Anyone happen to notice that the ending wasn't the one written up on the TCM site? They said Holden makes it onto the Sophia's train while tonight's showing has him just miss her train. Dying to know.
shareHi Carmengia, I missed the end of movie. Could you tell me what happens after he called for abandon ship? Thanks, Shon
shareFrom my understanding there were actually two endings shot. Although I have only seen the one that you've described. Maybe if/when the film is released on DVD, they will include both.
Mecca
I also saw the ending where William Holden missed Sophia Loren's train and read about another ending where he got on the train. I would have preferred to see the happy ending ... the ending where he missed was sort of a letdown because I don't think the script was geared for that sort of ending. Could TCM show it again with the other ending, or does the copy of the movie they have only include the ending they showed on about June 13?
Sonetto
How does the de Hartog novel, on which the film is based, end? I think this was filmed in an era when happy endings were pretty passe in this kind of film. They were more concerned with symbols and messages than with the actual characters: "War is hell; life is fleeting, etc." Personally, I like happy endings, and I too felt let down at the end of this film. I would not have been surprised (and I would have felt less let down) if the film had ended in a way that suggested that Sophia wasn't actually real.) In the ending I saw, she is liberated, physically and emotionally, and that's supposed to be symbolic of something or other... But I'd have preferred a happy ending for her character as an actual person, not a symbol, and for Holden. I am a die-hard romantic.
John 3:16
I also had the feeling that she possibly wasn't real - she played her role like a ghost. I think the ending is extremely appropriate, because by Holden breaking her curse, she is liberated and is able to move on. It really is a metaphorical ghost story and a magnificent film.
shareThat is a wonderful interpretation bronzescag.
shareWhether or not Ross got on the train is IMHO not the point.
I found the movie interesting, the action scenes are a bit repetitive (same footage re-used to save money I guess), but this is effectively creating a deliberate impression of the routine nature of the task. Like the thanks from the saved captain to the savior, occurs three times.
The male characters are all perfectly understandable, each with his own reaction to the hazards of the job.
Stella, until close to the end, I can also understand up to a point. She finds some company and material security in an arrangement she eventually accepts. Plus there is nothing undignified in the flat sharing since there are two separate bedrooms.
Philippe is her man, she was probably married to him, and she is unable to quite forget him. The others are "just one and the same".
All this is made perfectly clear by the script and the acting.
But why does she throw away the only guy who made it ? I can find no explanation for this. This is a guy who gave HER the key, as an act of bravado to show he does not intend to surrender to fear and death. He fights instead to the bitter end (as Captain Van Dam explains) and makes it, and then she throws him away ?????
Someone please help and provide some sort of explanation !!
As I understand it Doodlebuger, Stella reacted strongly to the news that Ross had given the key to another man. And that, coincidentally, is why I myself am here. I suppose I missed that scene where the key is given to that other sailor. If the films makers wanted to stir some tension by leaving it un settled how he got the key, it's low class and betrays the investment I had in the characters relationship.
shareI just saw it today and loved it. They did show him handing off the key. It was as he was getting on the boat, despite knowing it was going to go down. He looked up and saw her on the docks, then looked again and she was gone. He then saw the other man with a group of sailors, carrying a wounded/killed man (maybe the captain who was supposed to go instead of him?), and tossed the key to him.
I agree that's why she left him, she thought he had given the key to her, thus breaking the cycle and giving her her independence, and was betrayed to find he gave her away, like all the others.
I heard about the alternate ending after I saw the movie. I have to admit I was very much hoping he'd catch up to her but when the movie ended I decided I prefer this, the 'sad' ending to the other one.
Basically I think this ending makes more sense and fits the rest of the story. If he caught her it would have felt like a Hollywood ending. I explained it in more detail under the thread titled 'Was the key given' so I won't repeat all that but I have to add one thing I didn't mention there.
A lot of people seem to be against the code and think it ruined a lot of good movies. There probably were some incidents in which the code adversely affected a movie but generally I think it probably helped more than it hurt. The really good filmmakers would figure out a way to make the movie work and not just blame the code for their lack of creativity.
Another popular complaint is that the code tied filmmakers hands; keeping them from exploring certain themes. That was clearly not the case. This movie is about a woman who is passed from man to man; whichever one gets the key, gets the apartment and her. Each one has a sexual relationship with her even though none of them ever live long enough to marry her. That's a very risqué topic but here we have it in the movie.
Because of the code, things were often but not always very subtle. Personally, I prefer that. I think the subtlety makes the story more interesting because different audiences can see the movie and enjoy it on whatever level they happen to understand it.
In the more explicit movies being made today, that is lost. The story line is sacrificed in favor of the explicit and the sensational. The movie becomes a series of adrenaline pumping scenes laced together that barely fit any sort of plot. Films have to be targeted to specific audiences because they are inappropriate for others. The code was not a bad thing at all.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
To MsMecca: I saw "The Key" in a theater when it was first released and liked it so much that I went to see it again a month or so later. Needless to say how surprised I was when it ended differently the second time. It is unfortunate that it has never achieved the status it deserves.
Epirus
I just watched the film on television and it had the 'sad' ending. I think the 'happy' ending was filmed for American audiences while the 'sad' one was for the UK release.
shareYou are right about the different endings for European and American audiences, as the link explains in the second to the last paragraph.
http://www.britmovie.co.uk/films/The-Key_1958
The review also recounts, at the end of the third paragraph, another scene that isn't shown in the 'sad' version.
"She leaves for London and the hero’s final, crushing disillusionment comes when he learns that the woman he loved, apparently restored to sanity, is calmly writing to a boyfriend back home."
Either ending is OK with me, although the ending which has him, Holden, miss the train (and her, Loren) is certainly truer to the style and atmosphere of the story; but if you want them together at the close of the film its OK -- although, I can't picture them "living happily ever after", there's too much damage to both of them for it to last -- they will just part later, rather than sooner.
On the other hand from my perspective the whole second half of the story is what is really missing! I first read this story as the "Distant Shore"
ISBN 0-8488-0981-5 (fix-up) which has our hero turn-up in the South of France after the war, to heal the loss of Stella and his war-damaged psyche, and go into another whole adventure based on the newly invented aqua-lung.
Its been too long since I read it -- I'll reread and post again another time.
I saw the not-happy ending (I wouldn't call it "sad"). It's wonderfully ambiguous. As Holden and the other navy man are walking away from the departed train, he says something like, "I'm going to catch up with her when I get to London." To which the navy guy says something like, "Sure." His tone is about as neutral as can be. You can take it as, "Yeah, buddy, sure you're going to see her. Uh-huh," as in, no f-in way. Or you can take it as, "I'm confident you will." Each interpretation suggests a different movie, but either way, it's great.
share