MovieChat Forums > Wait Until Dark (1967) Discussion > Were people actually watching this movie...

Were people actually watching this movie or what?!!

posted 15 years ago by ClassicsCaper
32 replies | jump to latest

My big question is, "Were all the people who are complaining about plot holes completely engrossed in other activities at the time?" Maybe they were washing their car, practicing karate, cooking up a five-course meal, or perhaps writing some new laws for congress to enact. I watched this movie for the first time a couple days ago and was completely enthralled. I also was left completely satisfied. In other words, I was shocked to come on here and find people attempting to destroy a great movie due to a couple of non-existent plot holes. My only conclusion, the whiners must not have been paying attention to the movie.

One of the major so called holes is Suzy (Hepburn) resisting giving her captors the doll. First of all she doesn't get the doll until halfway into the movie, and once she has it, she has been so scared and confused by her tormentors that she has no clue what the fuss is about. Obviously she knows it must be more than just a doll if all these people are after it, but she has only a jumbled mess of ideas of what the consequences of giving it up may be. The doll has been linked to a murdered woman, her relatively new husband, and a bunch of untrustworthy new characters. How many people would seriously give it up considering those factors? Anyone could be incriminated or put in jeopardy over the possession or concession of the doll. Factor in the recent blindness and things are only more confusing for Suzy. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the doll may in fact appear to be incriminating/detrimental to her husband. Also, the doll is her only shot at maintaining the upper hand. Once Suzy figures the whole situation out, it becomes apparent that the doll is the only leverage she has in the situation. The doll is her bargaining chip. Without the doll Suzy is as good as dead. I could continue to go on and on about the various reasons why Suzy doesn't give up the doll, but it is pointless since I think it is painfully transparent that she has everything to lose and nothing to gain (except for the very unlikely possibility that the villains will take off and leave her completely unscathed) by giving up the doll.

Next is the so-called "idiot plot hole," which remains to be just another ridiculous aspect of the film that people want to quibble about. If you actually sit down and watch the movie you will notice that Suzy does in fact lock the door, although maybe not as soon as most people would have liked her to, however, it is pointless because bad guy Mike (Richard Crenna) takes a piece of plastic and unlocks it. Sure maybe she could have used a chain lock, deadbolt, blah blah whatever. It doesn't matter. Why? Because I highly doubt that a psychopath and his desperate underlings are going to let a door get in their way. It would not be that difficult for three grown men to break down a door. Plus there are several windows/possible entry ways into the apartment. Seriously people, is that really what you would do? "Oh a of couple gun wielding criminals and a bloodthirsty sociopath are after me, well I guess I will lock my door, that should protect me..." Yeah right!! So I really don't see this as a plot hole at all! Plus, in my opinion, i think Suzy figured she would have a better chance of surviving if she formulated a well though out plan to surprise and cleverly take the criminals out....opposed to *gasp* locking the door. Also, people complain why did she leave one light on? Once again, part of her plan. Throw the chemicals in the guy's eyes then turn off the remaining light. Complete disorientation. Perfect.

The final plot hole people love to bicker about is why did she send Gloria to get her husband, why not the police, why didn't she go yada yada. First off, obviously Gloria was the only person who could go anywhere since the fat guy was guarding outside the door. Next, the phone line was cut off without Suzy's knowledge. Therefore calling the police seemed like no big deal. Also, if she is calling the police why send Gloria to the police? Third Gloria is a CHILD!! And on top of that, a child who didn't really even fully understand what was going on. Chances are the police aren't going to take her too seriously. Especially since her parents are gone and she is off running around New York in the dark. Doesn't sound like a credible and trustworthy source that the police will be apt to listening to.

All in all, Suzy's plans were completely reasonable and surprising rational for a recently blinded women who has been manipulated and tormented into complete confusion. In fact, I think most of us would acted far worse if placed in her situation. If there is a plot hole at all, it is that Suzy's action are far too well thought out for a traumatized blind woman, not that the woman was an idiot who didn't respond logically. Its easy for us to criticize her actions as "idiot" because A) As the viewer we have seen everything, and know everything that Suzy doesn't B) Its much simpler to say "Well I would have done this in that situation" since we are not in that situation and we have no idea what its like or how we actually would respond and C) The vast majority of us are not blind and can not even fathom how difficult of transition it must be for someone to suddenly lose the vision that she has been dependent on all her life.

I will unashamedly say that I gave this movie 9.5 stars (rounded to 10 of course) and that what a couple of confused critics thoughts did not influence my opinion. I went into this movie knowing nothing about its history, reception, or "plot holes." In the end, I finished the movie with absolutely no doubt in mind that it is a great American film, and feeling not even the slightest bit confused about the plot and the non-existent holes. Also, as a side note, I watched this movie with my 15-year-old sister and her friend, both of whom completely loved the movie and did not pester me with any plot questions like they typically do after I attempt to expose them to classic cinema. So if the "plot hole" haters can manage to find the time to sit as still as a couple of squirrelly 15 year olds for a little under two hours, I think they will find that this film was virtually free of the gaping holes that riddle many of the films that are cranked out today.

"Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money and for a woman. I didn't get the money and I didn't get the woman. Pretty, isn't it?"

[–] electric-joy-machine 15 years ago

THANK YOU!

thank you!

and you know what?

THANK YOU!

this is a stunning movie and an amazing play. people just use the internet to form 'idea groups' and then talk down to people who dont agree.

this movie is a work of art.

[–] novastar_6 15 years ago

Amen to that, Hitchcock.

[–] lunrfarsde 15 years ago

You seem to have reasonable explanations for the "plot holes", which i also think they are not. But what i can say about them is that they were weird and unnatural, i mean they don't fit in exactly. And things like this pulls down this kind of a movie i think.
Still i like the movie despite the "plot holes". Tricky, simple and original scenario, which is my favorite.

[–] mateollamo 15 years ago

Angels.

Angels are singing in my ears thanks to you and your post.

I had recommended thismovie to one of my firneds and he immediately said that he would not watch it because it was "too old".

I immediately slapped him silly, tied him to a chair, propped his eys open Clockwork Orange style and forced him to watch Wait Until Dark, Psycho, Taxi Driver, AND The Godfather (Parts I and II, he already saw III).

I pick him up from Basket Weaving Academy tomorrow......

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you-do or do not there is no try.

[–] jingle_bells_93 15 years ago

Thank GOD for you, HitchcockianFanatic !
I worship at your feet right now.
I too never understood what people were talking about when they mentioned "plot holes". The plot, dialogue and everything else in this film were completely solid. It really is a classic. How could anybody think that there were plot holes ? It seems so blatantly obvious that there *aren't*.
*sigh*

~Jo

I love Jesus !
Audrey Hepburn <3 You are missed.

[–] z-diddy 15 years ago

Rear Window has a much bigger plot hole, and it's #16 on the IMDB Top 250.

When James Stewart takes his camera flashbulbs and flashes them in the killer's eyes, why the hell doesn't the killer just close his eyes?? If Stewart does it, why can't he??

Screw Rear Window. Wait Until Dark is better.

[–] moviemusicfan 14 years ago

When James Stewart takes his camera flashbulbs and flashes them in the killer's eyes, why the hell doesn't the killer just close his eyes?? If Stewart does it, why can't he??

I don't think the killer can see Stewart clearly enough to guess what he's going to do. He doesn't know beforehand that Stewart has a broken leg or that Stewart is a photographer, and this scene takes place at night with the only light coming through the window. The killer can't see Stewart as well as Stewart can see the killer, until the killer gets close enough. The shots from the killer's point of view initially show Stewart as a dark stranger. I imagine the last thing the killer would do in this situation is close his eyes.

I suspect questions like this come up from home viewings. As the "Hitchcock Fanatic" who authored this thread points out about Wait Until Dark, anyone who gives the movie full attention will not see the plot holes some people are complaining about these days. Back when I saw Rear Window and Wait Until Dark on big screens in theaters, I found both movies tremendously suspenseful and exciting--and so much fun to watch with big, enthusiastic movie audiences. I'm afraid home viewers are missing the true experience these movies were made to be.

[–] PatrickArchangel 11 years ago

You are wrong. A natural reaction when something bright is shining at you is too close your eyes, look away or put something in the way to block the stream of light.

[–] jchcin1 9 years ago

Yet even doing so, and your eyes will most likely naturally and reflexively close on their own, you will still be temporarily blinded.

[–] Indie_Mod 15 years ago

I can think of at least one major plot hole, but to be honest it is one of my favorite movies. While my family has their own flaws, I love them--same thing with this movie.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RonnyDazzler 15 years ago

Plot holes? Plot holes?!

I feel like every movie in existence will be searched for plot holes until someone with too much time practically makes one up themselves.

Great acting, great story, great film.

The end.

[–] Indie_Mod 15 years ago

The only one I can think of is debatable, but nonetheless, in the foreground.

[–] aptrapani 14 years ago

This woman didn't lock her door even after she became suspicious. Even if she trusted Mike, I don't care what your argument is because as far as I see it, no matter how many points of entry, everybody in the world would lock their door first and foremost, which she did (finally) when she sent Mike away. But before then, this is a giant oversight that is bothersome to her assumed intelligence.

Also, if a child goes to the police that late at night, and she gives them an address, chances are they will at least check it out or if not, drive her home and then check it out since they're there anyways. However, she assumed her phone was still working, at the time. So I can understand the logic of the script here seeing as how Gloria was already gone to see about the well being of her husband and she couldn't leave. Although I would have much preferred if she called the police before sending her out, it's forgivable.

Not giving up the doll and leaving the light on is a fine by me. I can understand the logic there.

[–] brefane 12 years ago

I watched the entire film in a theater as a pre teen, and my friend was really startled by the famous conclusion where even the lights in the theater were momentarily darkened. Obviously, in the real world, a knife would have been put to Susie's throat and her place trashed. The time consuming(and theatrical) disguises and gimmicks are really contrived. It's only a movie, and an engrossing thriller despite the talky expository scenes.

[–] learmoak 12 years ago

This movie has always been and will always be one of my favorites, which I have seen countless times. People who like to put things down will point out plot holes, cringeworthy performances, etc. but I will remember seeing it for the first time and even the guys in the audience screamed at the famous jump scene.

[–] maccaby 12 years ago

The "plot holes" regarding the lock, and sending Gloria to the police station are non-existent, as far as I'm concerned. They originate from a Roger Ebert review here: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19680226/REVIEWS/802260301/1023, and have been repeated, I suspect, by people who either haven't seen the movie, or read the review first.

RE: the lock. I've said a few times that I just don't think Ebert understands what kind of lock was on the door. He thinks it's a deadbolt, when it's actually spring latch. Susy DOES lock it at one point, which you can see, because Gloria needs a key to get in, and Carlino has to knock. Carlino is mad that she takes her time to let him in, and he breaks the lock. From that point on, the door is open, but Susy THINKS it is locked.

And the police vs. the bus: Susy does not send Gloria to "the bus." Sends her to the Port Authority Bus Terminal on 42nd St., and gives her money for a cab. She does it to make sure Sam comes straight home, and doesn't stop to eat after a very long bus trip, or go to the studio to drop off his negatives, or something.

Susy doesn't know the phone line has been cut, and plans to call the police as soon as Gloria is around the corner, which Gloria signals by banging on the fence with her umbrella.

It's a pretty good plan, because Port Authority Bus Terminal is a safer place for a child than a brownstone with one blind women, and three criminals, at least one of whom has killed before. There are lots of police regularly stationed at Port Authority, and in the theater district. If Gloria wants to tell a police officer, there will be one in any direction she looks.

Now, Susy knows where Port Authority is, and what the cab fare will be. She may not know exactly where the nearest police precinct is, or what cab fare there is. She also doesn't know what a cab driver might say to a child who wants to go to a police precinct that turns out to be just a few blocks away. It's normal for a child to take a cab alone to Port Authority, and cab drivers probably take them there a lot. Children travel alone by bus to visit relatives, go to camp, to boarding school, all the time. Children do not normally take cabs to police precincts, let alone "the nearest one." That sounds like it could be a set-up for a prank, and the driver may tell Gloria to get lost. That really would put her in harm's way, much more than sending her to Port Authority.

Keep in mind that Susy planned to call the police as soon as Gloria was around the corner, and COULD NOT. That's really important.