MovieChat Forums > The Letter (1940) Discussion > Did Mrs Hammond get away with murder?(sp...

Did Mrs Hammond get away with murder?(spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by psen57
8 replies | jump to latest

We all know that Leslie Crosbie had to pay the ultimate price for her crime as required by the Hay's Code but it appears to me that Warner Brothers got one back on the Code by having such a clever unclear ending. There are strong suggestions IMO that the Chinese policeman who waves Mrs Hammond away may have been an accomplice to the crime. My reasons are;
1) Why doesn't the policeman see the body outside the gate.
2) Mrs Hammond and her friend don't seem too worried about the policeman and it appears that he may recognise her when he shines the torch on her face. All very casual with hardly a word spoken.
3) If Mrs Hammond was arrested then we must presume the Chinese policeman is the only character in the film who is not morally corrupt.
4) Mrs Hammond and her friends have a strong warchest extracted from the Crosbies of $10,000 which would have been enough to bribe an entire police force at the time.
5) As suggested in a previous thread there is an underlying theme in the film of us against them. That is the Colonials versus the Chinese and other Asians.
6) If he wasn't an accomplice what would have happened after the body was found. Would he have accepted a handsome bribe to cover up. IMO almostly certainly he would have given the imorality exhibited in this film.

All this leads me to believe the policeman was cleverly portrayed as an accomplice who was keeping an eye out on the crime scene.

Any thoughts on this,

Regards

Paul

[–] jamesabutler44 15 years ago

I think you're reading way too much into the ending. The policeman was a regular patrolman. Keep in mind the house was in the wealthy (probably all white) section of town. He saw two apparent Asian strangers and ordered them to move on as it was clear they probably had no business being there. As for the body, it was dark and the death actually took place inside the gate so he wouldn't have seen it. The whole point of the ending was the murdered man's wife getting her revenge, and the murderess getting what she had coming to her.

[–] lastmidnite2 15 years ago

But when the body is discovered, Hammond's wife will be arrested as she was at the scene of the crime. Movies in those days would NOT alow a murderer to get away with it.

[–] RobbieCalifornia 15 years ago

No way they could have gotten away with it. I just watched the film and reran the ending. Both the man and the "eurasian" woman jumped back a bit when the policeman appeared, obviously startled. If Bette Davis couldn't get away with murder, how could they have?

The Wire...the best series in the history of television

[–] psen57 15 years ago

Hi all and thankyou for your replies. There is enough evidence shown at the end to arrest Mrs Hammond and her friend at a later time. But we see no actual arrest takes place. This leaves open the possibility for anything to happen. As I said before no one is untouched by corruption and racial tension in this film. On reviewing the final scene there is not much to suggest the policeman is an accomplice but would he take a bribe to forget he ever saw them there? Mrs Hammond and her friends can well afford to bribe anyone and I doubt that a native policeman working for colonials is paid well enough to not be tempted. I believe this would be a reasonable intended post ending for the viewers to consider.

Cheers all.

[–] Balibari 14 years ago

The only way I can make sense of it is to aaume it's either deliberately ambiguous what will happen to Hammond's wife, or that Wyler was trying to put one over on the Hayes code.

If she is meant to get away with the killing then why have the scene showing the strange meeting with the policeman? On the other hand, if she's not going to get away with it why don't we have a shot of the policeman realising what's happened, and why is their meeting so strangely relaxed?

I just saw it and came on here to see if I missed something as those last few seconds were unclear to me.

[–] WardenGordonBorden 14 years ago

The last, tacked-on scene, I agree, is deliberately ambiguous, shot only to mollify the 'Code' enforcers.

In your heart of hearts, you want the unfaithful, cold, lying, selfish wife to get what's coming to her. And she does. But the ridiculous Hayes Code can't leave any major crime unpunished - and Mrs Hammond was guilty of extortion and premeditated murder.

So you can take the ending either way you want: Mrs Hammond may have been caught in the murder investigation conducted after the discovery of Mrs Crosbie's body, OR the incident with the cop on patrol was just for dramatic effect, a suspenseful moment not unlike Hitchcock, and the perpetrators ultimately escape into the night. Without the final scene, the setup and revenge killing was a work of art, worthy of the mind of the evil criminal genius, the 'insidious' Dr Fu Manchu. Only the Hayes foolishness forces us to pause and consider the consequenses at the end. There should be none.

I think the perps get away with it, but the last scene comforts the Hayes thought police.

Hi, Bob.

[–] prenzie-1 14 years ago

In the original story by Maugham and the stage adaptation, Mrs. Crosbie DOES get away with murder.The corny retribution ending was tacked on by the Hayes office as some of you have guessed.

[–] HOHNancy 12 years ago

"But when the body is discovered, Hammond's wife will be arrested as she was at the scene of the crime. Movies in those days would NOT alow a murderer to get away with it."

I agree with this comment. There is no way that she will get away with it...someone will see the body and will connect it with Mrs. Hammond, since the lawyer already seen her in person earlier (at Chinatown).