At the very end of the film, we hear a car crash. It is daylight, so it is not the original car crash. Who is crashing? Is it Dirke Bogarde? Or is that him bringing the children in at the end? If he is bringing in the children, is it Stanley Baker who crashes? Or is it a memory? I'm confused. I am sure this must have been obvious to everyone else.
shareIt's just a reprise of the original crash played on the soundtrack over the final images of the film. With Losey (and many other directors), don't always assume that the image and the sound have to fit together.
There is an interesting story about that final shot though. You probably noticed that, after the front door has closed, the dog runs down the driveway and out into the road just before the sound of the crash. Many people believed that the dog had somehow caused the crash, even though no crash was actually occurring at that moment.
In fact, the intention had been that the dog should go into the house with the family. When they were filming, Dirk Bogarde held the door open for a few seconds but the dog wouldn't go in, and he finally had to close the door anyway. As the light was failing, there wasn't time for another take.
It was symbolic.
We see the professor go back into the house with his children, and it looks as if he's going back to his normal life. But the shadow of the accident is still hanging over him.
more than a shadow. there is an audio association with and crash and there is a child's toy car in the drive way, creating a visual association too.
some how the ending, with the family entering the house reminded my of Husband's by Casavettes.
also the opening car crash reminded my of the end of Godard's Contempt. You hear the accident and only see its result. I think Godard was keeping it cheap and was down playing the sensational, ie, he wanted to avoid the hollywood cliche while using the hollywood cliche. a poster above seems to have a proper take on Losey's crash. that Losey is telling us to look beneath the surface. the surface of the crash and the house itself, as well as the people.
Dictated, but not read.
I agree that the sound of the car crash becomes a kind of symbolic echo -- a violent reminder of Bogarde's crimes, his angst, his suffocation-- and that symbol is now superimposed over a shot of his seemingly idyllic home life.
And adding to the sense of symbolism is that dog. Even if the shot of the dog was initially, well, an accident, as one poster writes above, dogs are an extremely well-established symbol in European culture, always representing fidelity and domesticity. It seems appropriate, then, that we get the appearance of an idyllic home, but we notice that the dog is running out of the house, and -- if only by aural juxtaposition -- seems to get hit by a car. All that the dog represents is destroyed by all that the crash represents.
I was expecting something of a repeat of the first scene when seeing the exterior of the house again, and I thought I'd seen it with the child falling over with the peddle car in the foreground. I was surprised for the theme to present itself yet again at the film's final close. For me, Steven was 'back to reality' and, for better or for worse, minding his daily, perhaps mundane responsibilities of looking after his children. That preocupation correctively distracts him from the more dramatic accident off-screen. I saw the child's fall more as a foreshadowing than the audio of the car crash, which for me bordered on gratuitous.
shareThe dog is a true master of improvisation, the most thrilling moment of the film is when it grabbed that sandwich off the tray
shareYeah, as noted by others, the ending crash is to be understood symbolically. It´s also interesting to note that on the audio playing over the film´s very beginning - before the actual crash occurs - we hear the roar of the jet engines overhead, sort of mirroring the end (Sassard´s character was setting out to fly back home from England).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
[deleted]
I think you were right the first time. I didn't take her lack of a British licence as evidence she couldn't drive (why not just say so?). The very fact she was driving without a licence (leaving aside whether she was also drunk or drugged up) that would have made her punishment and public disgrace all the greater. As you admit, his driving the car renders her behaviour inexplicable.
shareBeing a British model, the car has its steering wheel on the right. In the crash, it falls over onto its left side. The passenger on the left is William and thrown on top of him, no seatbelts, is the driver Anna. Presumably she had taken less drink or drugs.
Hiding her in his house, Stephen lets the police believe William died alone. He as well as the girl is guilty of a crime and, if he never confesses it, it ought to haunt him. Hence the sound in his head of the crash.