The final scene

Don't know how I feel about the ending, exactly. I suppose I got the 'purpose' of the scene - pointing out the hollowness of the victory. But perhaps it 'was' a little "ham handed".

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

That´s the one scene I haven´t been really able to make up my mind about, either. Obviously, we´re shown the more long term consequences of his actions... but was it the best way to show them? Not sure.

It does seem ambiguous though as to whether this "I have nothing to learn from you" was in reference to his "ratting out" his colleagues or his criminal activities while on the force.



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

After 2 hrs 30 mins + of this movie I shouted out the end, "Don't end it like this! Not like this!" But immediately upon reading this, I disagreed with you, lol. How contradictory! I'd say Ciello was like that in the same way, and the feeling I got all throughout the movie is that we were meant to get up close and personal in the sheer and constant discomfort of the man's experience. I believe the way they ended it- making it so out of nowhere, out of context, and abrupt- though risky and not for some, was actually a very effective way to give an uncomfortable experience and ending to an entire movie of intentional discomfort. You see this man going nuts for the whole length of the movie, and now that it's all over, and all done, and he can move on- bam! he has to feel the same thing in fleeting instances all throughout his life for the rest of his life even in the must mundane circumstances. I believe that was the point of that scene. It basically summarized what the rest of his life was going to be like from then on. But yeah, they probably could have done it better.

I thought the ending was perhaps a little too brief and glib, but also necessary. Prior to that moment, we'd be forgiven for thinking that Ciello who was, let us not forget, a corrupt cop (albeit one who had a conscience and finally did the right thing), was entirely vindicated in everything he'd done up until that point, seeing as the chief prosecutor had decided that he wasn't to be prosecuted, and thus the convictions against other corrupt cops/lawyers who'd Ciello had helped convict would not be compromised, just as a district judge had simultaneously decided against the specific corrupt lawyer who was appealing his conviction on the basis of Ciello's evidence. So, it was vital that we get a sense that Ciello was still permanently damned by his various choices (both as a corrupt cop, and as an informant), and what I like about the student cop getting out to leave the classroom is that it's never clear that he left because Ciello was corrupt or because he'd ratted out other cops.

It's also interesting that James L. Brooks, a filmmaker I like a lot, should make this observation, because his films, particularly the superb Broadcast News, often feature scenes that might be regarded as extraneous by other filmmakers, but nevertheless arguably add some additional character insight and ambiguity.

Although I never saw the film version of "Prince of the City", I did read the book on which the film version of "Prince of the City" was based, and when Leuci (i. e. Ciello, in the film version) was instructing a class that taught undercover techniques, and one student asked him if he was "the Detective Leuci", and Leuci said "I'm Detective Leuci", and the student said, "I don't think I have anything to learn from you.", and promptly walked out of the classroom.

That incident with the student walking out on Ciello's Leuci after learning that he was Detective Leuci also occurred in the book "Prince of the City" on which this movie was based.