MovieChat Forums > Hoffa (1992) Discussion > Why Change The Ending?

Why Change The Ending?

posted 14 years ago by dustinblythe-1
29 replies | jump to latest

I just re-watched "Hoffa" and during one of the extra features, Devito mentions that he has been working on the film for three years. If so, why not get it right?

While it is true that no one knows what happened to Jimmy Hoffa, we do know a few facts.

He was at Machus' Red Fox restaurant at a suburban Detroit strip mall, not a nameless "roadhouse" in the middle of nowhere.

Hoffa's car was left at the scene, not carted away in a semi.

Why bring discredit and ridicule to your project by blatantly disregarding the facts during the most pivotal point in the movie, the thing everybody knows Jimmy Hoffa for: his mysterious disappearance?

I would love to ask Danny Devito about this.

One last thing: why not shoot the movie in Detroit? Was it that much cheaper to do so in Pittsburgh? It would be a cruel irony if the reason for shooting in Pittsburgh was the high union wages in Detroit.

[–] fortunate1 14 years ago

You've missed the real creative points, dustin.

The first, and most obvious, is that it's a movie and not a documentary -the writers and director will craft a scene that's most pleasing to the eye and heart, not to the literal brain. Truth can often be best conveyed in that way. The venue represented in the final scene of the film was, I thought, a fine representation of the isolation that Hoffa had descended into, a metaphor that would have been lost had the scene been filmed at a strip mall.

The second, and more poignant, is that Hoffa is driven away in a truck, the back of which is nearly covered with various state license plates -symbols of the success of Teamsters and Hoffa's union work. Irony -although irony's not a strong point for Teamsters, I'll grant you.

The third point is that no one knows, in fact, how Hoffa died. That Hoffa's car was actually left at the scene of the crime has nothing to do with the mystery that characterises his disappearance, which mystery the film captures well.

You cast out words like 'discredit', 'ridicule' and 'blatant disregard' -all of which make you sound more like a prosecutor than a defendant. And yet it's a movie, man, not a trial. I know the former almost always speaks more forcefully to those open to new ideas.

[–] ni_loco 13 years ago

I know I'm a bit late, but that's a great answer!

[–] fortunate1 13 years ago

Thanks, nl; I'd forgetten I wrote it.
(It was a good movie, too!)

[–] akingofcomedy 8 years ago

So if Oliver Stone had made a version of JFK where the limo exploded instead, that would just be an artistic expression? It's not like this film (and Mamet's screenplay) wasn't going out of its way to tell an accurate chronology, so it does seem like some weird creative choice to monkey around with those few known details on the man's disappearance.

The poster's point had merit, but you're actually the one that came off as more dismissively judgmental/misguided/shortsighted to my ear at least (--OP has no vision, --OP missed the point, --OP casts out words, --OP sounds prosecutorial) all while peddling haphazard guesses about symbolism and meaning. It is just a movie and it surely doesn't matter. But condescendingly throwing out someone's whole point with such bloviated certainty reads a bit pompous - & patting yourself on the back for it is cheesy. Respectfully.

~just giving u a little bit back

[–] fortunate1 8 years ago

I'm not quite sure what it was I said to contort you so, rex, but your agitation flatters me.
Ending your post with "Respectfully" was a disappointment though -your only false note.

[–] akingofcomedy 8 years ago

That's funny, it was added as an afterthought.

[–] fortunate1 8 years ago

By all appearances, aki, all your thoughts are afterthoughts.

[–] fortunate1 8 years ago

So you scurried off into your hole, akin, without following up? Figures.

[–] akingofcomedy 8 years ago

As I said, this is all so extremely and profoundly unimportant. But since you just completely ignored every word I wrote about how dismissive you seemed toward others (proving my point) - I'll just repost what I initially said & maybe this time you'll feel inspired to stay on the topic you were earlier so keen to discuss...

The poster's point had merit, but you're actually the one that came off as more dismissively judgmental/misguided/shortsighted to my ear at least (--OP has no vision, --OP missed the point, --OP casts out words, --OP sounds prosecutorial) all while peddling haphazard guesses about symbolism and meaning. It is just a movie and it surely doesn't matter. But condescendingly throwing out someone's whole point with such bloviated certainty reads a bit pompous - & patting yourself on the back for it is cheesy. Respectfully.

=

Where might one buy such an inflated sense of self?

[–] fortunate1 8 years ago

I ignored every word you wrote, kink, because none was worthwhile -profoundly unimportant as you say (in bold -so it must be true!).
Consequently, repeating your original post looks sort of silly, as if reposting your inanities would make them weigh more.
After all, you picked this fight yourself: live openly with your hypocrisy. (That includes your dishonest "Respectfully".)

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] akingofcomedy 8 years ago

Respectfully...

[–] rgibson-20 8 years ago

That is one of the most inapposite arguments I've ever read, even on IMDB. :)

[–] srterese 8 years ago

I enjoyed the movie because of the incredible talent of Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito, not to mention the rest of the cast. I remember reading somewhere that when Jack Nicholson, in full-make up and costume, met Hoffa's son, Hoffa Jr. was so stunned because he said that Nicholson looked exactly like his father down to his mannerisms and the shape of his teeth. Hoffa Jr. said something to the effect of, "I am looking at my dad."

The fact that some people are so perturbed by the ending, I think, comes from wanting to know what really happened to Hoffa. I fear, we will probably never know what happened to him. If one were to put a false ending to a story for which we already know the ending/facts, that would perturb me. When I first watched Inglorious Basterds and Hitler was killed in the theatre fire, it bothered me. But, when I watched it again and allowed myself to consider what could have been, I enjoyed it more. It's one of my favorite movies now.

Movies, like stories, are an art. Some movies are better art than others. And, as the viewers of art, we all have different interpretations and tastes of what we are seeing. Not everyone will appreciate a Michaelangelo, or a Picasso. Personally, I like Dali myself!

I thought Hoffa was made extremely well and the actors are what made it that way. I thought the sets and scenery were excellently done. Did you know that the nun at the hospital was Nicholson's daughter? Read that somewhere, too. I could tell she couldn't be a real nun. She was too stiff.

[–] nutsberryfarm 8 years ago

it should have ended with this song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yca2BCwAnBQ

and the waitress dancing! 

🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] obtec2001 7 years ago

I actually meant to reply a few days after your great post, but I forgot until now; It seems like everyone thinks every movie should be a documentary and any veer from the exact history ruins the film. A successful movie has to steer the audience to certain emotions and sometimes the real story does not provide that. Also, the same goes for books. Just because a book was a best seller does not mean that the author didn't make a mistake here or there and a filmmaker may make changes.

[–] Little_Korean 14 years ago

It's not like we know what happened for real, anyway, so why complain?

When darkness overcomes the heart, Lil' Slugger appears...

[–] UtopianUK 13 years ago

If a film is based on real events, then it does need to be accurate. If not, people will be annoyed at things that aren't true in the film. Yes, we don't know what happened to Hoffa, but we do know some facts that mean the ending of the film is an issue.

Maybe they should have made a film inspired by Hoffa's life, which would have given them licence to let their imaginations run riot. You'd still have a really good story, if not better, and people will still like it, or maybe like it more.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] davcar-1 13 years ago

I still believe films should have a little bit of leeway to use poetic license. It just depends on how much they twists the facts. Honesty does it really matter weather the film portrays him waiting for who he is going to meet at a coffee house instead of a restaurant? I believe that is kind of trivial and I believe that is an accepted us of poetic license. The film does add an ending to it but it's only because the facts are not known and it states clearly on the back of the DVD that Hoffa's disappearance has never be explained.

While in the movie The Hurricane with Denzil Washington there is a fight in the movie that the movies makes out that the Hurricane won the fight but was cheated by crooked judges, when the truth in real life the hurricane did not win the fight. I believe that goes over the border of poetic license to downright a fabrication and a lie.

A film is a film. A documentary is a documentary. Go figure.

[–] rj-27 13 years ago

"Maybe they should have made a film inspired by Hoffa's life, which would have given them licence to let their imaginations run riot. You'd still have a really good story, if not better, and people will still like it, or maybe like it more."

They did.

It was called F.I.S.T. (Federation of Inter State Truckers), directed by and starring Sylvester Stallone in 1978.

In case you didn't know it was supposed to be about Jimmy Hoffa, the movie ends with the shot of a bumper sticker that reads "Where's Johnny?" (the union boss played by Stallone who mysteriously disappears).

[–] wallerm-149-483060 13 years ago

DId you know Red Hot Chili Peppers lead singer Anthony Keidis (sp?) plays his son in that?

[–] akingofcomedy 8 years ago

awesome little factoid - thanks

[–] fortunate1 13 years ago

Everyone knows a roadhouse is more poignantly metaphoric (in an ironic sense, obviously) than a steakhouse.

I'll leave it to you, plunket, to inform Martin Scorsese of that!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] longoriarj 12 years ago

I don't know exactly how much was known about Hoffa's unnatural disappearance back in '92 when this film was made, but I can tell anyone who is vaguely interested to know what really did happen, read Frank Sheeran's account in "I Heard You Paint Houses" published in 2004. Then come back and critique the "creative points" (fortunate1) of the movie that bear little resemblance and in fact are far less interesting than what really occurred. Not to say I didn't enjoy the movie on its merits of being a fiction film with a great performance from Jack Nicholson. What bothers me more is people watching it, critiquing it, and then not bothering to learn anything more about the facts.

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

The ending was odd only because so little was known of how Hoffa disappeared. There have been plenty of people who have made informed guesses.

Its that man again!!

[–] nen-414-175541 8 years ago

I have not yet watched this movie. I would like to, as I have just finished
reading the book titled "Hoffa," by Arthur A. Sloan, Ph.D. In Mr. Sloan's book,
I have learned that Jimmy Hoffa was absolutely revered by most of the rank-and-file Teamster members. Also, Mr. Hoffa was highly respected by a great many of
the employers because Mr. Hoffa understood the reality of the industry and knew
contracts better than anyone else. The employers also came to appreciate Mr.
Hoffa as being fair, not only in contract negotiations but also in the settle-
ment of the many union grievances.