Confusing Ending
I think this is a brilliant film but I can never quite work out what is going on at the end
shareIt's kind of weird that way.
**spoilers**
Near the end, it turns out Lee is the brother who was initially locked in the upstairs room for all those years, only, unlike it was originally told, it was for a crime that someone else (Price's character) comitted. He managed to escape, however, and killed those who locked him up there unjustly. Before he can kill the writer, however, it's revealed the entire thing was a setup by his agent, and everyone involved were merely actors. Then, as a final turn, it shows us that everthing (including the twist ending with the agent) is actually being written at that very moment by the writer himself, and none of it is happening after all.
Which is a dirty gyp, if you ask me.
shareI actually thought it was an original idea and very brilliant. But, I know what you mean, the suspence was mounting and then all of the sudden (bam!) everyone gets up (some after being slashed) and they all meet for a party. You have to see the comedy in that and all four horror masters do like comedies too.
shareI know - it just wasn't the ending I wanted, and at least I can honestly say that's what irks me. It's still a valid ending, and I do enjoy the movie very much - wish they'd release it on DVD...
Cthulhu Saves (in case he gets hungry later...)
The concept is refered to as "a play within a play" -- from a plot device in Shakespere's Hamlet. One of the most famous works to use the concept is MAN OF LAMANCHA -- it tells the story of DON QUIOTE, but is really the story being present to an audience in a prison cell. The film actually tells 2 storys -- 1) the bet the writer has with his publisher and 2) "MIDNITE MANOR", the story he writes. You should try to separate the two stories and look at them seperatly. MIDNIGHT MANOR is a parody of Agatha Ctystie's TEN LITTLE INDIANS; and should be taken on it's own. Not horror/mystery but rather parody/horror. This work is to TEN LITTLE INDIANS what Kubrick's DR. STRANGELOVE was to FAIL-SAFE. The envelope story really isn't that interesting, but it is used to setup MIDNIGHT MANOR, which is the real story of the movie. And let us not forget, that not every movie made is an Oscar worthy epic.
Enjoy it for what it is.
"The concept is refered to as "a play within a play" -- from a plot device in Shakespere's Hamlet..."
Yes, I know this - but such staging doesn't work with every story, and in some cases weakens the story as a whole (it is, after all, one big story, however many components make it up). It works in "Hamlet" because it's a plot device - catching hte conscience of hte king, and like that; it works in "Man of La Mancha" because... well, I don't know why it works, it's an unnecessary framing device, but it DOES work; it works in "The Princess Bride" because we really *are* getting two stories - that of Buttercup and the Dread Pirate Wesley, and the bonding of a sick boy and his Grampa.
But in "House of Long Shadows", it just seems like a cheap and easy way to wrap up the story. And considering most of Walker's other horror work, this does a real disservice to the legendary players. These gentlemen made their names doing some of the most sinister, terrible things ever put on movie screens - I don't want to find out they're actors teaching some shnook writer about the validity of gothic melodrama, I want to see mayhem! I want to see them legitimately doing what they do best.
Personally, I don't care for films that essentially announce "Hi - we've been lying to you for the past 90-120 minutes! How clever are *we*!" "Fight Club" pissed me off for the same reason. And no, "The Sixth Sense" *isn't* the same situation, because they have NOT been lying to you since the beginning of the movie - they give you the truth (mostly the boy's truth) from frame one; but not the entire truth, and they don't lay it out for you - you're all wound up in Bruce Willis's character, and you make the discoveries *with* him, see the clues if you're attentive, and the final twist is a revelation, not "Remember when we told you this? Well, that wasn't true, we just needed to set you up so we had a movie." That sort of thing is juvenile and cheap, and if it's the best thing Walker could come up with to finish this movie, maybe it's best that he retired from filmmaking.
Absolutely nothing wrong with the way he used it in this film at all, i think you're all being daft with your complaints.
You seem to be forgetting that the "silliest" part come right at the very end of the film with the wroter meeting the girls "doppleganger" as it were and seeing Vincent Price wait on tables the hotel, just plain odd.
I have enough faith in my judgment to recognize a stinker.
I agree with you.
But I'm now confused!
I thought the line by Richard Todd's character, "not based on anything that happened, naturally" was an indication that the events in the movie did take place and that the writer merely stole these events as the basis for his novel. As such I thought that Miss Jameson is not a doppleganger of Mary Norton but the actress he met the night before pretending she doesn't know him.
No, it really was all in his imagination. It's clear Miss Jameson does not know him when they meet in the restaurant - why would she pretend?
shareFair enough. But the line by Richard Todd's character, "not based on anything that happened, naturally" when he jokes about the novel, what was this? A red herring?
shareHis story wasn't based on anything real, generally speaking, but -- like most writers -- he modeled some of his key characters after real-life people. For instance, he used himself as the protagonist in his quickie novel. He saw Mary at his publisher's office on one occasion or another, but they had never officially been introduced; so he used her, just making-up her last name, Norton. It was the same thing with the waiter (Price).
Speaking of Price, Stan Lee hadn't met Vincent personally, but he patterned Dr. Strange after him in 1963. McGee in the movie did this with his novel. Remember, he was pressed for time and so had to use people off the top of his head for inspiration.
Actually the line "not based on anything that happened, naturally" referred to the bet that the writer and publisher made at the start of the movie. It's sort of a parody of the disclaimer you see before the text of many books i.e. Any resemblance to real people or events is coincidental.
share"But in "House of Long Shadows", it just seems like a cheap and easy way to wrap up the story. And considering most of Walker's other horror work, this does a real disservice to the legendary players. These gentlemen made their names doing some of the most sinister, terrible things ever put on movie screens - I don't want to find out they're actors teaching some shnook writer about the validity of gothic melodrama, I want to see mayhem! I want to see them legitimately doing what they do best."
This is exactly how the film is supposed to end, "House of Long Shadows" is the 8th screen adaptation of Earl Derr Biggers' 1917 novel "Seven Keys to Baldpate"...a "real disservice" would have been if Walker changed the ending.
I collect dead pigeons then I press them between the pages of a book.share
I think that depends on how one feels about the ending in the first place.
share
I agree with you about this kind of movies that erase all signifigance of what has been shown previously, because either it was a dream, just a play, a story, a lie, whatever. But I don't agree about Fight Club - it still all happened, and continued happening. There was only one perspective and 'thing' that was lied about, not any of the actual happenings per se. So what, if things happened slightly differently than what we were shown - the end result was still always the same, and everything still happened, and happened in an exact manner.
It's like you learned that the protagonist's shoes weren't really brown, but bright yellow during all the events, but otherwise, the events remain the same. It's not at all the same thing as lying to the viewer about WHAT happened - only "how the details happened".
So, what do you think about "The Usual Suspects"? I hate that movie so much that I am never going to watch it again (I mean, that's my plan - perhaps I might watch it again some day/night in the future, I can't know that now - but I don't plan on doing so)..
Sixth sense surely lied even more than Fight Club! I mean, Fight Club also gave us the truth, and it's pretty obvious, after you have seen the movie once, when you watch it again. It's just that when you don't even suspect it, you can't know. In that way, they are similar movies, but I think Sixth sense's 'revelation' is cheaper, and the 'twist' more ridiculous and even slightly illogical. But I haven't seen it for a long time, perhaps I should do that again to refreshen my memory.
Well, this movie is based on a novel which had already been done for the big screen a number of times before this movie was filmed. The novel is Seven Keys to Baldpate, by Earl Derr Biggers. It was published nearly 100 years ago (years before the Agatha Christie mystery And Then There Were None was published). Versions were filmed in the teens, twenties, thirties, and forties.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) & ElleryQueen
The play within a play is also used in Shakespeare's "Taming of the Shrew" as well. In fact most of the play is a play being put on for the character of Sly who is the butt of a nobleman's joke. You also see it used in novels. Frankenstein is a good example. We start out on a ship bound for the arctic and the capt. meets Victor Frankenstein who tells the story of his creature. The book then ends with us back in the arctic. It's called a frame story.
shareGood explanation. Except that 'Dr. Strangelove' was not a comedic take on 'Fail-Safe'.
Kubrick had begun work on his film prior to Lumet starting 'Fail-Safe'. Both works are based on different books. 'Dr. Strangelove' on 'Red Alert' and 'Fail-Safe' on a book of the same name, 'Fail-Safe'.
They were being produced at the same time, and in fact Kurbrick threatened to sue 'Fail-Safe''s production company. In the end 'Dr. Strangelove' was released first and was a big hit. 'Fail-Safe' followed and flopped. Both films are excellent, albeit very different takes on a very similar subject matter.
Sometimes this happens in Hollywood. Movies about a similar subject matter get greenlit in different studios and each thinks the other copied, when in fact it's coincidence, or something stranger.
By the way, speaking of odd coincidences, right now on Outer Limits, the episode 'Soldier' is playing. You may be aware of the controversy surrounding this episode, written by Harlan Ellison as 'Soldier from Tomorrow' and James Cameron's hit film, The Terminator. The case was settled out of court with Harlan and his name appears at the end of 'Terminator' with a 'based on' credit. To this day, Cameron denies he ever saw the episode of Outer Limits and refused to acknowledge Ellison's work in Terminator. But the studios had control and settled with Harlon and gave him the credit. If you watch the opening of the episode, the future battle scene with flying laser firing weapon does look remarkably like the scenes of future battle in the movie 'Terminator'. Another coincidence, or maybe just more strangeness.
Cheers.
One more transfusion, and I'll be a full-blooded Irishman.
-Peter Cushing in Island of Terror
It's a remake of "Seven keys to Baldpate" which was made into a stage play I understand and the 1st film version was by George M. Cohan of "You're a Grand old Flag" fame. And the book that the play was made from was by Earl Derr Biggers who created Charlie Chan.