MovieChat Forums > Dangerous Crossing (1953) Discussion > Plot Hole?

Plot Hole?

posted 14 years ago by inhock-1
12 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS BELOW

The entire plot between Jack Barlowe and the stewardess is built around them playing Ruth off as a distraught nut that commits suicide over an imaginary husband named John Bowman (aka Barlowe). Wouldn't Barlowe be exposed the moment he steps forward to claim Ruth's estate, as her supposedly imaginary husband John Bowman?

Was Barlowe working on behalf of the destitute Uncle Ed that Ruth mentions to the ship's doctor? Was it ever explained in the radio program from which it was adapted? Uncle Ed would seem to be the only person that could safely claim Ruth's estate, and then possibly pay off Barlowe and his girlfriend..

This would make for a good remake given the cruise ship foul play that seems to inhabit the news of late.

[–] trashname 14 years ago

I agree that there are too many holes to consider this a classic. I wonder what Hitchcock would have done with it. An entertaining flick for me nonetheless. An aside from your point - Ms. Crain is very easy on the eyes.

I'm no expert, but . . . .

[–] atticustj-208-684811 11 years ago

I completely agree! I wanted to know these questions! I would assume he was acting on the behalf of the brother, but it never says. It never mentions him again. Confusing!

[–] liscarkat-2 11 years ago

Yeah, I think the half-brother hired them, and was going to pay them off when he got the inheritance.

[–] first-things-first 10 years ago

I thought the marriage was valid, so the husband was the heir. That wouldn't stop the husband from sharing the money. If the marriage was faked, the half-brother is the heir and your post is the ending.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

[–] bradford-1 10 years ago

But if Barlow/Bowman had come forward, it would have been newsworthy because of the manner of his wife's death. Every (honest) member of the ship's crew would immdeiately recognize him.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

[–] first-things-first 10 years ago

You have a good point. The husband needed someone else to collect the money no matter what.

If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world

[–] peckinpah1 8 years ago

Yes, remember she didn't even have a wedding ring and the marriage was under a false name. She was set up to look insane to the ship's crew and passengers. The "husband" was working for her scheming uncle who would be the sole heir if she was killed.

[–] first-things-first 8 years ago

Very good assessment about the plot.

I have been bent and broken, but, I hope, into a better shape, Grimm

[–] vilafire 10 years ago

The radio drama was great. I think it wasn't about an inheritance but $10,000. This makes more sense. Check out this website, a great otr resource.

[–] essex9999 10 years ago

It's not a plot hole, but it's a bit of Hollywood silliness: The story apparently takes place on an American ship named "SS Monrovia." So, if they were going to use stock footage of an ocean liner, maybe they shouldn't have picked one as recognizable as the Queen Mary - and especially not with "Queen Mary" plainly visible on the bows!

[–] Darthfrodo58 10 years ago

Well.........I think that we might be using today's standards of media. Information is pretty available today, but back then??? During the cruise, the one lady on the ship mentioned that Ruth was waving goodbye to someone as the boat left dock. They assumed it was her husband, or imagined one, since they got word that she wasn't married and nothing she said (changing rooms, luggage etc. made sense). Ruth pretty much came across as crazy on the voyage so the people on board wouldn't necessarily dig deep after her disappearance (Meaning, her being thrown overboard by her husband). It would be easy for the Dr. and Captain to think she committed suicide (or fell overboard in her drugged state) since she supposedly escaped the room under the influence(per the stewardess).

After the death, if her husband were in the U.S. and claimed the inheritance, would his picture be available in the papers in Europe? Would it even make the papers? And would the Dr. even see it or hear about it? Now it would most likely make CNN, but back then it would just be a small note (if at all) in the paper.

"Inconceivable!"

[–] mlink-36-9815 7 years ago

The movie does not stand up to 21st century analysis. But it was good in its day.

I thought a woman who lost her husband would not go swimming / would not wear low cut dresses / would dress to cover herself up. In that sense the movie is a failure.