MovieChat Forums > La commare secca (1982) Discussion > The Ending *MASSIV SPOILERS*

The Ending *MASSIV SPOILERS*


First of all: I had to watch the ending twice before I got it.

At frist, it seemed extremly superficial. As one reviewer wrote before me:

"My only beefs are for a scene in which an Italian boy takes to the Tiber to elude the police; the actual outcome of his swim is not made clear, indeed I had to see the thing twice to understand. And two ... when the villain, the murderer, is caught, it is without any twists - he was simply one of the suspects and he did it. There are no red herrings, no surprise innocence or guilt."

That's wrong.
The fact is: Because he lied/didn't say all the truth in the first place, one of the two boys died.
The first time the murderer is interviewed by the police, he tells them his story up to the point where he sees the boys walking past the prostitute. Then he gives the names of the boys to the policeman.

Cut to the surviving boy: He tells his story, which goes further in time than the main story. His friend dies because they were looked after by the police. And that's the murderer's fault.

Cut to the murderer: He admits the crime, which comes totally unexpected because the viewer still doesn't have the missing link (the interview of the man who was robbed by the boys).

I hope somebody followed my argument until now. Thanks!

Anyway, the point is, as the other reviewer put it before me:

"We all lie. So do they. The suspect's lying versions of events are depicted; reality as they would have it. All it happens, are guilty of something, as is everyone in this world."

Yes, but with all other suspects, their lies didn't do any harm. Only the murderer, who is already guilty of a crime, commits another one by not telling the whole truth from the beginning. And that's the point of this film.

Now, either:
1. It was totally obvious for everyone but me
2. What I write is total crap
3. I really understood the whole thing, and you will be forever thankful to me for telling you this... :-)


And yeah, great great film!
Cheers
David


http://www.ymdb.com/user_top20_view.asp?usersid=22306

reply

I think it had alot to do with the love that was in the various people, and how they saw it, either looking for it, having it and sharing it, or only taking it, with the exception being the ones without it, who really are the guilty, affecting all others, with the more love that they had, the less harm they would do, but the more they may in fact take.

Sound sappy?

reply

As I understood it, the police were after the boys for the theft of the raincoat and lighter...

reply

As I understood it, the police were after the boys for the theft of the raincoat and lighter...


I believe that was point. You were supposed to believe that the police were there for that reason, but they were really being pulled in for questioning based on the real murderers testimony. I suppose Bertolluci was attempting to make us believe that the homosexual as he is called was the real murderer.

Perhaps that was the intent. Can't say for sure, but that's the way that I look at it when I saw it for the first time just today.

The fact is: Because he lied/didn't say all the truth in the first place, one of the two boys died.
The first time the murderer is interviewed by the police, he tells them his story up to the point where he sees the boys walking past the prostitute. Then he gives the names of the boys to the policeman.

Cut to the surviving boy: He tells his story, which goes further in time than the main story. His friend dies because they were looked after by the police. And that's the murderer's fault.

Cut to the murderer: He admits the crime, which comes totally unexpected because the viewer still doesn't have the missing link (the interview of the man who was robbed by the boys).



But in all honesty, it's an interesting way to look at the film as well seeing it as that because the killer lied the boy drowned. It's true though. Not a pile of *beep* don't worry.



Wherever. Whatever. Have a nice day.

reply

To be honest I'm not sure what you are trying to say. In fact I'm not even sure anyone's lies where shown as the truth. Of course they could have lied, but there's no implication of this. The murderers story stops after he sees those boys, then when the story continues he goes over to the prostitute. He never confesses, at least not before the final scene in which he is caught. He is fingered by the man who spotted him, who in the final scene leads the police to the murderer. We never see the interview with the one and only witness.

Furthermore I heard nothing about one of the boys dying. Where did you get this from? He swims out into the river and the one left screams that he is a coward, he's presumably never caught and is never mentioned again.

My 105 favorite films - http://www.imdb.com/list/5pdE8_ZEh0Y/?publish=save

reply

Sorry for a reply about two years late, but the second boy clearly dies. After he shouts 'coward' for the last time, the swimming boy disappears underwater and does not resurface. Combine this with the warnings the other boy made about not swimming in the middle, how upset he was at the beginning of the questioning, etc. and the strong implication is that the second boy died. And like the OP said if the murderer hadn't lied and tried implicating the boys instead that wouldn't have happened.

reply

the strong implication is that the second boy died. And like the OP said if the murderer hadn't lied and tried implicating the boys instead that wouldn't have happened.
Agree.

Regarding the ending: Was the female pimp/madam (the girlfriend of the 2nd suspect, the blond guy) dancing with the murderer at the end of the film? It looked like her but I wasn't sure.

Great film. The crisp black and white made the scenes so beautiful.

reply