MovieChat Forums > Seven Thieves (1960) Discussion > The Hollywood Code and some plot problem...

The Hollywood Code and some plot problems...spoilers

posted 17 years ago by movielover35
6 replies | jump to latest

In general I think the old Hollywood Production Code was a good thing for society...for you youngsters, it was forbidden to show someone profiting from a crime.

However, I also dislike it when such constraints lead to sudden changes near the end of an old movie which often don't make much sense and were obviously contrived simply to fulfill the requirements of the code.

Case-in-point, the serialized money. I find it hard to believe, with all the thought Paul Mason put into covering all the bases regarding the heist, and actually having handled the money while still in the vault, that it would only be after they had successfully stolen the money and were about to divide it and make their escape, that he noticed these were all new, serialized bills, and therefor would be very difficult to spend or launder.

It didn't ruin the movie, but it seemed completely tacked-on to the end to make the movie conform. Has anyone read the book? I'll wager they get away with it there!

Another minor plot hole was when Paul and Louis had removed the money, gone through all the trouble to get it into the office, and then were again on the ledge looking almost directly down onto the Mediterranean. If this truly was a well-planned crime, why not skip the elaborate way they got the money out, and simply place the money in a water-tight bag with flotation sewn into the lining and throw the bag down to a waiting boat?

The special bag could have been smuggled in under their jacket as part of a "fat suit".

Granted, this takes 95% of the fun out of the end of the movie, but it should have at least been addressed by having Paul dismiss the idea when made by another character by saying something like: It is too far to throw the bag, it might become caught in the rocks half-way down, or the police patrol the bay.... or something. I would have let it go but they showed the nearly vertical drop several times and had Louis actually mention it too. If your going to build into the story a nearly vertical drop for danger and suspense, you should consider that it might also provide the criminals with an advantage.

And finally, if you were Eli Wallach's character of Poncho, why not simply make the Professor (Robinson) concoct a pill for himself, or perhaps a dog or a cat, and test it to make sure he knows what he is doing. I would want to see it work at least once before I tried it myself.

And, this wouldn't ruin the plot because he could still get cold feet, just like he did.

[–] bradford-1 16 years ago

I watched the film last nite and early on, when Paul is still pooh-poohing the scheme, he says something about the cash in such a casino being somehow registered or indexed. But then he of course gets involved, anyway. Maybe a missing scene, or a goof?

[–] Benihanahasnofunflare 13 years ago

Paul was just joking around I think...

[–] iwals 12 years ago

I enjoyed the movie but I agree with the points you made. While watching, I kept wondering where it would go wrong, since the code wouldn't allow success.

Nobody gets to be a cowboy forever.

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

The code was on its deathbed in 1960. Notice how the gang, while they don't get to profit, never do actually get caught or punished in any way (except they wasted their time). That wouldn't have happened in 1940 or even 1950. So it's possible the ending was tacked on to soften it, but it's also possible that's how the source novel ended. Does anyone know if the film is true to the ending of The Lions At The Kill?

[–] bradford-1 11 years ago

Actually, two members of the gang DO win after a fashion.
"May I bone your kipper, Mademoiselle?"

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

movielover35 says > In general I think the old Hollywood Production Code was a good thing for society...for you youngsters, it was forbidden to show someone profiting from a crime.

I agree. I think of the code was the industry's way of applying the brakes to keep the speeding car from going completely out of control. Whether we like it or not, a lot of people are easily influenced, especially by what they see in the movies.

In movies, everything always seems to go smoothly. When there are problems, they are usually dealt with easily and quickly; and, as in this movie, they barely skip a beat. There were many times they should have been caught but they weren't.

I don't know if the code was responsible for that ending but it was all wrong. I thought at first Wilkin's death was a ruse; a way for him and Mason (and maybe Melanie) to double cross the rest of the others but things kept going from bad to worse. If they were going to be stuck, unable to benefit from the crime I wish they would have done it in a more interesting, creative way than marked bills.

If this truly was a well-planned crime, why not skip the elaborate way they got the money out, and simply place the money in a water-tight bag with flotation sewn into the lining and throw the bag down to a waiting boat?

From what I remember, the water was quite a ways down and it wasn't exactly a straight shot. Like you said there were rocks the money could have gotten stuck on before making it to the water. In any case, the point I'm trying to make is it would have taken considerable force to propel a bag to the water. One bag containing the money would be far too heavy especially from such a narrow ledge. From inside the window, it would have been much harder.

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