The ending and the key

[deleted]

No, those are all valid points. Paulo's death does ring kind of false and maudlin, but Melville clearly wanted to go out strong with Bob's joke, which is a funny little bit of social satire. He will be able to buy his way out, but the irony is that he'll end up back to zero - there was no point to the heist, and it got Paulo killed. And yeah, Bob is kind of a sociopath, as are most career criminals. That overall dismissive moment can be used to go back and reinterpret every generous act he committed or was credited with as in some way being self serving. Melville's fatalism then comes into play, as Paulo more or less got himself killed by starting the chain of events that tipped off the cops, but by that rationale it all starts and ends with Bob, who brought the girl in in the first place. THAT might be reading too much into it. The shot of the empty getaway car getting away to nowhere next to the seaside caps it out with the proper subtle melancholy.

I think the Bob/Paulo/girl dynamic is much more satisfyingly fleshed out in Neil Jordan's remake, but it's ending isn't as complex as the original. Bob as Nolte plays him is given more visible dimension, but Melville's version of the character can be read as kind of a wolf in sheep's clothing. I don't think Melville had too many heroic illusions about his protagonists, and I don't think he glorified the gangsters he spun his stories around. Too many of them get their comeuppance, and there is a clear level of self-centered, cold sociopathy from Bob to LE SAMOURAI's Jef Costello to Corey and Vogel in LE CERCLE ROUGE.

Bob's quick change in emotion also didn't seem right to me either. It would have made sense if Bob realized the error of his ways after the death of his friend. Instead, he talks about getting a lawyer to sue for damages (sounds like something all too common in society today).

A change of tone, sure, but who wouldn't make that sacrifice for that line? It had to have been irresistable.

She couldn't go back to Paolo after sleeping with the other guy and Bob telling Paolo about it. That's why Bob gave her the key.

I disagree. Lets remember that Bob is a criminal. He may be a very nice criminal that helps people out but still a criminal, and criminals tend to be on some level sociopaths. Now Bob obviously cared for people and he obviously cared for Paolo and was sad to see him die. Must have also felt guilty too, but hes not someone that is going to get hung up on emotions. Whats done is done and now he has to look out for himself.

Also the line after about the two headed coin, where Roger says, “for years I knew it was two sided”, then Bob says, “for years I knew you knew, so did Paolo”. I took that as saying that they all knew the risks involved with what they do. Thats the life of a criminal.

I think the movie is more about the life of a compulsive gambler. How his gambling made him broke and want to do the job in the first place, then it distracted him and made him to late to stop the heist. Then hes still gambling at the end with the lawyers. He could either play it safe and go for five years, bet a little more and go for the acquittal, or put it all in with the lawyer that will get him off and then sue back. Basically no lessons learned.







before you can get rolling, your life makes a beeline for the drain.

[deleted]

When I saw the film in the early 1980s in Boston, I am quite sure it had a completely different ending than what is in the DVD (and on the VHS release before it.) See my review. I think there must have been two different cuts of the film made between 1959 and 1982.