The story was powerful, the performances were wonderful and the film itself is great. But
::SPOILER AHEAD::
Was anyone else bothered with the whole coming to, at the end, apologizing, and then Lou and richie jumping on the bed in happiness? I mean, the guy went nuts and tried to murder his son!!! That ending could've been a bit better, that's really my only complaint. Anyone else?
The ending is much like a Douglas Sirk film. It all seems well and in order but it really isn't. Just look at the horrific Expressionistic shadows and lighting in his cell (oops I mean hospital room). The doctors' half-hidden and serious faces. Mason's sweaty complexion and domineering stature even in his bed. Does that all seem rather "good" to you?
The end leaves the viewer with a somewhat bitter aftertaste. Is he actually ok? He is so grabby and clingy with his family you just can't quite smile. In pure Nicholas Ray fashion, he doesn't let the viewer go that easily. I hope noticing these somewhat subtle touches will allow you to see the ending as a bit more open-ended and interesting than it first seems.
On a side-note, this is a studio production. Ray was probably forced to end the flick as "happily" as he could.
"What will happen to us in time?"
"Time starts now." -Bullitt
I didn't look at it that way, though you bring up some great points. I'm gonna give it another go. Thanks!
shareA debatable point - is the falseness of the closing embrace of Ed and his dearest ones indicative of Ed's residual malady or of a desire by Mason and/or Ray to signify their dissociation from an enforced Hollywood ending?
"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."
Also, this film was made in the mid-50s. There was a tendency in the 40s and 50s for one particular "event" in a film to represent whether the afflicted person was still "mentally ill" or had become "mentally well" again.
Lots of interest in psychoanalysis and Freudian stuff during this time. This was reflected in the movies. The plots often involve a "professional" (a psychiatrist or other medical doctor) naming (I would say labelling) a protagonist as "paranoid" or "schizophrenic" or "psychotic." Then that was it....that's what the suffering person was. Much solemnity and sternness all around, and hoping that the person would "snap out of it" after a sufficient amount of "quiet and rest." (Or in this case, less cortisone for the protagonist, the amount being monitored by his wife. Hmmmm....good luck, Barbara Rush.)
I've used so many quotation marks because these terms are so often used in the Freud-happy films of that time.
based on true events
share