MovieChat Forums > On the Beach (1959) Discussion > Why in the world would the Gregory Peck ...

Why in the world would the Gregory Peck character ...


SPOILER ALERT!

Why in the world would the Gregory Peck character return to the USA with his men at the end? Why not spend his last few days of life with the beautiful and loving Ava? That makes no sense to me.

Maybe he didn't want to be sickened by all the radiation hitting Australia. If so, he should have brought Ava on board with him in the sub!

Having said that, the final image of the sub sinking into the sea for the final trip to the USA was chilling - almost sickening. What powerful imagery!

reply

It was my understanding that the sub was heading out into international waters and they were going to scuttle her. The sub is considered U.S. territory, so the sailors onboard are technically dying a sailor's death on U.S. territory.

reply

The ending of this movie was always rather unclear.

In the book they take the sub out to the Bass Strait, in international waters, and sink it there. (Even then it's not clear whether they actually flood the sub and drown, or merely take her to the bottom and die there.)

But in the film it does sound as if they want to go back to the United States. The crew member tells the Captain, "We want to head for home." Whether that's an allegory for the afterlife, or a literal desire to return to their own country, is never really made plain. Later Towers (Peck) tells Moira (Gardner) that "The men kind of want to get home," then pauses and adds, "I can't explain it", meaning it's hard to put into words. That sounds like "going home" is a figurative phrase -- the men want to die aboard their sub. It's all very vague and uncertain.

One would also have to ask whether the men could even get the sub back to the States. It had the range and they had enough fuel and supplies, but by the time they were ready to leave they were mostly ill with radiation sickness. I don't think they could have gotten very far by that point. Like I said, it's unclear and confusing.

One thing in the film that is clear is that Towers does want to stay with Moira, but has to bow to his crew's wishes to leave. This is in sharp contrast with the book, where Dwight insists on doing his duty and staying with his ship. (He also has only ten men going with him, not enough to get back to the U.S. if they had wanted to.)

In the God-awful 2000 made-for-cable version, Towers basically deserts his crew even as they leave on the sub, just so he can selfishly die with Moira. A naval Commander running out on his command for personal convenience is a disgrace...even at the end of the world. One more mark against that dreadful, insulting and amazingly stupid movie.

reply

[deleted]

Why in the world would the Gregory Peck character return to the USA with his men at the end?
He made it very plain he'd rather stay with Moira, but he'd been made US Commander of the Navy and as such, felt obligated to attempt to carry out his crew's wishes.🐭

reply

I think it's because he wanted to die in his home country of America. I suspect his crew wanted the same. Peck's character dearly missed his dead family and I suspect wanted to die near to where they did, he didn't want to die in Australia.

I'll admit I feel so sorry for Ava's character that he didn't stay with her so they could be together at the end.It was his choice though and I think he did it because in a way he wanted to be with his wife's memory at the end.

It's such a moving and powerful ending and the film itself makes you think what you would do faced with the end of the world.



Go to bed Frank or this is going to get ugly .

reply

In the film he does want to stay with Moira (Ava) but feels duty-bound to accede to his crew's wishes and "head for home". But as I said previously, what that means is very uncertain.

Every one of the crew was suffering from radiation sickness and couldn't possibly have made it back to the United States. (And where in the U.S.? A Pacific base like Honolulu or San Diego, or an east coast base like Norfolk or New London? That makes a huge difference.) Though the film is ambiguous at best, from the medical details alone it would have been impossible for the men to have literally returned to America, even at its nearest point.

Also, if you watch the men on the bridge as they go back inside the submarine near the finish, they very much look like men about to die, getting a final glance at the sky before sinking their sub just off the Australian coast in international waters. But the imprecision of the film is a bit annoying.

As I've said, all this is in direct contrast with the book, where Towers never intends to stay with Moira and makes this clear throughout. (He never even sleeps with her, because he wants to remain true to his late wife, while Peck and Gardner do finally become involved.) Also the book makes it plain that the small crew left on board (11, including Dwight) is not enough to go back to the States, and that that number is just sufficient for short runs, such as sailing into the Bass Strait. And there, most of the crew stays on shore. In the movie, while some are given leave to stay ashore, many appear to stay with the boat.

I like the fact that Dwight wants to stay with Moira but feels honor-bound to do his duty first. This is better than the novel, where Dwight's refusal to get involved with Moira seems a little too unrealistic, or the 2000 cable movie, where he happily and selfishly throws his duty and crew aside for his own crass reasons.

reply

In the God-awful 2000 made-for-cable version, Towers basically deserts his crew even as they leave on the sub, just so he can selfishly die with Moira. A naval Commander running out on his command for personal convenience is a disgrace...even at the end of the world. One more mark against that dreadful, insulting and amazingly stupid movie.


I'm haven't seen the 2000 version. But I don’t see anything “selfish”, no matter what he chooses to do. Put in that position, everyone would all handle it differently, in their own way. The war is over. There's no one left for the commander to fight. His US naval superiors are dead. There's no one left to report to. The US Gov't is dead. The entire North America and northern hemisphere are dead. There's no one left to go home to.

The whole world is going to be dead in a few more days. At this point, it doesn’t matter to anyone what anyone else does. So I don't see why the commander can't do whatever he wants. If he wants to sail off with the crew, fine. If he wants to stay with his love, why shouldn't he? Who’s to say what he should or shouldn’t do? He's not allowed to resign his now pointless post if he chooses to? Why should he care what you or anyone else thinks? If the crew still wants to sail off to die in the sea, he can appoint his 2nd-in-command or whoever’s left to Commander.

reply

With no one left, and him the highest-ranking officer, he IS the United States. Additionally, the captain of a ship (or, in this case, boat) first has a responsibility to his ship, then his crew.

It's called "duty."

And it's easy to do one's duty when everything is going well, but the time it is best reflected is when everything has gone to hell. Then, duty is the indication of the strength, decency, and courage of a man.

Do you not get that?

..Joe

reply

Agree with this. It's the end of the world so it doesn't matter. I'm sure he has a first mate who could have piloted the sub.

reply

Agreed. I would have stayed with her. His crew wanted to die out on the open sea, trying to get home and knowing there was no home to go to and that they didn't have time to make it home. But it does make for a powerful scene, Moira on the beach. Gotta give credit to Ava Gardner as Moira, who was terrific in this film, the best performance in the film.

reply