The Ending ***SPOILERS***

[deleted]

I haven't seen it for a while, but I thought it was unsure whether Sibella would come through. He must have considered it to be highly unlikely.

I did accidentally kill her father when I went to pick her up for the first date. AWKWARD!

Yes but that's the delicious part. He's been unbelievably lucky right until that point and he gave up hope and decided to come clean and then just when he seems to have gotten his miracle and his escape to freedom (somewhat) he commits one blunder that ruins everything for him. All that meticulous planning of murder went to waste due to his need for confession.

But then the ending to me is ambiguous. Because its entirely possible that he could have retrieved it. He's a Duke after all. He can simply say 'I want to retrieve my personal memoirs, I believe I need to add to them' or something of that sort. I personally think it was the best way to end the film. Ironical and satiric yet funny. I think if he got away scott-free and killed Edith just as Sibylla insisted and married her then the film would be too bleak and not funny at all.

Kind Hearts and Coronets isn't a comedy of errors but a comedy of co-incidence and fate and the ending re-inforced the themes of the film.


How much is a good nights sleep worth?

Yes, of course...just more silliness to add to the farce...

Regarding this, Louis says the following ...

"But the night has gone by, and nothing has happened. It is now but a few minutes to eight, and I realize that Sibella came yesterday merely to tantalize – to raise my hopes in order to dash them again. How unlike me not to have guessed! But after all, how very like Sibella."

I, like artihcus022, think it would certainly have been possible for Louis to retrieve his memoir. Though, in a sense, it seems that the conclusion’s abrupt nature stands to neither curtail nor advance the film’s disillusioned narrativity. In the midst of such artificial circumstances, irony prevails ... how utterly mundane, and yet, how entirely apropos.

my comment is more of a question, but may provide some insight.

i think the brits had a production code much like the US had, and dastardly/criminal acts had to be punished. (think "crime does not pay."

as a consequence, films had contrived ways to punish perpetrators. irony was a clever way to conclude a film and stay within the limits of the code. in the instance of "coronets" it works both ways: the perpetrator is caught (this satisfies the censors) or, perhaps, the perpetrator gets off (satisfies an admiring audience).

david lean could create a great movie, the rest catch lightning in a bottle.

I agree with you, Oobu. I kept thinking...."when is he going to hide the manuscript? Is he going to burn it"? But no, he just walked out of jail leaving it laying on a desk. Duh!