MovieChat Forums > The Asphalt Jungle (1950) Discussion > Two needless mistakes that changed the r...

Two needless mistakes that changed the robbery (SPOILERS)

posted 12 years ago by hobnob53
61 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS BELOW!

Here are two critical mistakes, made by different characters, that changed the outcome of the robbery and cost at least four lives. And both were foreseeable.

One: If Emmerich wanted to steal the loot for himself, why bring in a third party (Brannom) to complicate the matter? And why pretend he wanted to fence the stuff himself? He should have simply helped arrange for the fence, made himself the middle man in delivering the loot, after which he could have fled with the money. Granted this entailed risks, but so did any attempt to cheat the gang. Cobby could still have fronted the money for him. At worst (assuming the cops didn't catch them), Emmerich would have gotten his third of the take, without risk to himself...at least, without becoming mixed up in murder, and ultimately taking his own life.

Two: When Dix, Doc and Louie are leaving the store with the loot, Dix spots the watchman through a door. He has Louie open the door, pulls the guard in and slugs him, causing the guard to drop his gun, which goes off and hits Louie -- ultimately costing him his life. But the door Dix looks through, and has Louie open, is not the door they exit through to get downstairs to the basement where Louie had broken through the wall. That door is to the right of the one from which Dix sees the guard. So -- why lure the guard in at all? Why not just sneak through the right door, move quickly downstairs and get away as they in fact did? If the guard had come through the door he'd almost certainly have gone directly into the store to see what was up, not bothered with a closed door leading to the basement. Even if he had, they should have had enough of a head start to get away (maybe by slugging the guard down below if really necessary).

The first issue stems from Emmerich's haste and incompetence. But the second seems pretty basic. Had these two things been done more sensibly, in all likelihood the robbery would have succeeded, and four people who wound up dead -- Brannom, Louie, Dix and Emmerich -- would never have been shot.

But then, the movie wouldn't be quite as great as it is.

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

As to point one, "why bring in a third party (Brannom)?", didn't he (Emmerich) initially need Brannom to shake down some people who owed him money? (This was to get the 50 grand "seed money" to front the gang that would be pulling off the heist). I believe he told Brannom to round up 100 thousand dollars that was owed to him (Emmerich), and also to use "whatever means best fit each case" or words to that effect. In other words, Brannom appeared to have done "dirty work" for Emmerich in the past. So I guess Emmerich not only felt compelled to bring Brannom in on this deal, but - unwisely, of course - he trusted Brannom enough to tell him the details and make him a partner. It might have been a lapse of good judgement, but, to me anyway, it didn't seem out of character for Emmerich, since apparently he had had prior dealings with Brannom - dealings that were, shall we say, not strictly on the up-and-up.

He should have remembered the old maxim that there is no honor among thieves. But I guess that little truism escaped him in his greed and desperation. Yes, that's it in a nutshell: He fell victim to his own greed and desperation. He was a "wealthy" man with no money, clearly with a growing negative cash flow (could fund neither his image nor his style much longer. And with a hot young Marilyn Monroe being a part of his style, you can imagine that he was bound to make mistakes. lol). This caused him to be desperate and foolish.

As to point two, "Why lure the guard in at all?", that actually made sense to me. My take is, that Dix wanted to lure the watchman in and "bop" him because he felt threatened by the presence of any night watchman being about, as the three of them (the criminals) were on their way out of the building in just a minute or so. So he figured he'd do a preemptive strike right then and there, when he had a clear and (supposedly) easy shot at the watchman. If Dix didn't stop him there, then the watchman might discover them down below as they were making their way out the part of the building that lead out to their waiting car(s). So Dix's reasoning actually makes sense. It's just that things took an unexpected turn for the worse when the bopping of the guard resulted in his gun hitting the floor and accidentally discharging, hitting Louie.

[–] mickeeteeze 12 years ago

Which is basically what the Sam Jaffe character (the wise one!) kept insinuating all the plot long. The little mistakes. Both those things pointed out are possible. As far as Brannom goes, Emmerich essentially considered him his 'hired hand'. Most attorneys of that type have their team of trusted investigators. A far more over the top version of the Emmerich character could be Sean Penn in "Carlito's Way". a lawyer who handles crooks somehow thinks he's a smarter crook. Anyways, great film, "Asphalt Jungle". I caught it for the first time in 3-4 years. Never disappoints.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I agree with you, mickeeteeze, about "the little mistakes". A similar thing happens in the French heist movie "Rififi". I'm also very fond of the comedy heist movie "Who's Minding the Mint"...also a movie in which a lot of things go wrong (but in a funny way).

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

True, Emmerich initially brought in Brannom to collect the money owed him, but he should have been wise enough not to mention the robbery. Of course, Emmerich's problem was that he was so desperate that he wasn't thinking things through clearly, and made lots of mistakes as a result. He was probably the single biggest detriment to the success of the robbery. (Another reason Doc should have trusted his instincts and sloughed him off.) Add to this the risks he was taking in trusting Brannom.

I still think luring the guard in was a mistake, and not just because Louie got shot. Remember that Louie was against pulling him in, but that Doc told him to do as Dix said. (It didn't even look to me that the guard was necessarily even going to open that door, perhaps just passing by it, when they decided to pull it open and yank him in -- though I'm probably mistaken about that.) Still, they had time to get down the real stairs, and should have. Alternatively, Doc and Louie could have gone down, leaving Dix to conk the guy on the head when he came through the door -- preferably without pulling him in, but catching him off guard once he's through. Two fewer people in the area would have made things easier for Dix to do his work.

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

I still have to believe that Dix was acting on a cautionary instinct to quash any guard activity before it could turn into something more dangerous for the robbers and their escape. The guard only needed to have sensed that something was wrong in the jewelry building and yell across the street to where all the cops were, sort of like "Hey, fellas, get over here quick... It's the jewelry store, not the bank!" So I think Dix did the right thing by getting the jump on him. It's just that what happened next - the gun accidentally discharging - is where all the trouble started.

I think the scenario with Dix luring in the guard was more to show how simple twists of fate can undermine man's efforts. I think both of these scenarios we're discussing - two things which ultimately served to undermine the heist and make it a failure - whether they were outright mistakes or twists of fate or a combination thereof, were part of the overall message of the filmmaker who seemed to be making a statement to the effect that "crime doesn't pay, and here's why you shouldn't get mixed up in criminal activity."

In the case of Emmerich and his blind trust in Brannom, it was a little lesson in, as I mentioned earlier, "there is no honor among thieves." In the case of Dix and the watchman, and the watchman's gun accidentally discharging, it was a case of "even the most meticulously planned heist can be instantly negated by some twist of fate over which man has no control," or something along those lines. Also, as the aftermath of the crime unfolded, notice how they incorporated the element of snitches and informants: when the police wanted the public's help in finding Riedenschneider, look at how many people were willing to claim that they had seen him? In other words, if you're doing a crime, you suddenly won't be able to trust anybody you know or have known, because anybody is likely to turn you in for reward money. Or in the case of the doctor who called in on Dix, it was a case of "if you're involved in a crime and you're shot, good luck trying to fool a doctor into believing that that bleeding hole in you was caused by a car accident."

So yeah, in addition to being a good suspenseful crime drama, this film was also a real cautionary tale about how crime doesn't pay, and those two mistakes or accidents of fate we've discussed, among other things in the film, are part of the lesson to be learned. Sort of a Crime Doesn't Pay public service announcement. lol

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I basically agree with everything you say, and of course the film was structured so as to point out the elements of blind chance as well as miscalculations that affect the course of events.

My only purpose is to point out two places where, had they taken different decisions, the outcome would most likely have been different (and probably better) for all concerned.

I still think they could have either let the guard be and escaped (it's unlikely the guard would have found them going down the stairs to escape -- and couldn't they have locked that door behind them?), or at worst, left Dix there alone to knock the guy out, at minimal risk to the gang. But they had little time to think. More considered judgment may have led them to react differently.

Actually, in this case, there was a great deal of honor among thieves. The only weak link was the cowardly Cobby, who finally broke down. All the rest -- Doc, Dix, Gus, Louie, even in his way Emmerich, stayed silent. None ever implicated the others. Doc was fingered by the cops, not his gang. Cobby excepted, the pros among them, at least, all pretty much stuck up for one another. In fact, one point the movie makes is that there is such a thing as honor among thieves -- in spite of which, things still went wrong.

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

After re-watching the scene where they pulled the watchman in, you're right in that they could have just ignored him and gone through the other door, because their getaway route was actually underground - through the utility vault which led to a manhole cover somewhere down the block. As such, he probably never would have seen them as they went that route. But it also appeared as if the watchman was too close for comfort, so maybe that's why Dix felt he had to neutralize him. Still, in keeping with my view on the film serving as a great cautionary tale, that scenario was quite effecive in showing how blind fate can rear its head and spoil even the most meticulous plans.

Great film. And a good anti-crime message! Oh, and as to the ending, with Dix dying of the gunshot wound, I could only think of that old saying: "You live by the sword, you die by the sword."

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Regarding the watchman...I think that they just panicked and didn't think when they attacked him. They didn't have a plan of action ready for him, and had to do some very quick thinking.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

You're right, and that was a big mistake.

[–] KingCobra686 10 years ago

Not necessarily. Taking out the guard gave them a much larger head start at escaping. Yes they could have made it down the side door before the guard came in and saw them, but the guard would have noticed the break in not too long before he came in that door and the cops would have been after them minutes after they left.

I'm not sure how many watchmen there were, but if he was the only one and he had a decently long shift, theres a good chance that they would have hours before anyone else came through the bank and noticed.

[–] hobnob53 10 years ago

Knocking out the guard in itself wasn't the problem. It was the way they went about it. At a minimum they should have all stood to one side when Dix yanked opened the door to pull the watchman in, to make it unlikely anyone would get in the way of a stray shot. Or they could have pulled him into their escape hole after them and knocked him out (or off) since he'd be off-balance and in the dark if he tried to go in there after them.

There was only the one guard. Of course, he heard nothing until the alarm unexpectedly went off, which makes you wonder how good Doc's plan, or his information, really was. He didn't expect the alarm to be triggered by the explosion.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I'm glad you see what I mean about the guard, Eric. Still, you're quite right, they obviously thought in the heat of the moment that the guard needed neutralizing, which I think was the wrong decision, even without Louie's being shot.

And you're absolutely correct about the film's cautionary message. I wonder whether any real gang of crooks saw this film and copied it for one of their own, perhaps less ambitious, capers, making sure they didn't make the mistakes the bunch in the movie did!

Dix, when you come right down to it, died of stubbornness, a quality I've never admired. But if you care to look at that trait as his sword, he did indeed die by the sword -- his own.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Have you seen the French heist movie Rififi? It's kind of similar to this movie, but far more violent.

You might also enjoy the sixties comedy heist "Who's Minding the Mint". A lot goes wrong in that movie as well, but in a humorous way.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Yes, I've seen both. Never though about it, but Who's Minding the Mint? was a sort of comedic version of TAJ. Imagine Sterling Hayden dressed as George Washington?!

I should have expected a mention of that film from someone who's such a fan of Jim Hutton!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

"Who's Minding the Mint?" was definitely ahead of its time. Comedies about people in a situation where everything goes wrong were popular in the eighties. The only thing missing from Mint was a jocks versus nerds storyline. If that movie had been done in the eighties, then such a storyline would have been put in for sure.

Another comedy caper from the early sixties is "The Honeymoon Machine", though that one doesn't have the "everything goes wrong" theme to the same extent as the other movies mentioned.

As for Rififi, that one is a bit too violent for my tastes.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I don't know -- I think movies where eveyrthing goes wrong had been around for decades. If anything, Who's Minding the Mint? was a bit of a throwback, with its gentle humor and family-oriented comedy, which even by 1967 was falling away in favor. The film is very different from what you'd get in the 80s, let alone today.

Rififi is very much a movie of its time and place. It's good, but in general I'm not a huge fan of French cinema; I prefer Japanese, Russian, and some others much more, though there are of course certain exceptions, such as The Wages of Fear.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I wasn't around in 1967 (I was born in '76), but yes, quite a few things changed around 1967 (not just movies).

As for French movies, I've seen a few of them and I've liked them. I really like "Elevator to the Gallows"....great comedy-noir.

Japanese flicks: I've seen a few Kurosawa movies, all of which I liked (Rashomon, High and Low, Ikiru).

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Yes, I saw you mention on another thread that you were born in 1976 -- a fact that's also given away by your IMDb name! As is my birth year by mine -- so I remember 1967 pretty well...including when Who's Minding the Mint? came out!

Another reason that your affinity for the late Jim Hutton is so interesting. You were only 3 when he died, while I remember his entire career contemporaneously. As I've said, people liked him, but I never heard anyone call him a "hunk"!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

My generation was told to admire Tom Cruise's looks. I have never, ever liked Tom Cruise. I became smitten with Jim Hutton when I saw him in "Ellery Queen" for the first time. From that day on, I made it a point to track down as many of his movies as possible. Some of them really aren't easy to find! A pity that he isn't better remembered.

The ladies didn't call him a hunk? Seriously? They must have been blind (tee hee). Seriously, though, I have bumped online into women born in the fifties and they remember him being a total hunk.

Were you ever attracted to him? Or did you prefer Paula Prentiss?

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I'm a straight guy, so I never had any interest in Jim Hutton as a hunk or anything else along those lines! But I always found Paula Prentiss very sexy.

Everyone has his or her own tastes, of course, but during his life most people seemed to regard Jim Hutton as a tall, gangly, pleasant-looking but not especially handsome guy, but never as a hunk of any kind. Steve McQueen, Paul Newman, Rock Hudson...these and similar actors were thought of as "hunks" in the 1960s. Never, never, ever Jim Hutton. Obviously some people may have thought so, but that was definitely not a majority consensus, or anywhere near it. Sorry, but that's the truth. And frankly, personally, I can't for the life of me see him as a "hunk", at least according to my lights. But as I said, such things are a matter of personal opinion and attraction, not objective "fact". What is fact, however, is that Jim never had any such reputation among his peers or the public in general.

He should be better remembered today, but so should a lot of actors. I'm appalled at how many really big names are so little known today, even of performers who have passed on only in recent years.

But I agree with you about Tom Cruise. His looks aside (and I never knew what all the fuss was about), I don't much care for him as an actor, and his adherence to that mind-controlling cult of psychotic liars called Scientology is the final nail in the coffin. I have never been able to understand the psychology of mass group-think, whose members actually forfeit their lives to some psychopath's insane (and money-making) schemes and dictatorship over their existence. Cruise, like all Scientologists, has to be mentally deficient in some way to fall in with a bunch of thugs and losers like that. Just ask his ex-wives!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

You sound like a gentleman.

I've always had unusual tastes in men. Even when I think about the sexiest men in "Where the Boys Are", I'd pick Jim first and Frank Gorshin second. I suppose we're supposed to like George Hamilton, but he was too much of a pretty boy for my tastes. I have met several women on these boards who either had a crush on Jim back in the sixties/seventies, or have liked him throughout most of their lives. Most people probably just don't remember him. My generation doesn't know him at all. (By the way, I've never looked twice at Steve McQueen, Paul Newman, and Rock Hudson.)

At any rate, I think that Jim Hutton was incredibly sexy. He was very cute in the sixties, and he got sexier as he got older.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Well, I thank you for that "gentleman" comment, Mrs.EQ. I'd like to think I am...occasionally!

"Cute" is probably a word I'd agree with describing Jim H. As I said, "sexy hunk" doesn't come to mind at all, since "hunk" to me implies some degree of brawn and machismo, not qualities I believe Hutton possessed. But then, as a straight man especially, my standards are probably skewed in some way on making such assessments!

Frank Gorshin?! Okay, but to me he wouldn't even reach the "cute" level!

But I agree with you about George Hamilton. His looks always struck me too as "pretty boy" and rather uninteresting. One thing we seem to agree on is that flat-out good looks are not necessarily enough to make one attractive (male or female). I've seen many women whom I acknowledge as being beautiful, but whose beauty is of a cold, uninvolving sort, if you understand what I mean -- women I simply don't find so attractive -- as opposed to beautiful. Bland, uninteresting. The same with men. Someone with perhaps less "perfect" beauty, some "flaws" or slightly unconventional good looks, may strike me as far better looking, sexier, than a person with supposedly more perfect features. (Of course, there are some people who are generally considered very good looking, whom I do find attractive!)

Also, many people do get better looking, more interesting, as they age, so your remark about Hutton in this sense is apt, and I happen to agree with that.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

You're welcome about the "gentleman" comment.

By the way, I shouldn't be judging actors too much based on their looks. Heck, I'm nothing special to look at. Five foot three, beached whale, dark hair (no hydrogen peroxide for me...EVER...), dark eyes, glasses...I'm not exactly Paula Prentiss. I wish I could look more like her.

By the way, lately I've been watching Timothy Hutton on the big screen. "Ordinary People" is fantastic (saw it for the first time last night), and the first season of "Nero Wolfe" is very good. From far away, he looks like his dad. From close up, I think he looks more like Ray Milland, especially in Nero Wolfe.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

"Beached whale"? You sound unduly harsh about yourself, MEQ. But whatever we look like, we're entitled to our opinions, no?

I think I'm just average but -- this is my ego talking, so be warned, and why I've chosen to hide my immodest remarks -- most people seem to think I'm reasonably good-looking and look nowhere near my age (I'm usually taken for early-to-mid 40s, even as I approach 60 next month!). Some people have said they think I look a bit like Tyrone Power or even Gregory Peck -- now that's an ego trip; I certainly don't look remotely like Peck, though there are one or two features I might share with Power. I've gotten a few other flattering comparisons, even offers to model, over the years as well, which I take with a barrel of salt. But we're all our own worst judges. Anyway, it's all very nice, but I don't take any of it seriously.

Anyway, on to less embarrassing things. I've never taken a shine to Timothy Hutton. I think he deserved his Oscar for Ordinary People -- I'm not getting into our Oscar argument again! -- but overall I've always found him a very sullen, humorless actor with little charisma. Capable, but not particularly likable, and his career has not been interesting. He's probably a better actor than his father but not as engaging.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Well, I'm serious about being a beached whale. Hey, sorry if I embarassed you. Yes, it's often hard to describe ourselves to others, and I didn't mean for you to do so if you didn't want to. (Some recent online comments I've heard about myself from people who don't know me in person have been very inaccurate and rude.) We'll just stick to movies from now on. That's always a safe topic. (By the way, I'm turning 37 next month. Our birthdays must be close together, maybe even on the same day. I was born in early February.)

I think Tim Hutton did a fine job in Ordinary People. I think he could have done the role of Archie Goodwin a bit differently. Overall, I'm okay with him, but he's not nearly as good or interesting as his late father. I think he's paid a couple of nice tributes to his father. I saw his Oscar speech online, and at the end of it, he said that he wishes his father could be there to see it. I've seen one episode of his current show Leverage, the one where the main characters dress up as classic detectives, and he dressed up as Ellery Queen (just like his dad).

Geez, this thread is going off-topic! My fault, as usual. Hey, where's Eric? I hope he didn't run away. He's a gentleman, too.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

You didn't put me off (why would you think you had?), but I may go back at some point and delete that concealed portion of my message above. Too uncomfortable for me!

My birthday is at the very start of February -- February 1 -- along with Clark Gable and John Ford, for two.

I remember watching the Oscars in 1981 when Timothy Hutton won and thanked his father, to applause. Up till then I hadn't even known he was Jim's son! I figured it out shortly afterward.

We are way off topic here...all of us. Maybe we should pull back and stick to something closer to The Asphalt Jungle!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Hi again!

I reread my earlier post, and I hadn't actually asked for personal info. It was nice of you to offer it, but if you want to delete it now, that's your business. I rarely go back to reread conversations, anyway.

I would like to address what you've written...my birthday is a few days after yours, and I saw Tim Hutton's Oscar speech on youtube last year and more recently as well. Very sweet of him to thank his father. Great pic of him on IMDb. He's not nearly as sexy as his dad, but he sure looks sexy in that one picture. It's the black and white one with him standing a bit on the left side of the picture.

Bad habit of mine, sending threads in the off-topic direction. I hope we didn't chase Eric away! I don't like to see anyone excluded.

I saw "M" for the first time last night, and that movie does follow the pattern of a heist movie...except that this time, the characters are trying to catch a serial killer.

I saw "Hellfighters" for the first time two nights ago. Honestly, Jim Hutton was so extremely sexy in that movie...hotter than fire!!! The movie is great, too. If you like Katharine Ross, then you can watch this one for eye candy as well. She's the leading lady.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

I know you didn't ask for personal details -- you offered some of your own, so I did too. Again, I think you may make too much of things sometimes!

Eric's still around...and we're all off-topic around here, so don't worry about it!

It's funny you mentioned Hellfighters, because just last night I was wondering whether you'd seen it. (I'd assumed you had, being a Jim Hutton fan.) Yes, it's not bad -- I have it in my collection, in fact. Now I have to ask whether you've seen his other film with Wayne, The Green Berets. This is another one I'd assumed you've seen, but perhaps not. It's not exactly the standard Jim Hutton movie. If you haven't seen it, you should, to be a Jim Hutton completist, though it's really not a very good movie, even putting its propagandist aspects aside. But let me know whether you've seen it, because if you haven't, you might want to talk to me first!

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I haven't seen "The Green Berets", but I know a lot about it, including how it ends.

As for Hellfighters, its tagline should be "Jim Hutton - hotter than fire".

Regarding the first part of your message...I just didn't want to offend you.

Hey, feel free to send me private messages about movies (recommendations, etc.) if you wish.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

No offense at all. And we will go over to the PM route, I think. Just one Jim Hutton thing, concealed for others: When you say you know the ending of The Green Berets, do you mean the actual ending, notorious for its geographical goof? Or about Jim Hutton in it? (Or both?)

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I was talking about Jim Hutton's character's fate. I'll reply to that other post and then we can take the PM route.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I knew you mentioned your birthday here someplace! It took me just a few seconds to find the post. Happy birthday!

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I've been reading through the points mentioned in this thread. Not much more to add here. I basically said everything in that other thread. Most crime movies are like that...the criminals always make these little mistakes. I just don't like it when the criminals are very careless from the very beginning (ex. "The Postman Always Rings Twice" 1946). In these stories, the criminals should always have a certain amount of brains, but fail somewhere along the line.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

I just thought of something else that fits in here. Well, it didn't actually change the robbery, but Emmerich should have talked to Angela in advance in order to ask her to provide him with an alibi. He called her in a hurry when the cops left his home to question her. What if she hadn't picked up the phone or something like that? What if the cops got to her before he could reach her? Poor planning on his part. In fact, all those fellows should have come up with alibis for themselves.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

That's true. Emmerich was flying by the seat of his pants throughout, even more so after his poorly-thought-out scheme went haywire. But even if he had established an alibi with Angela ahead of time, she was not exactly reliable, and surely would have cracked anyway. Far better to have never mentioned her and kept her out of it entirely. He could have just said he was alone in his house by the river. No witness is better than a bad witness.

Of course, after Dix and Brannom exchanged gunfire, there would have been blood spatter and bullet casings around that house, which even in 1950 would have been seen by police. No doubt Emmerich would have been as negligent in cleaning that up as he was in everything else. Another reason Dix and Doc should have stayed longer to make sure everything was squared away properly.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

That's true. Angela wouldn't have been a reliable witness, no matter what.

I'm just surprised that all of them didn't think about alibis in advance.

As for cleaning up the blood splatter, that's something that seems to be overlooked in most crime/mystery stories. Apparently a gun shot and/or stabbing produces no blood. Amazing.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Yes, I think blood only began seeping out of bodies in the 1950s. Prior to that we had a more genteel society where people's fluids remained where they were originally put.

Maybe some of them had alibis, or at least felt there was so little likelihood of being suspected that it didn't matter. As long as there was nothing to connect them to the job, they could just say they were at home, and no one could disprove it. But besides Angela, Cobby was an obvious weak link, and he knew all the details and people involved, making him much more dangerous than Angela.

An interesting aside is that you see westerns, or pictures of the ancient world, where no one worries about fingerprints, and every so often someone brings that up as a mistake -- not remembering that the fingerprint system wasn't discovered and put into general use until the early 20th century. Before that, you could leave prints all over the place and no one would know the difference.

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

I was also struck by Emmerich's supreme arrogance when confronted by the police, his belief that he was "untouchable". Note the following exchange in the film, between Emmerich and the Police Commissioner:

Police Commissioner Hardy: I am here to arrest you Emmerich.
Alonzo D. Emmerich: May I ask what for?
Police Commissioner Hardy: Complicty... in robbery and in murder.
Alonzo D. Emmerich: If I were you Hardy, I'd think up a few more charges. You might be able to make one of them stand up if you get an imbecile jury... and the right judge.

Wow, just a tad overconfident, as it turned out. lol

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Emmerich didn't realize that the cops already had their eyes on him, even at the start of the movie. He thought that they considered him to be an innocent man, but they were already thinking of him as a lawyer who is involved in dirty dealings.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

[More spoilers.]

Speaking of leaking blood, when Emmerich pulled out his gun and blew his brains out, all that happened was that the force of the gun being fired blew the torn-up pieces of his almost-suicide note across his desk. No splatter of blood -- or brains, or skull -- all over the place, as would really happen. Clean kills, back then.

Bon appetit!

By the way, I always felt sorry for Mrs. E -- the poor, neglected hypochondriac, utterly dependent (though not entirely sympathetic) on her husband. What would she do now? Widowed, bankrupt, nowhere to go and with no house or money or care. Rather sad and pathetic.

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

[obligatory spoiler warning for newbies to this movie]

Not only was there no splattered blood, but if you look at that scene, there was no actual gun shown, when he opened that drawer. Did Emmerich really shoot himself?? I'm starting to suspect a police conspiracy, darnit! lol

Here's the clip [see the above obligatory spoiler warning for newbies to this movie]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3f5EYmdPX8

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Well, since the movie was made way before VHS was created, the filmmakers could make such mistakes and get away with it. No one could verify the mistake by rewinding, watching a youtube clip, etc.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

I actually kind of liked the way they handled such scenes in movies back then: implied, not graphically stated. Simply put, they let the viewer use their imagination! Nowadays there'd be a long, lingering shot of the huge gun that he used, as well as a graphic depiction of blood and brains and skull fragments splattering all over the place.... er, oh, sorry, Mrs. EQ, you weren't in the middle of dinner or something just now, were you?? lol

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

GIGGLE...you're funny, Eric.

Nope, I wasn't in the middle of dinner. In fact, I watched part of "Hellfighters" (for the second time) and I'm leaving the rest of it for Thursday. I was still a bit distracted from the movie when I wrote that post. Jim Hutton is one of the stars of "Hellfighters" and he looked hotter than fire in that movie.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Interesting comment about Mrs. Emmerich. Yes, they never showed what happened to her. Another woman to pity is the one whose hubby was shot during the heist. (Maria, I think her name is.) She had a baby, too, so she was in a very tough situation.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Yes, Maria would have had it tough.

Although, if Louie got $25,000 or more for a single job, they should have been doing pretty well, not living in the dump they were. $25,000 was a hell of a lot of money back then, more than 99% of the country was making. Even pulling just one job a year would set him up nicely. Besides, in this case, he did get $15,000 down, so Maria had a nice nest egg to get her through a couple of years at least (at a time when the average person's annual income was around $3000).

About the gun --

Don't bother to check out the film. We never do see a gun in Emmerich's drawer. You just see him lean over as he pulls it open, blocking our view. And we hear the cop shout "Emmerich!" a split second before we hear the shot.

Of course, having seen L.A. Confidential, I'm not at all sure Eric's wrong. It's the sort of thing a police department could get away with back then. Kill the guy, then make it seem like suicide. Though that cop would have had to move fast! (Or the other two move very slowly!)

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Thanks!

I don't pay much attention to these kinds of filming details. I just kick back and enjoy the movie.

As far as the murder (rather than suicide) theory (regarding Emmerich's death), I think that these conspiracy theories are going to be popular these days, what with gun control issues being discussed and all that.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

^True. Conspiracy theories are all the rage these days. Even conspiracy theories have conspiracy theories behind them.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Say, what are you two up to?

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Nothing.

(Hey, check your private messages. )

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Aha! I knew it!!!

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

Jeez, I musta' missed something good.

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Nah, just you and the Mrs plotting something together...taking over the thread or whatever.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

GIGGLE...you're funny, hobnob.

(Hey, check your private messages. )

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Plotting something naughty, Eric? Maybe a heist of your own? GIGGLE...just teasing.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] Eric-1226 12 years ago

Plotting a heist?? Nope... the lessons I learned from "The Asphalt Jungle" helped steer me way clear of a life of crime! (Not that I ever actually planned to pursue a life of crime, LOL).

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

Same with me. I could never do such a thing. And yet I'm so fascinated by crime movies, mysteries, murder... Just as long as it doesn't happen in the real world!

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Well, I guess I just lost two partners in my plan to take over the Mexican drug cartels.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

GIGGLE....

Nice use of emoticons or whatever they're called.

I hope you have a terrific weekend, hobnob!

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER

[–] hobnob53 12 years ago

Thank you, same to you, and I haven't forgotten your PMs! Shortly.

[–] MsELLERYqueen2 12 years ago

No hurry whatsoever (although IMDb will delete them after 21 days).

I do tend to get carried away with private messaging at times.

~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER