Plot Holes - Ascenseur pour l'échafaud (1958) Discussion

[–] LiefWoods 16 years ago

I was totally with this movie until the end. My problem: Who took the pictures in the camera?! Weren't they having a secret affair? Did they hire a private photographer to photograph themselves galavanting in the forest. That was so stupid. It completely ruined the whole movie for me. Such a lame contrivance.

reply

[–] clivey6 16 years ago

I more or less agree. Terrific film and these holes didn't mar my enjoyment.

1) A bit obvious that the killer has left the rope dangling, can't really believe he'd forget something like that even with the phone ringing, unless he'd been thrown by events, and he looked pretty cool about it.

2) Er, why did they have to kill the husband anyway? The male lead didn't seem penniless. Wouldn't divorce have sufficed? I may have missed something here.

3) Agree about the sentences imposed at the end. Is it really a crime of passion anyhow? Seemed pretty calculated. How come the teenagers would swing but the adults wouldn't? Does adultery give killers the seal of approval in France ha ha

reply

[–] AsaNisiMasa_63 16 years ago

<1) A bit obvious that the killer has left the rope dangling, can't really believe he'd forget something like that even with the phone ringing, unless he'd been thrown by events, and he looked pretty cool about it.

Totally agree. Especially since he's an ex-war hero/secret agent. Covering his tracks would have been the first thing for him to do.

<2) Er, why did they have to kill the husband anyway? The male lead didn't seem penniless. Wouldn't divorce have sufficed? I may have missed something here.

It's never mentioned, but its implied several times that he is a powerful man who works above the law. If he was divorced and found out his wife was with Julien, then he might have them both killed. Killing him would be a better way since(before they found the photos) the police thought it was suicide. People like him might also have powerful enemies and the police could assume it was the latter.

Great movie!

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

Given that Tavernier left his car running with his coat and a gun in plain sight whilst he dashed back to retrieve the rope, I think it's safe to say that careful though he is, he makes mistakes. Also it adds to the character complexity as one could postulate this behaviour as evidence of the effects of committing murder.

Mrs Carala was going to hang. Although she went on about 10 years, 20 years, significantly, she made reference to sleeping and not worrying about growing old.

Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Point # 2 - they had no choice but to do away with a powerful man like that husband. He would have sought revenge big-time.

Point # 3 - the sentences mentioned at the end weren't official. None of them had actually been sentenced for any crime yet.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

[–] ManicMuse 15 years ago

Hilarious. And my thoughts exactly.

"WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW, huh?! WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW!"

reply

[–] ChorusGirl 13 years ago

I didnt catch that about the pictures in the camera. You are so right!

As far as the incredibly foolhardy things these characters do, I chalk that up to being a French New Wave requirement, where there is rarely any conventional logic, and characters can be relied upon to make really, really stupid life decisions (BREATHLESS, SHOOT THE PIANO PLAYER, 400 BLOWS, PIERRE LE FOU, etc etc).

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Good point about the pictures. They might have asked some strangers to take the pics when they were at some park (probably in a different part of the city where they wouldn't be recognized). If the hubby was away on a long convention, then the wife and boyfriend could have even gone together to some small town for a holiday (where no one would know them) and maybe they could have met people (using fake names) who would have taken those pics.

The affair wasn't all that secret. Some of the people the wife met the night she was searching for her sweetheart seemed to know already that she was a very good friend of Tavernier's.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

LiefWoods says > Who took the pictures in the camera?!

I don't think this is as big a plot hole as you seem to think. The drunk guy, Christian, who ends up in jail with Florence said they had all gone out together one night. If they went out with him, it's within reason they might have also gone out with other people. Any of those people or a complete stranger could have taken the pictures.

Weren't they having a secret affair?

Yes, their relationship was secret but mostly from her husband and the people in their everyday lives. The fact she knew all the places to go looking for him means they had been out together and had been to those places together.

Also, that night he was supposed to pick her up after leaving work. On the phone, she refers to it as their 'usual' place. This tells me they went out publicly but limited themselves to certain parts of town.

Paris is divided into twenty districts called arrondissements; each has its own distinct 'personality'. The district Julien and Florence frequent was likely one her husband and people in her circle would never venture into so they were safe there.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] dwood-4 16 years ago

i wondered about that but i was always under the impression that people who plan murders get more jail time than the actual trigger man. julien pulled the trigger but she was his wife and it looks like she wanted his money. i felt they were implying that she would get more jail time than him (when she says to herself, twenty years or something).

always wondered about those pictures...weren't they taken with that spy camera ?

reply

[–] aj_malt 16 years ago

To OP

One would always wonder at the demands made of the viewer by the borderline ridiculous premise. I mean, suspension of disbelief is one thing, but in this film, suspension of disbelief at the suspension(quite literally) is impossible. Julien in the car spots the rope he just forgot very easily. There it is, hanging merrily, waiting to be rescued. And yet, when he climbs up the same rope to commit a murder, the entire Paris on the road down below sleeps, or ignores him completely, so much so that he would have felt compensated for the ignorance, by the picture of him that appears on the frontpage, on the ensuing day.

The author of the above was once THE DIRECTION

reply

[–] clivey6 15 years ago

Good point! Hadn't thought of that!

reply

[–] LudwA 15 years ago

good points all around here.

what struck me as weird, is when the police officers gives a speech at the end he says Tavernier will get 10 years, and he'll do 5, but YOU (Moreau, the accomplice) won't get away so easy. WTF is that!?!? There's no way she deserves a higher sentence than her husband, what kind of mysoginy is that!?

reply

[–] Charlot47 11 years ago

Though Carala was killed by Julien alone, his lover Florence not only planned the cold-blooded murder of her husband but presumably expected to become his wealthy widow and to enjoy his riches with the murderer. While she may have thought that she would get off lightly, the policeman Cherrier thinks that the court will not be so lenient. After all, couldn’t she just have got a divorce?

reply

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

That's what's weird about this movie. There are so many plot holes, so much we have to ignore for the story to be believable, yet it still manages to be a really good movie.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

[–] hellodave91 15 years ago

The only hole that occured to be was that when the lift stopped he was going up, but when it was put back on it went down.

Shouldn't it have continued going up?

reply

[–] AssetsonFire 15 years ago

I figured that maybe the lifts were programmed to return to the ground floor after the power was switched off and on again.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mawsis 15 years ago

How was he supposed to get the rope down in the first place? It was on a grappling hook above the floor of the murder. If he took it down, how was he going to go back down the rope? He would have had to have taken the elevator.

reply

[–] kenny-164 10 years ago

The grappling end of the rope was for pulling one's self up a floor. In going down you could pull the rope over the railing with both ends down below it, hold onto both ends as you descend, and on reaching the landing below pull the end with the grappling hook down, with the other end going up and over the railing with the whole thing then coming down on the person pulling it.

reply

[–] ant_sushi 14 years ago

The only hole that occured to be was that when the lift stopped he was going up, but when it was put back on it went down.

Shouldn't it have continued going up?

I just watched it and when the power went on, it did go up but he quickly stopped it and pushed the button to go down.

reply

[–] ohwellokay 14 years ago

It seems a lot of people wonder who was taking the photos. I haven't seen the film in a little while but if the pictures of Louis and Veronique were developed at the same time then wouldn't they be from the same camera?

Is the owner of the camera ever mentioned? We know Veronique had a little bit of a crush on Tavernier, and Mrs. Carala had recognized her as "the flower shop girl". It's possible the pictures were taken candidly by Veronique. Again, it's been a while since I've seen the movie so I don't remember if any dialogue would prove this wrong ornot.

reply

[–] eolloe 9 years ago

It was Tavernier's camera. Remember that the thuggish boyfriend was impressed by all of Tavernier's (spy?) things -- his fancy car, his gun, his tiny camera.

reply

[–] joshuayeary 12 years ago

Not exactly. Remember, the FIRST time the power was turned on, he was hanging from a rope under the elevator, and it began to go down.

reply

[–] Crystal (534) 5 years ago

I think they mean before that.

reply

[–] repete66211 15 years ago

I really like the movie, BUT...

1.) I have a hard time believing he's going to forget about the rope. So what if the phone's ringing. All it would take would be a quick flip and the hook would disengage.

2.) Even if he did forget about the rope I don't believe it would be that visible from the street. And so what if it was? It was an open and shut case of suicide so the police wouldn't be looking around for ropes. And if they did find the rope it doesn't necessarily implicate Tavernier.

3.) So even if he does go back to the office he wouldn't just leave his car running...WITH A GUN IN THE GLOVE BOX. How hard is it to turn off a car? (Hint: about as hard as disengaging a grappling hook.) Besides, if the plot required the car to be stolen why can't the kid just hotwire it?

4.) If you're returning to an office and the guard is leaving you probably want to take the stairs just in case he turns off the power. And if the power is turned on again and lowers you to the bottom you should probably escape through a door rather than take a nap.

5.) Julien and the girl drive by the cafe. Improbable event, but even so it could have been someone else's car. And what's her face could see into it well enough to know it's not her b/f driving. And if he were running off with another woman do you think he'd be stupid enough to drive by the cafe he's supposed to meet his lover at? You know, THE ONE WITH WHOM HE JUST PLANNED A MURDER?

6.) Who was taking their pictures? Film that small can't be blown up to 8"x10" with that sort of resolution. Nor would it have the depth of field those photos had. Also, it's a bit lucky the photo developer recognized the German guy in the photo. I mean, how else could the police know of the connection?

7.) Running all over town asking if anyone has seen her lover doesn't make for a very good alibi.

Like I said, it's a really good movie, but there are a few loose strands that could have been tidied up to make it better.

reply

[–] BilboTheDefiler 15 years ago

i agree entirely.

another thing that bugged me is how all the cops completely bought the suicide story, but once they saw the pictures they immediately assumed that julien was the killer. wtf? all it proves is that they had an affair, so maybe the husband found out about it and killed himself? they didn't really have proof for the murder..

reply

[–] repete66211 15 years ago

Good point. I don't know nothing of France's law system, but in the U.S. they would have nothing more than circumstantial evidence connecting those two to the death of her husband.

reply

[–] ashogo 14 years ago

Well, Julien did tell them the story about being trapped in the elevator--maybe they used that and put 2 and 2 together...police also have methods for determining whether a suicide is really a suicide
you're right though it doesn't seem like there was enough evidence against them.

A point against the visibility thing though--I think it's pretty plausible that Julien climbed up there without being seen. You'd be surprised, but in cities people don't tend to look up that much.

reply

[–] ashdre 14 years ago

See, this is one of the reasons why I came to this thread and I'm glad you mentioned it. There was virtually no evidence to tag Tavernier to the murder of Mr Carala. The doors to his office were all locked (including the one that's never locked) and the grappling hook that Tavernier used to get up there was taken away by a cute little girl after it was mysteriously on the ground (another plot hole, really). There was proof to an affair between Tavernier and Mrs. Carala, so what? Doesn't mean there was a plan of murder. It bugged me. I can disregard all the other plot holes mentioned, but not that one, because it's such an important one. Good movie, though.

reply

[–] Twiky 13 years ago

I think the little girl picking up the hook and the lift coming down after power failure, imply that Tavernier already unhooked the rope and was almost leaving the building (coming down the elevator).

The photographer of the couple is a mistery, maybe a close friend, maybe we don't need to take things so literally, the photos represent 'intimacy' photos, but I think in 1958 Louis Malle wasn't ready to show some hardcore making love photos yet!! Anyway the photos could have been with more of a 'from the photographeds' hand' viewpoint.

About the cop not having enough evidence to assume Mr. Carala was murdered, he throws a hook (the accusation) and the fish (Mrs. Carala) byte!! The confession is all the evidence that you're looking for.

Peace.

reply

[–] freudified_n_funkified 13 years ago

I thought it was a nice touch that the grappling hook fell on it's own. I think had he already gone up and unhooked it he wouldn't have just dropped it to the street. As the plot device that catalyzes the rest of the movie, it's a nice little irony that it apparently simply dislodged itself.

reply

[–] Twiky 13 years ago

I like your theory more, nonetheless why is he coming down then?! Maybe it's just a failsafe of the elevator.

It's also possible that when he did a swinging motion to free the hook it fell to the ground, not that he grab the hook and throw it down, I wasn't implying that eh eh.

Peace.

reply

[–] Zoomorph 9 years ago

+1

Also, why did the chick admit to the plot against her husband at the end? There was no evidence and she could've easily admitted their affair without admitting to murder.

Good film. ie, worth 5/10. Far from a great film.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 9 years ago

Excellent points. I think that these characters just weren't that bright. They cooked up a plan, but they weren't great at dealing with the unexpected.

As for point # 6, I answered this for someone else on the thread already: if Mr. Carala was out of town for awhile, the lovers might have gone on a holiday to another town where no one would know them. They could have asked random strangers to take the pictures.

~~
💕 JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen 👍

reply

[–] sirgeddon 14 years ago

What you are pointing out are not really plot holes but basically what you think are poor decisions by characters. People make bad decisions all the time and at the time of murder, you would think they will be prone to error because they are very nervous.
When Tavernier was climbing down, he heard the phone ringing and had to answer it. He had no time to unhook the rope because if the woman came inside the room she would find he was not inside and that will prove he had murdered the boss.
About Florence asking everyone about Tavernier, she assumed that Tavernier had chickened out and not murdered her husband. If he had, why would she think he would be out on the town with another girl ?
About the photos on the camera, I agree that was silly but again, I would say that was another stupid thing they did. They were just private photos and they didnt really think anyone would get hold of them.
About who took the photos, it could have been a friend. We dont know too much about their back story, so it doesnt matter.

reply

[–] demersonw 12 years ago

Also I think a lot of those bad decisions are the whole point of the film. This couple plans the perfect murder, it seemingly goes off as planned and then the ex paratrooper boyfriend makes the dumbest mistakes he possibly could have a botches the whole thing.

Also I like the irony of how he went back up into the building to get the rope so he wouldnt get caught but then the rope falls to the ground and he wouldnt have gotten caught anyways. But then the only reason he does get caught is because he does go back into the building, allowing the kids to steal his car, kill the germans, and then have the photos found by the police.

Then the irony in the interrogation scene where he didnt want to say he was in the elevator but there was no reason to because he could have just said he was getting something from his desk. Thats not incriminating at all and perfectly understandable. Then he finally does but if he had stuck to his original story of being drunk and not remembering, the cops wouldnt have been able to put him at the scene of the crime and he probably wouldnt have been as much of a suspect. I figured at then end, since the cops had evidence of an affair and he confessed to being at the scene of the crime, they suspected him enough to trick her into confessing at the end.

Also the photo thing doesnt bother me. I assume they are out of town, probably a little town somewhere where people dont know who they are and they just asked a passerby to snap some photos.

Still not saying its a perfect film by any means but I do think a lot of the accused plot holes are actually what makes this film so great.

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

reply

[–] Christopher_Smilax 7 years ago

What you are pointing out are not really plot holes but basically what you think are poor decisions by characters. People make bad decisions all the time and at the time of murder, you would think they will be prone to error because they are very nervous.
When Tavernier was climbing down, he heard the phone ringing and had to answer it. He had no time to unhook the rope because if the woman came inside the room she would find he was not inside and that will prove he had murdered the boss.
About Florence asking everyone about Tavernier, she assumed that Tavernier had chickened out and not murdered her husband. If he had, why would she think he would be out on the town with another girl ?
About the photos on the camera, I agree that was silly but again, I would say that was another stupid thing they did. They were just private photos and they didnt really think anyone would get hold of them.
About who took the photos, it could have been a friend. We dont know too much about their back story, so it doesnt matter.

Thank you.

Howard Hughes was Italian?

reply

[–] PoppyTransfusion 12 years ago

OP: I don't think they are plot holes.

Madame Carala is exposing herself by searching for Julien but equally not everyone know she is or what she looks like, e.g. after her arrest the police do not recognise her. I doubt in 1958 it would have been easy to check if her husband had flown to Switzerland. At the beginning the security guard and receptionist talk about how mysteriously Mr Carala travels. Perhaps his travel plans were mysterious to his wife as well so that she would not know where he might be staying in Switzerland.

Tavernier was her hitman. She was the architect of the crime, according to the police. We don't know the terms of the Carala relationship re-money in the event of divorce and neither do we know the nature of their relationship. Again according to what the receptionist and Tavernier say he is not a nice man. Also divorce initiated by women was rare until the very late 20th century.

Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...

reply

[–] joshuayeary 12 years ago

She said he was in Switzerland because that was where he was planning to go before he was murdered. If she was to pretend like she was ignorant about the murder, she would have to act as though she believed he had gone to Switzerland.

reply

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 11 years ago

She might have called home and all that. They don't need to show her making the call.

And she certainly deserved more prison time than Tavernier. She's the one who started all this.

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

reply