ending
i've been hearing a lot about this controversial ending. and i wouldn't mind if someone could tell me what it IS.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Red River (1948) Discussion > ending
I thought the ending was a little bizarre too. It ended happily, with the girl going into the "you two guys love each other" bit, but I was totally expecting some serious shootin'.
"Thank you for the coffee...and the SEVENTEEN floor climb!"
yeah,i just saw it again for the mil.time,and i never had a problem with the ending..but for the first time i cought a hole in the movie...where was the law??????didn't this town have a shirriff??????????????
shareHats off to director Hawks, for not giving in to a blazing gun battle. Characters do not have to be bullet-ridden to regain a sense of honor. Tom and Matt both deserved to live and to be reconciled at the end.
"Take 'em to Missouri"
[deleted]
Neither one of the characters had to die. But the confrontation should have been resolved differently. It just came out of the blue and made no narrative sense. It was awful and marred an otherwise great movie. For the first 9/10s of the movie I would rate this higher than the Searchers. But the ending just kills it.
shareNeither one of the characters had to die. But the confrontation should have been resolved differently. It just came out of the blue and made no narrative sense. It was awful and marred an otherwise great movie. For the first 9/10s of the movie I would rate this higher than the Searchers. But the ending just kills it.I disagree.
The audience must be kept thinking that there will be a violent confrontation between Dunson and Matt because it keeps the suspense up.
Tess Millay's intervention is unexpected, but thematically, it is a stronger ending than a gun battle. Tess's intervention exposes Dunson and Matt's false masculine bravado. I've always liked the fact that it was a woman who exposes these false, masculine fronts. share
I have in my mind that Wayne was gut shot by Cliff...but it was 40 years ago i seen this on the big screen...never seen it on TV
shareIt was kind of bizarre to have such a happy ending to such a meloncholy and stark drama, silly, actually. I didn't want to see either Tom or Matt die...but maybe Groot should have been the intervenor.
share[deleted]
I don't see why Groot intervening would've made it any better. Like I said, it needed a female to expose the false masculine bravado. Groot was actually rooting for a fight.
And again, Tom probably remembered the incident earlier in the film when he did not listen to his fiance.
Matt__Garth said:
"Tom and Matt both deserved to live and to be reconciled at the end."
Tom Dunstan was a thief, stealing the land for the ranch, and a murderer, killing the landowner's representative. Tom Dunstan was so picky about finding the perfect place for a ranch that they traveled hundreds of miles through Texas country suitable for raising cattle, from the Red River to the Rio Grande, to find a spot he liked, and when he learned that someone else already owned the land he wanted he killed to take it by force instead of finding some place that was almost as good.
Tom Dunstan already deserved to die in 1851.
He seemed comfortable with the idea of stealing other people’s cattle that had been mixed in with his own, too. Only when confronted by another owner did he offer to give him the proceeds from any sales, arguing that it would be too hard to separate them from his herd. But he had previously given the order to have them branded as his own.
shareI just saw this film for the first time today. I'm give and take on classic westerns in general, but John Wayne's character slipping from sanity and going into a much darker place internally kept me going through the over 2 hour run time. Then they build it up huge to a final confrontation, and it ends in a sappy tug job. Why did a film with the dark character study reflective of The Naked Spur give us a sappy ending reflective of McLintock? Ruined the movie IMO
----------------------
"Feel pain; eat pudding"
- Conan O'Brien
Great movie could have been as powerful as the searchers but the ending almost ruined it.heres how i think it should have ended-the girl rides off because she doesnt want to see either men killed,we hear a shot she winces and the credits roll,the audience never knows who was killed.
Bring back the western!
I like the idea of not knowing who was killed. 10x better than the real one, imo
----------------------
"Feel pain; eat pudding"
- Conan O'Brien
[deleted]
Duke had to go. Whether they could do something like this or Wayne would even approve it, I don't know? But the consensus seems to be that the ending was not serious enough, following such a grave buildup by an embittered Wayne.
"He sent the rain."
"Who sent the fire?"
They could have ended it in a stalemate where Dunson walks away an embittered man. I know families where a fight ends in a stalemate where two or more members never talk to each other again as long as they live. This is a sad but unfortunately realistic outcome.
shareI thought the ending wasn't right either. Dunson had spent all that time getting men together and chasing Matt only to suddenley change his mind after Tess shouts at the both of them. But like other people have said, he was just saying he was going to kill Matt and not actually do it.
"T'ank you veddy much!"
(Formerly The_godfather_06, Godfather_07 & Mr_Martini_08)
No fan of the ending either. Not that I would have preferred a standard shoot out, but this ending was too much, too quick and completely against the developments and the character build up throughout the movie. Wayne and Clift sitting and grinning silly while being scolded by 'mommy' like two naughty little kids really hurt an otherwise very, very good movie.
voting history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=629013
I completely agree with everyone who dislikes the ending. I hate when movies that are so potentially powerful and macho are ruined by annoying female roles and love interests. However, such should be expected from director Howard Hawks since it seemed to be a tradition of his to cast largely unknown female actresses in lead roles, often to the detriment of the film. Anyway, I would have much preferred it if Wayne and Clift had duked it out for a while longer. It would only be realistic to expect one of the characters to be killed or at least badly injured. Even if she did intervene, how likely is it that either Dunson or Matt would have paid any attention to her? Seriously, when has anyone ever seen a fight, especially one so intense as this, broken up by a woman in real life?
shareTCM jut showed Red River and The Quiet Man on back-to-back days. It got me thinking how much we would have liked The Quiet Man if Maureen O'Hara stopped the fight between the Duke and Victor McLaglen. What a let-down, when the entire movie was building toward the big confrontation.
Seeing these movies so close together just reminded me how bad this one felt.
Exactly. The long fight between Gregory Peck and Charlton Heston in The Big Country resolves a similar situation much more satisfactorily, leaving both men exhausted and more respectful of one another. (The similar Wayne/Mclaughlin fight in The Quiet Man is A) derivative and B) too funny for a dramatic picture like Red River.) The only problem in such a scenario would be whether Clift could credibly give as good as he got from Wayne in so long a fight. A variation would be Wayne repeatedly beating Clift down and Clift crawling back to his feet until Wayne just gives up. This is, in fact, where most of the audience probably thought the fight was heading.
shareonly to suddenley change his mind after Tess shouts at the both of them.
She didn't only shout at them, she had a gun pointed at them too.
More importantly, it wasn't just Tess shouting, it was Matt finally fighting back. Remember when Dunson hits him he says "Won't anything make a man out of you?" He hits him about 3 or 4 times, Matt hits him back, and Groot says, "I've been scared for 14 years, but it's gonna be alright." share
Spoilers obviously. I actually expected John Wayne to die, since he became the anti-hero, so I guess you could say that theatrical ending really did surprise me, not hating it though.
shareProbably one of the worst endings to a film I can recall off the top of my head. The beginning is a bit wonky too, what with making out Wayne's character to be the hero talking about bringing "good beef" to "hungry people" when he's clearly not a heroic character.
The half-strange beginning is totally redeemed by the middle, where the movie really shines. That whole cattle drive portion is truly something; full of good drama, great characters, twists, and turns...and it really looks as though the movie is going to grow a spine, and truly allow Wayne to be a legit villain. As soon as the "love interest" showed up, I was a biiiiiit skeptical at how forced the female character was, but I thought it was handled well in that Wayne was going to let her come along to witness him kill Matthew.
But then that ending? What the hell WAS that? Not only is it tonally totally off, but narratively (as other people have said) it makes no sense, the characters completely go out of character that the middle portion did such a good job developing... it absolutely betrays and robs the film of its potential. It's a shame.
Oh, and Dunson (apparently?) just kills Cherry (who actually had turned out to be one of the more stand up characters, it would seem), and that's...fine? Yeah, everyone's ok with that. Because good ollll Dunson and Matt are best buddies again, haha! Hooray! Better marry that girl!
Red River
Dunson wasn't the horrible "legit" villain you think, and he was never going to kill his (adopted) son. The conflict between them just wasn't that deep. Many viewers seem to miss that. It was more of a macho thing that Groot alluded to in the end. Tess knew it as well and decided to break it up. That conflict between them was there from the day they first met.
And Cherry was a troublemaker looking for a fight. The film shows him to be wounded, not dead at the end.
"Dunson wasn't the horrible "legit" villain you think.."
No? I watched him murder people unnecessarily, and senselessly. I watched him try to enact his own twisted idea of "justice" only to finally be stopped by everyone collectively deciding that his ruthless tyranny had to end. I watched a man who cared more about himself and maintaining his own pride than other people, and causing misery because of it.
What am I missing?
What am I missing?
For one, you're missing an important part of the film that shows Dunson's caring side, indicating he's not the stereotypical Western villain. Dunson honors the cowboy who was killed in the stampede by agreeing to pay his widow full wages for the drive "just as if he finished it." Pretty remarkable behavior for a stone cold tyrant. He also asks Matt to give the widow anything else he can think of. Not a sign of a pure villain with no redeeming qualities. He obviously had feelings for others, at that moment at least.
And did Dunson ever really murder anyone, or shoot someone who didn't first try to shoot him? That's kind of what the end of the film is about. His personal code wouldn't let him draw on Matt, who refused to draw his own gun.
share
Except he did draw on Matt, just perhaps unwilling to kill Matt unless Matt drew in response. Do you doubt he would have shot Matt if Matt had indeed reacted to his provocation?
And that's also what I would say to your point that he never shot someone who didn't draw first. He provoked every single one of those confrontations. "Drawing first" seems less than relevant if he's clearly wanting them to draw, and pushing them to do so. Oh, he waits for them to make the first move so he can kill them the way he wants to, sure. But that makes him honorable? That excuses him from murdering those people? The first few that were wanting to desert one could argue was self defense. But he could have also defended himself by just letting them leave. But no, he decided that he had to make an example of them, and gun then down (with Matt and Cherry aiding in his protection, Matt visibly unnerved by it). And what about him sending Cherry (not Matt, because he knew Matt was "too soft") after the other deserters? He knew that Cherry would bring them back, or kill them trying. And Cherry did kill one of them. Is that not essentially him murdering that man? At the very least consciously condemning him to death? You can argue "oh, well he never said to KILL them" but it's pretty clear he knows exactly what will happen if he sends Cherry after them, rather than Matt. And he shows no remorse nor care about it either. Instead, he continues on and would have murdered the other two if Matt hadn't stopped him. He also was going to kill the sugar stealer (forget his name), but Matt stopped it by shooting the dudes hand. Dunson is just a bad person. One could say villainous. Maybe he's not a "legit" villain, like you argue, but the movie does a pretty compelling job convincing us that he is.
And I agree the film does show he has a sensitive side. With redeeming qualities. Which I loved. Like I said in a previous point, that middle section of the movie is wonderful. Because you see how Dunson is a real character, with strengths and flaws, not just a cartoon villain. He has these moments of generosity and kindness, but then we're made aware that just underneath the surface, he can be as cold-blooded as they come. And we see that all throughout the film. This makes Dunson a very real, very interesting villain in the context of the story. But no, I don't excuse a psychotic, that revels in killing people, many of which are his own men, because he tells Matt to buy a girl some red shoes. It does allow me to see that he's human. And that makes his viciousness all the more pronounced.
Until the end that is. "JK! He's just a lovably misunderstood hooligan!"
Do you doubt he would have shot Matt if Matt had indeed reacted to his provocation?But it was clear Matt wouldn't do that. Even the man he sold the cattle to (Harry Carey SR.) knew Matt wasn't going to draw his gun.
He provoked every single one of those confrontations. "Drawing first" seems less than relevant if he's clearly wanting them to draw, and pushing them to do so.
Not true. In one confrontation he is holding a bucket in his right hand, completely defenseless until Matt & Groot join in to help him.
...but it's pretty clear he knows exactly what will happen if he sends Cherry after them, rather than Matt.
But why didn't the vicious tyrant flat out order Cherry to kill them all, or kill them if they in any way resisted?
But beyond that, weren't those three men armed? Makes sense because as Cherry says one chose to shoot it out with him. The other two quickly surrendered, knowing they had no chance against Cherry in a gunfight.
He also was going to kill the sugar stealer (forget his name), but Matt stopped it by shooting the dudes hand.At the key moment Dunson is shown trying to whip Bunk, not shoot him. But then in the very next shot he is shown with a gun in the same hand. This could have been be a small "cheat" by Hawks.
He has these moments of generosity and kindness, but then we're made aware that just underneath the surface, he can be as cold-blooded as they come.But part of that is due to lack of sleep, his injury, etc... Dunson becomes that person on the drive.
Maybe he's not a "legit" villain, like you argue, but the movie does a pretty compelling job convincing us that he is.
Again, he becomes that person in large part, during the drive, but he also had some heroic qualities. Notice how in the beginning of the film he's wearing a white hat, but on the drive he's wearing a black hat. That's Hawks showing the dichotomy of Dunson.
Hawks portrayed Dunson as neither a "lovably misunderstood hooligan" or a violent sociopathic killer with a lust for blood. share
Hawks didn't care for the ending, nor did Clift. In the book, Matt & Tess take the wounded Dunston back to TX so he can die there. Once they cross the Red River, Dunston takes a handful of TX soil in his hand and dies.
However, Hawks didn't want Wayne to die in the film, so they came up with the ending they did. The ending from the book might have been interesting, and perhaps better, but it would have made the movie a bit longer, and they probably didn't want an epic. (LAND OF THE PHAROAHS would prove that wasn't Hawks' forte.)
Additionally, in the book, Cherry gets miffed when Tess chooses Garth over her & decides to steal the herd. (This is after Matt has mutinied.) He in turn in killed by Matt in a showdown.
"Be sure you're right, then go ahead."
Davy Crockett
The actual ending (no killing) is the only one that really makes sense, as it reflects Matt's & Dunson's relationship as shown throughout the film. Antagonistic, but based on a Father-Son type of love.
This ending can be unsatisfying for filmgoers accustomed to death as a standard resolution in Westerns. However, it is through the reconciliation in the finale that Red River's most significant themes are underscored. The theme of a family passing on a tradition is solidified only after Dunson and Matt make peace, but it's established even earlier when Tess and Dunson first meet and she outlines the parallels between herself and Dunson's lost love, Fen. At this moment, the viewer must know that Dunson could never allow history to repeat itself—he could never rob Tess of Matt the way he was robbed of Fen. Tess realizes this later as well; after the two reconcile she exclaims "What a fool I've been!" to think Dunson and Matt would ever kill one another. On the reverse, Matt has no need to kill Dunson; he has already won for both of them by delivering the herd after he set the drive on his own course to Kansas. When Dunson recognizes this and forms a new brand for their company, he and Matt cease being business partners and finally begin to act like a father and son. And through the visual device and passing-on of Dunson's gold bracelet, Tess becomes Matt's version of Fen. The torch has been passed, and in turn Dunson has realized the greatest hopes for his frontier life vicariously through Matt.
Source: http://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/redriver.asp share
Have to disagree. The ending my have worked with some overall thematics of the movie, but not the actions that were actually happening in the movie. The 180 by Dunston just did not make sense.
shareSince everyone knew Matt wasn't going to draw, that would mean Dunston was just going to walk up and execute him in cold blood? Nothing could be further from the truth as it pertains to their characters, and everything that had happened before.
shareI didn't mind the ending as far as the two antagonists final confrontation dissipating into an acknowledgement of mutual love and friendship.
What I minded was the embarrassingly cheesy intervention and speech by the female love interest. Turned what was a great drama into a comedy, crammed in right at the end of the film.
The ending was disappointing because it had been built up as this great showdown to the death it never really delivers. It went from being deadly serious one moment to an ending I would have expected from a sitcom. Odd. But still a very good film overall.
shareI loved the entire movie including the end. Most movies especially way back in 1948 had very one dimensional characters. John Wayne's character is very grey. Starts the movie as a good guy but by the time he decides to do the cattle run he's stealing other peoples cattle and he continues down a darker and darker path. It get's to he point he wants to hang 2 of his own men simply for wanting to quit the job. Clift's character saves the men and Wayne promises he'll find him and kill him. Clift's future wife's love for Clift reminds Wayne of his humanity and in the climax she forces Wayne to come to his senses and remember that he love's Clift as his own son and that Wayne would be happy to see his son get to marry the love of his life that Wayne never was able to.
share