MovieChat Forums > The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965) Discussion > Ending still not completely clear to me ...

Ending still not completely clear to me (spoiler alert)

posted 9 years ago by rfischer-4
14 replies | jump to latest

Both Nan and Leamas are shot crossing the wall at the end. I've read and agree it was Mundt who ordered it (either at the behest of Control or on his own). I also understand Nan needed to be eliminated because she knew too much (Mundt knew Leamas would tell her he was London's man).

But why let Leamas go? He was shot only because he refused to cross and leave Nan, even though she was already dead. It seems to me Leamas also knew too much and that Mundt (and/or Control) would want him eliminated too.

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

rfischer-4 says > But why let Leamas go? He was shot only because he refused to cross and leave Nan, even though she was already dead. It seems to me Leamas also knew too much and that Mundt (and/or Control) would want him eliminated too.

I just finished watching the movie and here's how I saw it. As Leamus told Nan, they were able to go because they had completed their mission. When I heard that I thought that was kind of odd because Nan wasn't a willing participant in the mission. She was used as a pawn.

I knew there was no way she would walk away after all she had experienced and knew. I suspected Leamus knew that too; that's why he told the truth in the car. The person who shot her was the same guy who had just told them what to do to get over the wall. He also told them if anything goes wrong to keep going.

For a time Leamus may have thought they were both home free but once Nan was shot he decided he had had enough. The one thing he had asked was for them to leave her out of it. Instead they dragged her in then had to kill her. Without her, he was not willing to go on; especially after what she said. Everyone had bloody hands but that was the game. He just couldn't stomach it anymore and chose to die along with her.

On a broader level, symbolically, Nan had to die because she was a communist. As naive as her views were, she was still the enemy. A lot of people embrace the ideals of Communism because they think it is for the greater good. Unfortunately though, they don't see the truth of what it really is - the repression, the exploitation, the control.

When Leamus was sitting on the wall he is literally between the two opposing sides. He had the chance to return to the 'right' side but at that point which was the right side? On both sides are his people; on one side summoning him over to freedom and on the other, they’re shooting in his direction; killing his girlfriend; and willing to take his life as well. It goes with the theme of the movie, it's all a blur; both sides do equally horrible things in order to ‘win’ though the West sees their part as retaliatory and defensive. In a way he foregoes freedom to find the ultimate freedom from the whole ordeal.

The wall is where people usually were shot dead for trying to flee East Germany. It makes complete sense when they are leaving but Leamus is shot dead going the other direction. Either way, it all works out. The narrative will be they were shot trying to escape. Either way the mission was successful. Mundt is cleared, he remains safe as a double agent, he can clean house eliminating Fiedler's correct suspicions, Leamus escaped and was a plant who was shot trying to escape, and no one is ever the wiser.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] rfischer-4 9 years ago

Thanks for the very well thought-out view of the motivations involved. It makes much sense and provides excellent context behind what all the characters may have been thinking. Especially interesting is the view that Nan had to be eliminated for 2 reasons: 1) she knew too much (i.e., Mundt was London's man), and 2) she was a core ideological communist whom London felt had no redeeming value justifying the need to be saved from the entire sordid event.

But the key question and mystery still remains. It was obvious Mundt (and/or Control) were ready to allow Leamas to finish climbing over the wall to get back to the West. This was emphasized by the voice over the East German loudspeaker urging Lemas to go back to his side. He was only shot because he returned to a dead Nan. This still seems strange to me, as both Nan and Leamas could both have been easily eliminated together ensuring knowledge of Mundt's duplicity remained secret.

The only reason I can think of for this is that Control was still loyal at a basic primitive level to "their man", whether he was completely used and duped by them or not. They could easily eliminate a naive communist (albeit a British citizen) without subconscious guilt, but not one of their own.

Edit: possibly a final third reason for Nan's shooting at the wall was that it would make Mundt look good to his superiors, having at least partially stopped an escape that Mundt would attribute to the traitorous Fiedler (as Mundt mentioned this idea to Leamas before the escape).

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

On a broader level, symbolically, Nan had to die because she was a communist. As naive as her views were, she was still the enemy. A lot of people embrace the ideals of Communism because they think it is for the greater good. Unfortunately though, they don't see the truth of what it really is - the repression, the exploitation, the control.

I don't agree with this. The whole point of the story - whether you are referring to the book or the movie - is that the ideals are rather unimportant in the sinister political and clandestine activities which go between rival countries or national blocs. The concept of good versus evil might be good enough for public consumption but at an operational level there is little to choose between the two. In the end the symbology is that both the enthusiastic idealist and the burnt out pragmatist get it in the neck. Expedience doesn't differentiate.

This is the story.

Both sides do "wicked things". As Control says early on, "You can't be less wicked than your enemy simply because your government's policy is benevolent". So for Nan to die simply for being a communist, with a little rider about the evils of "the greater good" to make us feel good about ourselves, would not merely misinterpret le Carré's intended message. It would misinterpret everything. It would be unrealistic. The story is about "repression, exploitation and control" on both sides and Leamas' speech to Nan at the end explains that very well.

Probably also worth noting - for reasons of symbolism - that London's man in the East is an ex-Nazi...

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

I got the point of the movie but what I'm saying is there was no way his people were going to let her get over that wall. As you said they all had dirty hands so even though that side was not usually the ones shooting people to keep them from crossing over and their policy was in opposition to that, they willfully shot and killed her.

She knew too much, she was a distraction and liability for him, and she was a practicing Communist. There was nothing desirable about her. He would have gotten over the wall without a problem. That was the plan. He was only shot when his actions, coming back down to be with her when he was twice told to continue, proved he was no longer of any use to them. That made him a liability as well.

By the way, I didn't agree with the movie's premise when he said it. I'm not saying it is not the premise of the movie, I'm saying I disagree with that point of view. I don't think it's true there is no true good or bad. It's just not always clear cut and it's not always obvious by one's actions in a snapshot of time.

For instance, I am a good person who would never harm anyone else. However, if I attacked I will use whatever means available to me to defend myself. It may appear I am as barbaric and ruthless as my attacker but I'm not anything like him. Naturally, some random person happening upon the scene in the midst of it would not be able to tell the difference but the core truth remains. I may end up having to take the attacker's life but it still doesn't make me equal to him simply because in that given situation I had to behave similarly.

It's true the attacker may consider himself a good person as well and may say the exact same things I am saying now but that difference exists, however slight. The attacker may have been confused, mistaken, or misguided but since I know myself and know I would never instigate an attack or violence on someone else, I would not be on the side of evil.

That's usually the basis of many confrontations. People who are easily provoked or offended take offense to something that did not have a basis in violence and respond violently and/or they think it is their right to do whatever they want or whatever it takes to get what they want.

I feel sorry for people who truly believe it's a dog-eat-dog world. It can only mean, I think, that they've sadly never encountered anyone in their lives who they could truly trust; who was never been out to get them. That is really sad.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

She knew too much, she was a distraction and liability for him, and she was a practicing Communist. There was nothing desirable about her.

She was a communist because she was naive, not because she was evil. I can't help thinking that your basis for this is that because she's a communist, she can't have any good traits. She has to be one of the baddies.

Remember the the bit when she tells Leamus that he's killed Fiedler? It's not because Fiedler's one of hers. It's because she's morally outraged. That's why he makes that speech:

"What the hell do you think spies are? Moral philosophers measuring everything they do against the word of God or Karl Marx? They're not! They're just a bunch of seedy, squalid bastards like me: little men, drunkards, queers, hen-pecked husbands, civil servants playing cowboys and Indians to brighten their rotten little lives. Do you think they sit like monks in a cell, balancing right against wrong?"

He was only shot when his actions, coming back down to be with her when he was twice told to continue, proved he was no longer of any use to them. That made him a liability as well.

No, he looked at Smiley and made up his mind that death with the girl was preferable to being a spy.

For instance, I am a good person who would never harm anyone else.

I'm sure a lot of people would say the same thing. But when a country goes mad anything can happen. All of us are capable of evil.

That's usually the basis of many confrontations. People who are easily provoked or offended take offense to something that did not have a basis in violence and respond violently and/or they think it is their right to do whatever they want or whatever it takes to get what they want.

Yes; we're always right. I'm sorry, this would make sense if I didn't get the overriding impression that you believe the world is divided into goodies and baddies.

I feel sorry for people who truly believe it's a dog-eat-dog world. It can only mean, I think, that they've sadly never encountered anyone in their lives who they could truly trust; who was never been out to get them. That is really sad.

That presumes a level of mutual exclusiveness. I don't see anything inconsistent with not trusting people at some levels and still trusting friends and family. I think most people are like that. You would do much better to read the book but to put it as mildly as I can - you have to forget your prejudices. The salient point of the story is that the people on our side are not always good or morally justified and the people on the other side are not always evil or morally repugnant.

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

jd-276 says > She was a communist because she was naive, not because she was evil.

I didn't say that she had no redeeming qualities. I don't think you understand my point still. There are different levels to the movie. Sure, a judgment is being made about both sides; how similar they are; how they use similar tactics; how the lines get blurred, but there are still two clear distinct sides.

However muddy the waters may seem to get, which side is good or bad, Leamus is still on the side that opposes Communism. At the end he is no longer holding true to the values of that side but his side still has their point of view.

What I'm saying is not necessarily my point of view, I'm saying it's what the people on his side believe so she is, like it or not, on the wrong side as far as they're concerned. The fact he loves her and would put the mission at risk for her, he would disobey orders means she is seen as a liability.

The fact he loves her and wants to protect her changes nothing. He should have known that. Her beliefs, however naive they may be, puts her on the wrong side; on the same side as the enemy they're fighting.

And, by the way, people like her who may not be staunch advocates of their cause are often the very ones that do the most to convert others. They are the foot soldiers spreading their views like a virus. They appear to be so low key and innocuous few fear them and many can be easily converted to their way of thinking.

These types naively believe what they're following is one thing but usually find out, only too late, that they've been hoodwinked. I suspect that's what happened to a lot of Nazis and Communists. They were promised a better way of life, jobs, opportunities, welfare programs, etc. They didn't sign on to concentration camps (Nazis) or long lines and hunger (Communists). They went along with the supreme plan for one reason only to find out later what they were really supporting.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

jd-276 says > No, he looked at Smiley and made up his mind that death with the girl was preferable to being a spy.

We're saying the same thing here. They always planned to eliminate the girl and let him get away. That's why he was told in the car, whatever happens keep going. If he had gone over the wall he'd be safe. He knew that and decided to go back. Doing that meant they could not leave him alive, he chose the wrong side. He was no longer of value to them because he was choosing the wrong side, disobeying orders, and rejecting what his side stood for. He could also be used by the other side. His choice got him killed but he knew that. Just as I said the girl had to be killed, at that point, so did he.

I'm sure a lot of people would say the same thing. But when a country goes mad anything can happen. All of us are capable of evil.

Clearly we are all capable of a lot of things; just as evil doers are capable of good but choose not to go that route in most situations. We have free will. I choose to be a good person and even when confronted with opportunities to do bad I don't; again, unless I am defending myself from an attacker.

Yes; we're always right. I'm sorry, this would make sense if I didn't get the overriding impression that you believe the world is divided into goodies and baddies.

No, I don't think that at all. I firmly believe that most people are good but there are some who are filled with hatred and are evil. That's not because that's all they are, it's because that's the choice they've made or they naively follow others and fail to make their own choices. This is the basis of my problem with the premise of the movie. A lot of people are sheep who follow others blindly but some actually know what they stand for and do not simply act or react without constantly checking to see where they are in terms of their moral compass. Spies and people in certain lines of work would be horrible at their jobs and probably mentally imbalanced if they questioned every order they're given. On the wall, and even before, Leamus questioned his orders. He would no longer be effective, putting both his life and others at risk.

The salient point of the story is that the people on our side are not always good or morally justified and the people on the other side are not always evil or morally repugnant.

I get it. I got it when I watched the movie but I don't have to completely agree with it. I know both sides do things that are unsavory but I think it's pure nonsense to assume because they do that makes them as bad as the people who initiate certain actions. It worries me that you and others may not get that. Intentions do factor into the equation. That's why I used the example of being attacked. What's that saying, don't bring a knife to a gun fight... It means you have to meet your opponent where they are. You can't simply wish things away and at some point if you refuse to fight like with like you end up vanquished. I don't know how else to say it for you to get what I'm saying.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

I'm not really interested in analysing this any further. If you still don't understand it then the best thing you can do is read the book.

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

jd-276, you're too funny. Apparently you saw this discussion as you trying to educate me. How patronizing, but it's your prerogative to feel you have all or, rather, the right answers.

I feel I understood the movie's premise perfectly well when I watched it. The problem is you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. Perhaps that's because you did read the book and think that I'm missing something because I have not. That's ridiculous.

I come here to discuss movies not books. It's great that some people also read the books from which the movies were made but most people do not so it's silly how that keeps being an issue both here and elsewhere. The book is not the movie so while those who have read the book feel they're privy to more or better info that is not the case.

That particular book is not on my reading list and I don't have any current plans to add it. However, even if I had read it or decide to read it in the future, I would not confuse the two and talk about them as if they're the same.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

Apparently you saw this discussion as you trying to educate me. How patronizing, but it's your prerogative to feel you have all or, rather, the right answers.

I (stupidly) got involved because I thought you were looking for an answer that I might be able to provide. My best recommendation is that you read the book. Unfortunately, you took that totally the wrong way and accused me of being patronising. That's gratitude for you. If my advice does not satisfy you then I have nothing more to say.

[–] mdonln 9 years ago

Perhaps you responded to the wrong post. I didn't start the thread or pose any questions you needed to answer. I merely expressed my thoughts in response to the OP's comments. I participate on these boards because I enjoy reading about and discussing the movies I see. Even though I don't always agree, I actually like reading other people's opinions. Sometimes they raise issues I may not have considered.

If you think I should be grateful to you for suggesting that I read the book, fine. Out of courtesy I'll say thank you. However, I don't feel I need to read the book and at this point have no desire to read it. Perhaps you should direct that advice to the OP and others who feel they didn't quite get the movie. Personally, I don't think any movie should require a companion guide.

A movie can inspire a viewer to read the book and/or learn more about the subject mattered covered in the movie. That's great but if one has to read the book in order to understand the movie, something is wrong. Typically each is the creation of different people so each should stand on their own merits; otherwise, in my opinion, there's a flaw and someone has failed to make their point.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

[–] jd-276 9 years ago

I don't know why either of us is still bothering.

[–] DaveBowman2001 (520) 2 years ago

"When Leamus was sitting on the wall he is literally between the two opposing sides. He had the chance to return to the 'right' side but at that point which was the right side? On both sides are his people; on one side summoning him over to freedom and on the other, they’re shooting in his direction; killing his girlfriend; and willing to take his life as well. It goes with the theme of the movie, it's all a blur; both sides do equally horrible things in order to ‘win’ though the West sees their part as retaliatory and defensive. In a way he foregoes freedom to find the ultimate freedom from the whole ordeal"

Very well said. It's obvious what's going through his mind on the wall to the viewer, but you put it very eloquently. I was kind of wondering why they (the author etc) didn't "chose" a more high probability escape route, than climbing the wall, but it make sense in the spirit of the story where he literally dies right on the line separating factions. Kind of a perfect ending symbolically.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (6544) 3 years ago

Leamas was okay because he was a fellow warrior who had done a good job. Nan was a civilian who now knew too much and might well talk, especially given that she was a devout communist. Looked at another way, the reason she had to die was given in the earlier philosophical discussion Leamas has with her. Expediency is the main priority, more than morality or other considerations. That's the Message of the story.