My God!
Davis heads out into the yard, then past the gate to meet her fate... so chilling. The way they filmed it, silent and inevitable, makes it vivid, creepy, excellent. I can't believe a movie this old has such a shocking ending. I wish the story that takes us there was more remarkable.
[deleted]
Actually I think it's a pretty lame ending. I really liked the whole movie until that point but the ending ruined it all to me.
I mean technically speaking the scene is flawless and Bette Davis is great as usual. But IMO the fact that Bette Davis was killed by Mrs. Hammond feels far-fetched, imposed. After all Mrs. Hammond achieved what she wanted: Leslie humiliated before her, her marriage ruined, plus she took all the savings from Mr. Crosbie.
The fact that Mrs. Hammond still wanted to murder Leslie makes her look more like a cartoonish monster. If what she wanted was to kill Leslie, she could have done it before. But she didn't, instead of that she did elaborate a very ingenious and wicked way to get revenge. Such calculated act of revenge and the last impulsive act (murdering Leslie) doesn't match. Each act feels perpetrated by two different people.
Actually Mr. Crosbie had more reasons to kill Leslie than Mrs. Hammond at the end of the film. Or even worse Mr. Crosbie could have commited suicide once Leslie told him she still loved the man she just killed. That would have been sth devastating for Leslie.
Or perhaps they could stick together knowing they both would have a wretched life for the rest of their lives.
This movie had the potential to become the best film noir of the 40's (yes, even better than Double Indemnity) but instead of that it became just one out of many Good flicks of the period. Good but not a masterpiece.
7/10
I think you are wrong Argonauta1, because that ending is a textbook film noir ending and to have it any other way would go against the "rules."
shareLet's not forget, Argonauta, that Hollywood had the Production Code to contend with. And one rule of that Code was "sinners must pay". Thus, it was pre-ordained that Leslie must die.
I'm of the belief that the original ending--with Leslie doomed to a living hell with a husband who hated her--would have been more effective. Most likely, she would have committed suicide.
I disagree completely. I think the ending was not only brilliant, but completely necessary. There's a subtext running through the film drawing attention to misplaced colonial attitudes of moral superiority. If Mrs. Hammond had simply sold the letter to Leslie, it would have bolstered colonial ideas of the moral inferiority of the natives by implying that a woman whose husband had been murdered was willing to forgo justice in order to earn money. However, with this ending it appears that not only is she as disgusted as we might expect by Leslie's behaviour, but that she is disgusted with the colonial system of justice in general, a system of justice which shows itself to be corrupt and racist by the assumptions it makes about Leslie's innocence. It seems thoroughly fair therefore that she uses the letter not only to show us the innate corruption of the justice system, but to set the scene for her administering of her own brand of justice based not on status or race, but on love for her husband.
shareI can see it both ways now, having seen it a few more times at this point. Without the killing, the movie would be a much more delicate piece of work, and offer the viewer more to ponder. With the killing (audacious and brilliant as it is) the movie devolves into a morality play, and Mrs. Hammond's motives are discontinuous.
But perhaps that's because we've moved on to different dilemmas in modern society and a cheating wife is yesterday's news. I own a copy now, but I do watch it with an attitude of "oh my! Bette Davis turns out to be a bitch?... Big whup" and "There's just not enough to this story."
The (always ineffectual) Herbert Marshall plotline does very little to improve it; feeling like the flimsiest sort of writing. He's barely fleshed out.
I like the ending as filmed, and it's because I am drawn toward Mrs. Hammond (this movie was my introduction to Gale Sondergaard, long ago on the Late Show or something close): there are lovely moments with the great Gale Sondergaard and her almost silent role: closing her eyes in grief at the plantation; her utter stillness and the posture she maintains as she looks down on Leslie with that inimitable Sondergaard glare. How she steps away from Leslie's kneeling to pick up the letter, and Leslie's quick, slight freezing at the disdain. Mrs. Hammond is in pain, she loved Mr. Hammond, he was snatched away from her, and justice must be carried out. It feels like there is an understanding of that fact between the two women during the letter exchange. Things fulfilled at the end are fed into from this great scene:
I like Leslie examining the pretty knives in the store, and how Bette Davis is able to make the tiny moment significant without broadcasting "Premonition!" I like how the two women seem to comprehend the sickness between them, and that the justice to be carried out is outside the system, outside money, outside honor. The tiny moments between Davis and Sondergaard are electric, and make me feel that ending - between them - is inevitable. Mrs. Hammond needs it, and, in the end, so does Leslie, who knows what she is walking toward at the end.
brilliant ending!When there's no more room in hell, The dead will walk the earth...
The real ending is when she says she's still in love with the man she killed.
Everything after that was added by Hollywood because of the rules of the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The real ending is when she says she's still in love with the man she killed.
Everything after that was added by Hollywood because of the rules of the time. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one of the reasons, along with others, why this version actually fails in comparison to its predecessors, the actual play and the 1929 film version. The production code was to blame, of course, but it took away a good bit of the 'zing'.
Another ruination, the chinese mistress was not a wife, was played by an asian woman, and truly, truly humiliated the 'white' woman. They even played down that aspect of the story.
They used a white woman because of the rule against miscegenation and made her be his 'wife' rather than 'mistress'.
You don't get to see the story leading up to the shooting, you don't get the great trial scene... great scenes with Jeanne Eagels.
Even though, Herbert Marshall's scene was a small one in the first, his presence was felt throughout. The second movie's 'victim' presence is not. In the first version, the husband doesn't seem so weak, either.
I know most will say this version is better, but it's mainly because this one is crisper and has the musical score. However, I don't think that's what makes a movie. I think it's the storyline and how the actors portray their roles. In both films, the actors did as well as they could with what they were given, but it was the change in the storyline that damaged the second for me. Once again, that blame lies with the Hayes' production code. I just can't help preferring the original filmed version. Jeanne Eagels had the makings of a film star.
Don't get me wrong I really liked this version. I still do. It's just that I finally got to see the original, and it overshadowed the remake. But it was due to the storyline, nothing to do with the performances.
Indeed Davis actually "committs suicide." She knows she is going to be killed. Curiously enough the only time I had seen this film before was at least 30 years ago, on TV back in Argentina. And--maybe due to time constraints or the censors or whatever-- the film ended when she walks into the yard. The whole business of seeing Gale Sondergaard and Davis' body was not shown. I don't remember about the scene with her husband. But the truncated ending made for a much more mesmerizing finale. From the fact that the knife was missing and the moving shadow we saw at the gate, we realize SHE knew she'd be killed if she stepped out. Davis' acting of the scene, without saying a word, all eyes and expression, is a tour de force.
shareI'm glad to hear someone mention the "missing knife scene"! It had to mean something to Leslie.
shareIndeed one of the greatest endings in all of classic era Hollywood. Without it, the film in its entirety would be a good notch or two inferior to what it is now - and not only for the aesthetic reasons as the whole race/colonialism thing is as much an issue as infidelity and morality concerning the courtroom gymnastics.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
I know they were forced to change the ending due to the Hollywood code but I still like it. The inevitable finally happens, whether the audience wants it to or not.