The ending [spoilers]


Could someone kindly encapsulate why exactly Robbie died - it was all a cover-up and Cater was the scape goat because of Robbie's blackmail? I enjoyed the film a great deal but would appreciate some help.

reply

As far as I understood it, yes, Robbie was killed because of his blackmail attempts. Carter had the misfortune to report the body and was an easy target because he was gay, had an Arab lover, etc.

reply

There was also the politcal presure. The DA wanted to drag the "minority" leader husband into the scandal and needed Carter to give Lynn up

reply

Right. Carter knows that someone is feeding Mungo information and it's clear that Mungo is out to make a name for himself. The murder itself is more a sub plot IMO. The real story is about Carter being used as a play thing by wealthy and powerful old white women. He's a lap dog who amuses and entertains them. They know their reputations are safe with him due to his being openly gay. But, they distance themselves quickly when the possibility of scandal surfaces.

reply

What I want to know is why Lauren Bacall's character was cold to Carter at the end.

She was playing Canasta with the usual group of women, Carter comes in, and she tells him they're busy and gives him what appears to be an angry/dirty look. Lynn appears a little shocked that Carter comes in, but the other two welcome him to sit down.

Why was Lauren Bacall's character like that at the end, when just a few scenes earlier in the movie, she was walking arm-in-arm with him?

reply

I, too, was wonder the exact same thing about the look Bacall gave him. As you pointed out, walcaraz, one moment they're walking arm-in-arm and she even tells him how to get in contact with Lynn when no one else will. Then a few scenes later, for no apparent reason, after his name is cleared even, she shoots him an evil look that seemed to convey "Don't you dare come and join our game, you slimebag. How dare you even show your face around here." or the classy older lady version of that sentiment, however that might be phrased. I truly didn't get it

I must admit that there were quite a few things in this film that seemed out of place to me or left out altogether. On several occasions I thought I had somehow missed a scene or at least some important bit of information, only to rewind it and find out that indeed I hadn't missed it, it just wasn't there to begin with.

I wonder how much of the film ended up on the cutting room floor and if there might have been another scene between Harrelson and Bacall that got cut out?

Apart from the performances, I was really rather disappointed in this film. I felt that there were too many things that weren't clarified and too many holes in the plot to make it a really solid film.

reply

There was a story that appeared in the old Spy magazine--in its time, the ultimate inside dope. No one was sued, no one rushed to refute it, even though all persons concerned were named.

An anchorman was having an affair, one of many. His present wife, a journalist, met him that very way. She decided to have her own affair with another prominant journalist.

One of the leaders of DC society--think Natalie, but younger--found out about it. She had a friend inform the wife that her affair was about to be broken to her husband before the weekend. She had one day to break it to him herself. (She didn't--"Natalie" made the whole thing up.)

That day, "Natalie" called her canasta set and they met to watch the evening news, to see how the anchorman was holding up after his wife told him she was sleeping with his friend.

And that's DC society.

reply

It was bizarre to see Bacall's character's reaction. I can't explain that except to wonder if there wasn't more to the plot than we knew. But I contrast her reaction with the other two reactions which seemed increasingly shallow and superficial. Tomlin's character invited him to stay but you know she wasn't sincere, then the other character exaggeratedly said "yes, do stay!" with a big smile... I didn't believe she was sincere (or if she was it was because she was willing to be the new walked?) and Carter (Harrelson) does kind of chuckle for a minute at the absurdity of these reactions. He was there for the last time.

reply

I'd say the admiral's got it. Bacall's character seemed to be the only one who had any real respect for Carter. Didn't Carter mention the fact that she was more lovely than ever, to which she replied, "Cut the s***"?

She has no interest in seeing Carter return to their circle at a reduced status, nor to see him humiliated by a lot of condescending D.C. lady Januses ("Oh, yes, please do stay," etc.) so she shoots him the straight dope right away because it's ultimately less painful. Like tearing off a bandage quickly.

reply

Lauren Bacall's character was disappointed with Carter because he chose to be chilvalous instead of practical and was almost killed because of it. He remained the epitamy of the southern gentlemen and Bacall's character knew that none of his so called "lady friends" would ever do the same for him. It was if he felt less of a person around them because he was gay in a city that looked down on homosexuality. She wanted him to stand up for himself and put these spoiled women in their places for once.


"The secret waits for eyes unclouded by longing."

reply

I think she was putting on appearances. She was a bit of a snitch giving Carter the information he needed and probably feared being socially ostracised if the other women found out she'd put his interests before theirs.

reply

I agree with Annie Donia's explanation of Natalie's actions. I got the feeling that she was a little disappointed in him for his return. I think she was the only real friend he had among the group.

reply

Changing the topic slightly... how about Lynn's "swagger" at the end.
Carter seems to notice something about it and the camera pans in slowly as she walks to the door.
Is this perhaps the "walk" from the title? Is it to indicate that Lynn is now a part of "The DC set",
whereas before she may have been more of an outsider? Is this the sole result of Carter's quiet and
chivalrous sacrifice?

Or perhaps it's a suggestion that maybe she _did_ have more to do with it than she let on? (I don't really
believe this part, but it's an interesting notion nonetheless).

reply