What's up with the ending?
I like the film and have viewed it twice but the ending was like "NOOOOOOOOO" and they wind up in jail but then they are in Russia. Can someone explain the ending and why the director and screenwriter chose it?
shareMAJOR SPOILER WARNING!!!
Cops know there is something suspicious about the museum and the fair... then the alarm goes off, and they think they will find something is missing. They arrest everyone, and send them to jail only to find out that nothing is missing. So they have to let them all go, and just before they are out, Elizabeth tells them she has an idea for their next job - Romanov's jewels in Russia... and next we see them in snow, in Russia, which means they are there, to do their next job.
I think that everyone who saw this film would want to see the sequel in Russia, but unfortunately, such was never made.
I don't think there was ever any intention of doing a sequel set in Russia. The ending was just Dassin's way of saying the characters were unrepentant & would happily continue doing what they've always done.
I like the ending; it's humorous and consistent with the film's clever, lighthearted tone.
I think they found out what was missing.
Else, why was the dagger man arrested?
Yes, the authorities discovered the missing dagger, and apprehended the carnival guy with it. The thieves served a relatively short prison sentence, some time passed, and we rejoined them the day before their release.
shareI just saw it more as a collectively imagined moment that they were in Russia, in response to Elizabeth's "bright idea".🐭
shareI saw it the way spookyrat did and the Russia scene was just their imagination. It's not likely the Turkish authorities were going to let them out. Since they arrested Joseph, the Carnival contact, he probably dimed them out. They'll be in a Turkish prison for a long time.
He who fights and runs away, lives to run away again!
Nah. I've seen this movie a number of times and the "dream" ending doesn't fit with the tone. I think the "they all get out on a technicality" or somesuch makes more sense. It's not like they had proof on most of the robbers. They just had the evidence of the bird (meaning it was stolen) and the actual dagger (which was with someone else). The evidence against most would've only been by the circus guy saying so. I'd like to think they got out and continued on their mischievous ways, so maybe it's just wish fulfillment.
shareI agree that it wasn't intended to be taken as a dream, but as real in the world of this movie.
This was 1964. Thieves couldn't be shown getting away with their crime. Yet of course the filmmakers knew that the audience WANTED them to get away with their crime.
This ending was the solution they found to having it both ways: crime is decently punished, AND the attractive and likeable characters got to go on having their profitable fun.
_ . _ . _ . _ . _ . _ .
Grey Fairy / White Wolf
Well it was based on a book,so one quick answer is to see how the film ending compares to the original source material.
I really enjoyed the film - good, not great - 7 star IMO and the ending was perfect in the light hearted, comedic tone of the rest of the movie.
The cast was perfect too, not sure why so much hate for Melina Mercouri on this board. I loved her piece in the opener ("I'm a thief....honest) and her campy portrayal.
The best thing about Ustinov's OSCAR is that future generations of film fans will always want to check this one out, and I think they will find a nice gem, very representative of motion pictures in the mid-60's.
the best that you can do is fall in love