MovieChat Forums > Wait Until Dark (1967) Discussion > idiotic ending

idiotic ending

posted 14 years ago by miriamwebster
32 replies | jump to latest

So this panic-stricken husband rushes home to rescue his blind wife from some hell he knows not what and finds two or three corpses strewn around their blood- and gasoline-soaked apartment. . .and then, upon discovering she is safe, forces HER to walk over to HIM for a hug, presumably because he wants her to demonstrate her independence over blindness??? Right. . .Surprised she didn't grab her cane and, after beating him senseless, make tracks for nearest divorce lawyer.

Oh, yes. . .and, in case anyone forgot, this guy is the one who's responsible for nearly getting wife killed in first place by bringing home that damned doll. Whatta jerk.

[–] Excaliburan 14 years ago

Heh, now looking back, yes that part was unnecessary. It reminds me of The Secret Garden. We know that the husband wanted his wife to be independent but that moment of 'hey look what I can do' was not on par, especially with Susy had just went through. Perhaps he was afraid his wife was rendered useless ... no, I can't think of a reason to explain that.

Perry: "You, stop multiplying!"

[–] miriamwebster 14 years ago

Thanks so much. Yes, "it's only a movie". . .but there comes a point (don't ask me where) when dramatic license crosses indefinable boundaries of logical human behavior into upstate "Huh-ville???".

Don't even get me started on why (or how) Arkin's character would go to such extremes to disguise his appearance for a blind woman who lived on what appeared to be most desolate street in New York City. . .except in interest of some sort of flashy theatrical tour de force. (Think Rod Steiger's hammy multi-disguise performance in No Way To Treat A Lady.)

Still, a great thriller.

[–] FlamRatamacues 14 years ago

"Don't even get me started on why (or how) Arkin's character would go to such extremes to disguise his appearance for a blind woman who lived on what appeared to most desolate street in New York City"

At the end, he tells Susy that he went along with Mike and Carlino's methods only to double cross them in the end. From Mike and Carlino's perspective, I think they were just being extra cautious in case someone spotted them.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] redpondranch-1 14 years ago

No kidding...WHAT a total jackass!! If I were her, I would have slapped him silly, kicked him in the nads, then filed for divorce. The movie had me on the edge of my seat (and shrieking when Roat lunges for her at the end) and then that last scene just hacked me off! Still, an amazing movie! They don't make them like this anymore!

[–] emilykrycek-1 14 years ago

That scene annoyed me a lot too. I know he wants her to learn to be independent (which actually annoyed me throughout the movie), but I think that after fighting off three armed criminals, she's earned a break from being the world champion blind lady, at least for a few moments.

[–] wduffey46 14 years ago

Better yet, have Gloria throw kitchenware at Sam!

[–] Nemesis7293-1 14 years ago

I agree! Gloria should pelt Sam with every "unbreakable" in that kitchen!

[–] HoneyBakedHam 14 years ago

"Right. . .Surprised she didn't grab her cane and, after beating him senseless, make tracks for nearest divorce lawyer."

Yeah, sure its easy for a blind person to do that...not

[–] Excaliburan 14 years ago

She could have said 'Honey, my cane!' in an alarmed voice. The husband, should he actually grab it right away, hand it over to her and Susy takes the cane - Whack! Whack! Whack! She could have gotten Gloria to look up divorce lawyers.

It's easy.

Perry: "You, stop multiplying!"

[–] Kristi_Luv 14 years ago

I just watch this last night for like the 3rd time but always missing the very beginning and was thinking the same thing at the end with the husband making her walk to him! What an azz whole! Otherwise, great movie.. they don't make em like this any more!

“Marriage is wild. After you say you do, you don't for a long time."
~John Leguizamo~

[–] mizhu 14 years ago

I remember reading a while ago--HERE--that Efram Zimbalist Jr. had this same problem with the script when he was hired. Paraphrasing: 'No man would do that to his wife after what she'd been through'.

But of course, he did it because he was a hired actor to follow the script.

In the end, he saw that as his job.

[–] franny2 13 years ago

I totally agree. Put Sam in the same position and see how he does. What a jerk.
I wonder if that was the same ending in the play.

[–] maccaby 13 years ago

No, it's different. Sam is about to go to her, then Gloria tells him that she's fine, says something like "She can do it" (I wish I could remember exactly) and Susy walks to him on her own. It has its own strangeness, because in spite of the fact that Gloria is probably the character who grows the most during the play (even more than Susy), it still seems out of character for her. Clearly, the playwright just wanted a device to get Susy to walk across the stage by herself, and for that to be the last thing to happen before the curtain dropped, but couldn't figure out a logical way to make it happen, and came up with the least of the illogical ones.

It's less bothersome on stage, when Susy just has to walk a few steps. Sam comes down the stairs from the door, there's all the confusion, the flashlights, then when Susy hears Sam's voice, she swings back the refrigerator door. It looks different, because he isn't as far away from her. Sam is about to go to her and pick her up from her crouched position, and if the actors do it right, it can look as though Gloria is just saying "Let her stand up by herself," because it gives her a little more dignity in front of strangers, then Susy makes the decision to start walking toward Sam on her own.

In the film, when Gloria walks over to Susy, tells her "You're by the chair," and is basically doing what Sam ought to be doing, yeah, you really do want to smack him.

[–] sawyer1711 14 years ago

haha. I read somewhere, maybe on here, that at the end she should have kneed him in the balls instead of hugging him.

[–] llazylady 13 years ago

I have to agree. Loved the movie but WTF?? Not only does he not run to her but he tries to stop the little girl from going to her. Otherwise great movie. Saw it 44 years ago with my parents and could still remember the last 8 minutes.

[–] wkmcc 13 years ago

Man-o-man, you are so right.
I love this movie, probably because I love Audrey Hepburn. I work for an airline and years ago she wd travel with us. Service people at the airport said that in person she was even nicer than you had hoped she would be. Everyone looked forward to when she would travel, everyone was in love with her.
I was in high school and an usher in a movie theater when this came out.Each night we wd turn the lights down and then I'd go out and talk to the girl working the candy counter. And each night when you heard the audience all scream at once(and it happened every night) you knew what scene had just played.
But even then, I never liked the ending. Thought she shd walk right past him to the darkroom and get another bottle of hypo to toss at him.
Good call.

[–] scottsteaux63-735-780576 13 years ago

It does not really do to over-think such things in a film which in most other aspects is more than satisfactory. Besides I can think of one or two plausible explanations for Susy's final walk towards Sam. For one, it's established pretty early on that he isn't the type who will help her unless she needs help; he is determined that she be independent, and he is aggressive about it. She knows this. At the same time, when they finally do locate Susy at the end, she is almost completely hidden from sight behind the still-opened refrigerator door, and it would not be out of character for Sam to have her walk to him in an effort to make sure she was unharmed.

Oh and incidentally, if anyone is responsible for getting Susy into the mess with the doll it was Gloria, who "borrowed" it without telling either Susy or Sam and only returned it when it dawned on her that it was the focus of a problem.

Never mess with a middle-aged, Bipolar queen with AIDS and an attitude problem!
><

[–] mspatera 12 years ago

This is great. I can still vividly remember(after 45 years)my mother screaming about this when the movie came out. "What kind of a husband does that to his wife after what she's been through!" She carried on about it longer than I can ever remember her doing with any other film.

There were other things that bothered me about the film in retrospect (why send the kid to the station; why not just tell her to call the police? Why not just give Rote the dang doll after she found it?), but mostly the movie held up surprisingly well.

However, hubby is still an incredible jerk. Glad to hear Efrem had a problem with it too.

[–] TheHG 12 years ago

Two things ...

First, I should say that it is agreed that the ending was "idiotic". There is major incongruence between what the husband says and the actual emotional state he is in at the time. Efrem Zimbalist is generally not known for emotional displays (He was good as the main character in the TV series, "The FBI.") But here, he really is almost crying with mixed emotions of guilt, fear, and love for his wife. So, it was rather a strange thing to suddenly revert verbally to the stolid, strict teacher mode. The oddness of what he said there cannot be explained as anything but very bad (unnecessary) piece of dialog.

Second, I would like to ask if anybody wondered how Audrey's character was able to turn the tables on Alan Arkin's character so easily, especially the part where he tosses the box of matches to her. Why should this cool-as-ice killer do that? How does she get hold of the matches? In the air ... or from the floor where they fell? I don't think that anything here makes any sense although things do happen very fast, and the audience is too blinded (no pun intended)by the suspenseful situation here to do any reasoning.

There may also be a few other holes in the story that other (commenters) have picked up.