That's the problem I've always had with this movie and why the ending is flawed. If Holland really did make it to Rio as is indicated there's no way the British police could have extradited him because there is no extradition treaty between the two countries. I'm surprised that wasn't in the "goofs" section.
shareYou raise a valid point. However we do not know that he has been extradited. In fact, I drew quite a different conclusion.
Holland is telling his story, in great detail, to some unidentified compatriot. The implication is that the money has run out, and now impoverished, he wants to make a clean breast of it and is confessing to -- whom? Well quite possibly some member of the British Embassy staff. And why? Well we are told several times that Holland is unimaginative and it seems that the most he can imagine is frittering away all his ill gotten gains in a year of super rich high living. He could have invested the money in his adopted country, but he prefers to just have one party after another, and to be ridiculously generous. It is just a neat way of tying up the ending.
Also, do bear in mind that this was 1951 and films in general and Ealing comedies in particular were tied to a strict moral code in which the protagonist could never be seen to get away with a crime. It is left to our imagination, but the implication is that Holland, having nearly spent all his cash makes a telephone call and 'hands himself in'. It's not a very likely scenario, but one required by the filmmakers' ethics of the day. And it is satisfying if we draw the conclusion that Holland could not imagine how he could continue, and anyway didn't want to go on living in Rio under any other basis; i.e. on an ordinary income.
Remember too that this was England in the 1940s, early 1950s. The public conception of prison in those days was that it was an easy life, free from responsibilities. No one heard of the sexual abuse and bullying that was rampant in British penal institutions. Holland would, presumably, do his 'bird', pay his debt to society, perhaps even do some work in the prison workshops, or library or whatever, then he would be released and probably live out his days on a pension, but carrying the fond memories of his year in the sun. Perhaps he would sell his story to the 'News of the World'? I can imagine all kinds of future scenarios, and that is what makes the ending, for me, quite satisfying.
Now a remake could have him getting away with a substantially higher sum and living in luxury for the rest of his life. That is possible in this day and age because we no longer have the moral imperative of immediate post-war Britain. But for me, the present ending is satisfying, and does fit with Holland's personality.
You're making the assumption he was caught...after watching the film again last night it seems more likely he gave himself up after burning through the money he managed to escape with, which was nowhere near the original haul. This is supported by, in the beginning and at the end, the continual congratulations from others for the party he held the night before. One could say he threw himself a gala event knowing he was soon to be going to prison. Another supporting element to this theory was how free he was with the money he had, giving away large sums to the wait staff, his girlfriend, and the hoity toity woman for the rebel relief fund.
The OP is arguably technically correct, judged by the many years Britain struggled vainly to extradite Great Train robber Ronald Biggs from Brazil. But it's been frequently suggested the ending was constructed this way, as a sop to the North American market, insofar as crooks weren't seen to be getting away with their ill-gotten gains. In no way does it detract from the overall quality of the film.🐭
share