shocked by the ending, but yes, if she couldn't have him, no one else was going to.

[–] jkierste-1 16 years ago

Based on the ending, I'd say that Otto Preminger was just saying that drunk driving is bad. Champagne behind the wheel is a no-no.

[–] mark_shleck-1 16 years ago

Yep, I saw the whole movie as being a "Don't drink and drive" message as well. Rumour has it that the film was partly funded by the Sacramento Liquor Advisory Council.

You can't hold a candle to Gulbenkian.

[–] cengelm 16 years ago

... that drunk driving is bad

Illegal and unhealthy - only done by the baddies.

[–] carolbrnnn 15 years ago

I think the ending was in complete compliance with the production code.

Frank knew Diane had tried to kill her step mother once and he even told Diane that he knew she hated the step mom so much that she would eventually kill her and that he didn't want to be involved in it.

Well, any true patriotic american would have run to the police to let them in on Diane's intentions or at least would have cooperated more fully while the police were questoning him about the accident. By his silence he was an accessory before and after the fact, hence at the end he got his just deserts.

Viva la code.

[–] MitchumsGal 14 years ago

I just listened to the dvd commentary which I highly recommend. It is revealed that the original ending was as follows: Frank after the court case tries to kill Diane in the same way she tried to kill her step-mom, with the gas. There is a struggle, Frank tries to strangle her but she gets away. As she is running down the stairs she trips on her nightgown and falls to her death. Frank turns himself in and says at the end, I haven't felt this free until now.

So yes in the end Diane gets hers by dying and Frank gets punished for staying silent and trying to kill Diane. Code approved. The new ending is still code approved because they both paid for what they did or in Frank's case didn't do.

Apparently Preminger got the idea for the filmed ending by having a personal habit of nearly running stop signs, having to back up, and then forgetting the car was in reverse and flooring it.

******************
You're gonna make me lonesome when you go....

[–] fanaticita 14 years ago

It's great film noir! I didn't expect them to drive off into the sunset, did you?

[–] dark_frances 13 years ago

She was a really complex character, you can see many desires and regrets and angers and hesitations and loves and hates fighting inside her at the same time; the immense regret and guilt for having killed her father - and even her step-mother - may have led her to try to confess; but she could not receive the punishment - and thus at least a drop of absolution - she was looking for, neither did the man she loved want her anymore, so after struggling with the demons and angels possessing her in that wonderful scene where she is alone in the house, after a night of despair, a glimpse of hope in the morning and another push towards despair, the devils must have gotten the best of her. Besides, with all her love for the father and desire to help her lover, altruism for Frank had never really been on her mind - she could have killed herself and let him inherit all the money, but that would have been truly out of character, same about allowing herself to live on after everything. I really thought that the ending was perfect, including the cab driver waiting in front of the empty house...

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above his shoulder

[–] bworm76 12 years ago

I wasn't disappointed - I loved it. Frank was a sexy jerk who had several chances to walk away from a woman he knew was unstable. He was kind of heartless the way he would repeatedly break his girlfriend's heart and then expect that she'd just take him back every time. For me the ending was perfect.

[–] infinity8 11 years ago

carolbrnnn is right. Not only did Frank throw over a good woman for Diane, but he knew about her attempted murder and neither warned the stepmother nor went to the police. And when Diane actually does commit murder and he knows it, Frank does not testify against her; instead, he participates in a sham marriage to save himself. I don't think that Frank necessarily "deserves" death for any of these actions, but he's no innocent.

[–] jmillerdp 9 years ago

*** SPOILER ***

It wasn't surprising to me at all. It's like a horror movie, where you're yelling at the screen, "Don't get in the car, Bob!" 

Yeah, if he got in a car she gave him to drive somewhere, or if he got in a car she was driving, he was toasty toast!

The usual reason for killers having to pay for their crimes at that time in Hollywood applies here: The guilty must die. So, she has to.

Why they kill him off? Probably for the shock value, and to complete the very dark tone of the movie. And, I guess the writers might have seen Mitchum as somehow aiding and abetting because he knew what happened, but kept his mouth shut about the truth.

Regardless, the two crashes in the movie are very graphic. The dummies they put in the cars both times acted like humans in how they first stayed in the car, they flailed around during the crash. Freaky stuff!

Great movie, beautiful score, but I could see the ending coming, personally.

I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood

[–] thetaylors604 8 years ago

If she couldn't have him, then no one else could. He was really dumb to get into the car with her.