MovieChat Forums > Ransom! (1956) Discussion > A Better Ending would be....

A Better Ending would be....

posted 15 years ago by beecee101
22 replies | jump to latest

A better ending would have been to find the boy dead at the end...somewhere not far from the school. It would show that he was obviously killed shortly after the kidnapping and that Mr. Stannard had done the right thing.

It could still fade out with the servant/deacon saying something spiritual, or another character saying something about them being caught and killed/brought to justice (referring to the bounty money).

This ending is too sappy for my taste. Yeah I understand it was a 50's mainstream movie so it was expected. I gave it a 6. Liked the TV scene with the money on the table and the great speech by Ford.

[–] ipeedaily 15 years ago

Kinda sappy ending agreed but WOW what an actor Glenn Ford was!

He seems to be somewhat a forgotten great but he has been fantastic in everything I've ever seen him in.

He is equal to or better than many of the much more popular actors of his era such as Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, Spencer Tracy, etc.

Just one of the best

[–] lentr 15 years ago

Actually a better ending would be if the kidnappers took the money, killed the kid, and got away scot-free and Ford didn't do anything to help.

Because OBVIOUSLY it's not sappy unless the ending is sad/unresolved.

[–] pittgal49 12 years ago

What kind of people think that killing a child is a better ending?! Are you all crazy? There is nothing "sappy" about a happy ending where the child survives. What a bunch of evil minded people.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Molly-31 11 years ago

Not better, but more realistic. In a majority of cases like this the child is never returned, or is found or returned dead. This film seems to have been strongly inspired by the William Hickman case, and we all know how that turned out. I also heard the reporter mention "a damn chicken ranch" which is an explicit reference to the Wineville kidnappings/murders.

I agree though that it's not at all "sappy" to have the child recovered safely at the end. There really have been cases where kidnapped children are recovered, mostly where they've been taken by family members.

Anyway I think lentr was being sarcastic.

You've got me?! Who's got you?!

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

If I wanted a more 'realistic' ending, I would watch a documentary, or the news...

[–] mcannady1 8 years ago

Movie girl: Heck, you aren't evil people, you just don't understand that in the 50's and 60's there were several true to life films. THis is one of them. Why not have a happy ending? Not sappy, just be the way it was.

I was born in the 50's and really watch a lot of films of the time. I do think we should see what we think, given the outcome. Not judge a film from the time it was made.

I for one think Donna Reed was great as the hysterical mom. I have 3 children and if this had happened to our family, I would be even worse!

[–] billsanantonio 11 years ago

I think Glenn Ford deserved an Oscar nomination for this one.

[–] Molly-31 11 years ago

I second it. I love ol'Glenn in anything, but he was brilliant here.

You've got me?! Who's got you?!

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

Glenn Ford was amazing in this, but Donna Reed was no slouch either. She was SO wrung out - and I could easily put myself in her place... .hoping I would be stronger and more like the Dad, but also could see myself totally collapsing.

[–] mcannady1 8 years ago

Movie girl: SAdly, a lot of today's news is pretty grim. AS I was saying earlier, let us see the story as it was, not for the time it was in. I never
judge a film that way, but then I watch a lot of 50's and 60's films. I try
to escape from the current ones that are not always what I would want to see.

[–] thinker1691 14 years ago

I believe a better ending would have been if they had followed
up the hunch by the reporter, who reveals a realiable Mob
source. They take the father along, locate the kidnappers,
find themselves in a shoot-out, kill the two kidnappers and then
discover the boy was killed during the gun fight. Wow!

"If you make the world your enemy, you'll never run out of reasons to be miserable"

[–] mcannady1 8 years ago

Movie girl: Oops, I was jut reading your post, but did not like the last line. Why could the boy have not survived? In some cases, God willing, he would or could.

[–] misspaddylee 14 years ago

A better ending would have been to find the boy dead at the end...somewhere not far from the school. It would show that he was obviously killed shortly after the kidnapping and that Mr. Stannard had done the right thing.

The ending of the movie still bears out that Mr. Stannard had done the right thing by refusing to give into the demands.

"Fortunately, I keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency."

[–] screen14 14 years ago

I imagined a possible ending with the father carrying his boy into the home and us being left to decide for ourselves whether or not the scene was hallucinated from the father's grieving mind. I don't think of it as a better ending per se, but I thought about it.

[–] kthejoker 14 years ago

If they hadn't shown the scene with the bloody shirt, I would've liked an ending of just him in front of the fort, on his knees, crying, leaving everything ambiguous about whether his TV gambit worked.

50-50 ...

But the shirt ruins that, because that ending would just make you think he was dead for sure.

[–] rivkahchaya-372-42432 11 years ago

This movie was polemic-- basically, an extended commercial or PSA about not giving in to extortionists, because they'll just keep extorting. The only way to stop them is not to give them what they want.

In order for that message to get through, the gambit has to be successful. If the child were found dead, obviously from before the first contact with the kidnappers, while that would communicate the uselessness of paying ransoms, it doesn't quite get to the flip-side-- the good that can come from not paying. It also risks some people in the audience not getting it, and thinking that the father's gambit didn't work.

Child-kidnapping for ransom wasn't rampant in the US at the time, but other kinds of extortion crimes were, particularly tampering with the justice system, and low-level espionage.

There are a lot of public service films from the 50s about not giving in to terrorists or extortionists. Most of them end with the person who caved getting grievously punished by the justice system. The happy ending to this film makes it stand out, and it's one of the reasons it's still successful as a film, even when its propaganda purpose has passed.

[–] namaGemo 11 years ago

Seems like people are upset at your suggestion about the boy dying and saying ridiculous comments that you crave violence Tarantino style, and it's really lame for them to get their panties in a waad about it.

I felt the same way, the ending did not live up to the potential of what could have been. The tv speech set up some excellent potential, and the boy returning that way was a let down. I didn't need to see the death, or maybe it could have been left in the air for people to guess, but something was missing from the final act. The crescendo should have been the finale, not the speech in the middle.

[–] joeparkson 11 years ago

If you turn the TV off right at the point when Ford goes out to the play fort, you have the unhappy, unresolved ending you wanted.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

[–] VonDC 8 years ago

Just saw this movie. Personally, I liked the Mel Gibson and Gary Sinise version better. That one was pushed further. Not that I don't love classic movies, just not this one. Maybe if I had seen this version first. But then, Glenn Ford was never one of my favorites. Liked Leslie Nielsen in it though.

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

Except that then the message of the movie is lost, which is that standing up to the bullie works.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

interesting take.