Problem with the ending

Hollywood usually runs two ending to its movies, sometimes more. That way everyone in the audience gets a chance to see things come out the way they want.

In this film, normal justice has broken down and real justice has gone underground. But Justice Hardin, who believes in the sanctity of the law, can't quite get comfortable with this, so he ends up feeling compelled to help known criminals. This is suicidal - if the criminals don't get him, the underground star chamber will.

That's ending number one, the film's logical ending, and it comes VERY close to happening. The problem is that there are a lot of people in any audience who also believe in the sanctity of the law. What about their feelings? So in the final ending (the second ending by my count), Justice Hardin is snatched from the jaws of self-destruction and shown overturning the star chamber. I find it unrealistic and contrived, but if you believe that the law, for better or for worse, has to prevail in the end, you don't mind.

I came here to try and understanding the overall meaning film a bit better and your post was a great help. Thanks!

The Star Chamber itself was not morally wrong, rather it was legally wrong. Humans make the law, but humans are not perfect, thus the law isn't always perfect, either. The law, justice, and morality do not always coincide. The Star Chamber was an attempt to correct the imperfections of the law, in order to achieve a better level of justice and morality. Just because they weren't an officially sanctioned organization doesn't mean they were immoral. After all, the official sanction of groups and laws is determined by people, too; and is therefore also subject to bias, corruption, and undue influence. If a majority of the citizens in this country decide to reinstate slavery, that doesn't make it moral or just. And a Star Chamber fighting against slavery laws would not be immoral.

I agree. The ending could have been much, much better. They should have stuck with the judicial intrigue, and not gotten bogged down in action.

As abrupt and contrived as the ending was, I think Hardin's reasons for exposing the Star Chamber were pretty self-evident through the events: he realizes the potential for mistakes as well as the danger of not having any oversight whatesoever. It's an abuse of power when even unlikable, despicable, yet otherwise "innocent" people are allowed to be murdered. What we don't feel, however, is Hardin's process in drawing these conclusions. Did he not consider these possibilities when he signed on? Wouldn't we have loved to have seen a greater confrontation between Hardin & Holbrook? Did Holbrook's ominous lament of "don't do it, kiddo" hold any real threat at all? Would the Star Chamber have actively gone after Hardin? At the least, there was great potential that's never explored.

[deleted]

Not that the ending is perfect, but I think the ultimate intent of the finale hinged on Hardin's moral decision to not remain as one of the Star Chamber--and not on whether the criminals deserved to die. Hardin, in his frustration with the court system, joined an organization of which he ultimately determined he couldn't morally abide. His frustration, and the trauma of feeling partly responsible for the death of a child and the suicide of a parent, drove him to hastily join the Chamber. Concerning the Chamber itself, the film suggested (if I recall correctly) the hit man was sent to take out Hardin as well as the two drug thugs. The Chamber continued to meet, thinking the problem of Hardin and the thugs was sewn up.