MovieChat Forums > The Untouchables (1987) Discussion > Little girl's death...

Little girl's death...

posted 11 years ago by rondine
20 replies | jump to latest

I'm actually one of the people that like this movie (and I know for some that right off the bat that makes me a dumbass) but the thing that always bothers me that has really nothing to do with the movie, is the hypocrisy of the little girl's death.
By that I mean, the grief of the mom who shows up & asks Mr. Ness for justice is never questioned in the light of sending your little girl to the corner bar for alcohol. One might ask what kind of parents would send a little girl to get booze? Not exactly the safest activity to let your daughter go do alone. And I don't necessarily think that was fabricated for the movie - it may be possible that it did occur, but that certainly doesn't make it right.
Just sayin...

[–] NewCliches 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure I've walked into bars without being blown up, so I don't see why it is unreasonable to expect a little girl to do so.

[–] rondine 11 years ago

You missed my point completely.
What is a little girl that age doing picking up alcohol (which at the time was illegal and even now usually requires ID or someone over 21) for an otherwise occupied mom & dad? I mean, that's like sending your kid to pick up the latest issue of Playboy. And no, I'm not a prude - my point here is that is was illegal and SO not safe. What, were mom & dad too drunk to pick up their own booze?

[–] NewCliches 11 years ago

You could, of course, run that argument the other way around and conclude that there had been little violence or danger in such places until Capone started his bombing campaign. Otherwise,the girl would not have been there.

[–] rondine 11 years ago

CONGRATULATIONS for TOTALLY missing my point. Violence or not, a little girl has no business picking up booze in a bar to take home to her parents.

[–] bossat2822 11 years ago

Rondine:

Just to play devils advocate- perhaps the parents thought that a child wouldn't be caught w/alcohol. If it's illegal, the law isn't gonna look more than 2 seconds at a little girl. As for danger at the bar, perhaps it was the bar that the parents frequented often. Probably knew the owners and most of the patrons (which led to false sense of security)

It's been years since ive seen this- was the kid in there on a booze run or another reason?

[–] rondine 11 years ago

I understand that sending a little girl on this errand might not draw attention and make it easier for her to get away with it - but how immoral is it to even send your kid on this kind of errand? It's analogous to sending your kid on a run to get some weed for you.

Also, I might buy the argument that they thought there was no danger if it was their local bar that they frequented frequently - but again... sending your kid to get your "fix" isn't exactly good parenting. And yes, she was only there for that - a booze run.

[–] bossat2822 11 years ago

If someone is out there actually old enough to have live through prohibition is reading this?
That would clear things up- if it was common to send a child to get the local hooch. I'm not disagreeing with you, rondine- just trying to look at it at various angles. Period pieces are always difficult., especially if you're not familiar with the customs of the day

[–] rondine 11 years ago

I understand that you are saying the customs of the day made it "not a big deal," but I'm just saying, that's like saying, well, people didn't talk about child abuse so a kid showing up at school with bruises would go un-noticed or at least not reported. That TOO is true. I was just having that discussion the other day with a friend because we were taking about how we both showed up to school with bruises, but we are in our late 40's so back when we were kids - no body reported things like that.
While sending your kid to get the booze wasn't even a big deal or given a 2nd thought, I'm saying in retrospect, the parents at that time - or ANY time - shouldn't use their kids to score their drug of choice... unless you're like me and it's cheese!

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] howjon99 8 years ago

Things were different in those days. Folks sent their children out for alcohol and cigs all the time. Everyone knew everyone else. And the government wasn't involved in people's personal lives in those days.

[–] eddieinportland 8 years ago

The little girl wasn't there to pick up booze. The place look and reminded me of the old type of drug stores that use to be around. And in those days, the drug store was also the convenience store.

From what I could tell by the scene was the mob wanted to use the drug store as a front and turn it into a speakeasy. Or it already was a speakeasy and the owner wanted to close the speakeasy. You hear the owner talk about how the last batch of hooch wasn't that great.

So the mob send in someone to talk to the owner and smooth out the problem. When the owner said no. The bomb was lit to blow the place up. And it was blown up to send a message to the other owners of front stores. You're in bed with the mob. There's no getting out of it.

The little girl was going to die in the blast. It was sad that she picked up the briefcase and tried to return it to the man who left it behind.

[–] kentor404 8 years ago

As was not uncommon during prohibition, the drug store sold black market liquor on the side. Capone's men came in because the store owner was buying his booze from an operation other than Capone's, and he still refused to give his business to Capone because what they were selling wasn't any good ("It's not supposed to be good, it's supposed to be BOUGHT"). Capone's guy told him don't worry about it, they wouldn't be coming back, which was true because in retaliation for him refusing to do business with them and in an effort to eliminate the competition, they left a satchel bomb there on their way out. The little girl who was sent there by her mom to get a refill of her "medication" just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[–] coreycitn63 8 years ago

It's the funniest part of the movie when the little girl got blown up to bits.😁

[–] cathyrobertson 8 years ago

I've reported you, and freaks like you think you're anonymous making sick comments about kids, but you're not.

[–] cjcornell 8 years ago

The little girl was buying soup (which was commonly sold at such places at the time), and you had to bring your own container. I recall the shopkeeper saying something like "I hope your mom feels better" or something like that - implying the little girl was sent to the store to pickup some soup - not alcohol.

[–] rondine 8 years ago

I would agree with you except for these points.

1) He asked about the mom because she probably would have picked it up herself.
2) That location was targeted BECAUSE it sold liquor that wasn't "Capone's" because the proprietor said it wasn't any good.
3) If you look, he clearly goes to the bar and pulls on the tap from whence alcohol (NOT soup) is dispensed.

Check it out yourself at 1:23 - 1:36

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skxqbkpLE90

[–] i-sukurimu 8 years ago

The real question is how could she raise, with one skinny arm, the packed with explosives briefcase?

[–] gordontli-1 7 years ago

1. There's no need to 'apologize' for liking this movie. It's a classic crime actioner and I totally love it.

2. Sending a girl to get the booze is weird? Well you're judging with today's thinking but it was likely a very common thing back in 1930's. There are way more crazier stuff parents make kids do nowadays, go watch the news.

[–] dyahrmarkt 7 years ago

The main problem I had with the scene isn't the fact the girl is picking up booze (likely rather common for the time) - what's annoying is the extreme heavy-handedness with which DePalma attempts to use this rather obvious and shallow plot device.

The little girl just *has* to be cute beyond belief, and that maddening edit right before the bomb goes off all but screams "hey, audience, there's a bomb about to go off". It's about as subtle as a kick to the face. (Watch and compare how the Coen brothers handle the car crash in "No Country for Old Men" if you want to see how to edit a 'surprise' scene).

Ness's entire subsequent action and purpose for gathering his team is fueled by this scene, an act that is designed to make the audience think, "Yeah, this Capone needs to go down!" It can't be just due to 'prohibition' itself, as making a movie about getting Capone and simultaneously sympathizing with Capone's desire to buck a stupid law is extremely tough to pull off. Other films have pulled it off by insulating the mob against innocent victims so we see events only through the mob's POV.

And then, at the end, when Capone goes down, Ness says, "Yeah, I think I'll have a drink." In other words, "little girl avenged". We wouldn't necessarily believe or buy into Ness's plight if there wasn't the cutesiest of cute girls first being a bomb victim (and we just HAVE to see it, too, don't we? It can't just be told to us or have Ness read about it in the paper).

DePalma has been in this territory before - check the scene in "Scarface" which brings about the beginning of the end for Tony - when he's supposed to blow up the car of that guy and sees, again, two darling little kids playing PADDYCAKE in the back seat. It's emotionally manipulated to the point of comic, and, so, yeah, Tony shows he has 'moral credibility' by not blowing the kids up.

Sorry, DePalma, but you **can** have characters with personal integrity without being motivated by the violent deaths of ultra-cute movie kids-as-plot-devices. He needs to respect his audience more.

Please nest your IMDB page, and respond to the correct person -

[–] ebright99 7 years ago

Up until the 1980s it was very common for parents to send children to the corner market to buy cigarettes. Being sent to the corner to buy liquor was commonplace in the early twentieth century. The Rothchilds didn't do it, but among the working class it was common. Also, it's made clear that the proprietor, the mother, and the child had an agreed upon understanding.