Ambiguous ending?


I'm assuming it was intended to be ambiguous... does she take him back or not etc... Or did I miss something and was it made somewhat clear what happened to them after his trial...?

reply

The Hollywood ending I was expecting did not occur. In the movie Ida Lupino was supposed to be sickly. I expected her to die, then Joan Fontaine, forgiving Edmond O'Brien, takes him back with the little baby and all except Ida, live happily ever after. The actual ending, though not definitive, was much better.

reply

It seemed pretty clear to me that Ida Lupino would take Edmond O'Brien back but Joan Fontaine wouldn't. It makes sense in the 1953 context -- he'd end up with the woman who had the baby rather than the driven career woman.

reply

[deleted]

Ida walked. Joan stayed. Pretty clear who still wanted him.

reply

I don't think it really matters. He really botched up his own reputation - and the reputation of the two women. Even if one of them still wanted him, it wouldn't be the same as before. I think that this was the whole point of the ending.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

reply

I thought the movie had a cryptic meaning. The moviemakers secretly want you to forgive him and say that what he was doing was understandable and did not deserve punishment, least of all by the justice system. But of course censorship wouldn't permit that.

reply

Rheli,

I agree both regarding the ambiguity and why it was ambiguous.

reply

Good to hear it, kenny.

I guess this is another example of a movie that tried to get around the censorship codes of the period.

reply

I agree that I was left with the impression that Phyllis (Ida Lupino) left the courtroom giving Harry (Edmond O'Brien) a "I'll miss you but I can get along on my own" look. While poor Eve (Joan Fontaine) was waiting in the courtroom door even after he was led out. I can't see her moving on.

But....what if they both would take him back when he got out? Hmmm....?

reply