Why tears at the end...?
Why is she upset in the cemetery at the end...she was setting him up for jail time anyway.
shareRegret . . . that maybe she should've handled the whole thing differently . . .
share
MovieChat Forums > The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) Discussion > Why tears at the end...?
Because either the screenwriter or Norman Jewison ran out of ideas.
shareBecause he totally threw her and their relationship over board for pride and the will to win. Because he made it impossible for her to go back to him. Because he wouldn't take punishment for his crime (lets face it he was rich enough to avoid hard time) and allow her to protect him.
The only way she could go back to him was become a criminal he upped the stakes too high for her to pay. Although she admits she can be immoral, she is in no way a criminal nor criminally inclined. She likes coming out as a good guy hero in the end. Crown called her on it.
Although he lost the actual chess game, he won the RL one. At a cost that I don't think he will fully realize until too late.
Pretty much. Thomas Crown is an extraordinarily intelligent businessman who reads ppl. like an open book, so he saw her betrayal before she decided so. Of course her dilemma is major, through Crown she recognized the inhuman mechanical nature of the corporational "system" and probably considers turning against it, but she loves her salary, manipulative powers and emotional independence too much to give all that up for TC. And TC knows she has a frozen heart, hence the ironic telegram and the smile. She IS the System, and he beats it through her.
shareClose but Vicky isn't the corporate system. She is the long arm of the law. Ultimately, she is honest and Crown isn't. He gave her a Hobson's choice, be a criminal with me or never see me again.
shareOf course she's part of the corporate system, much like a soldier is part of the army and what's it represents. She makes her living by investigating cases where the corporal (bank) system is challenged, and she's willing to sell her emotions and body for professional success. She's a corporal prostitute who's independence and lifestyle solely exists because she's part of the system, and Thomas Crown challenges her morally and emotionally, which scares her.
So it's not (just) about being a "criminal" or not, 60s movies make sure you believe the corporal system is a bigger evil than the rebelling littleman. What really scares her, besides losing her livelihood, is to do something she's long locked away: to open up and potentially get hurt by real human emotions, something she doesn't come by often in the mechanical world she lives in.
So ultimately TC realizes she's unlikely to give up her corporal status, salary (10% of the TC money), her independence, the fun of manipulation and her legal status for... love. She's somewhat an early version of Diana in Network, here she still has a chance to "become human again", there she's too far dehumanized.
The screenplay was written by a banker. Believe me he wasn't looking at it from a Marxist point of view. He was just exploring monetary corruption into outright thievery. Crown is the system...the system gone corrupt. He wasn't rebelling against anything. He thought he deserved that money. He had entitlement issues.
And Vicky was straight up honest in comparison.
Also remember that Crown had been divorced, and was fooling around with someone . . . could she trust him? . . . or was she herself just another onornament for him? . . . she played it safe and stuck with the detectives . . . which she knew was safe . . .
Yes, it's possible Thomas and Victoria did fall in love . . . maybe?
She is romantically and emotionally involved. He has already made plans to retire from business for a while and has set his affairs at home in order - what to sell, what to keep. And of course there is no way of connecting him to the second bank robbery. Remember, she gets 10% of whatever is recovered.
"No tears - not for us," he says at the beach party the night before the heist.
She lost him. It's one thing to know where he is (jail). Now, she doesn't have him. And she knows he didn't love her the way she wanted.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world
She lost and her massive ego is hurt. That's why the tears! Great movie, McQueen might be the best actor in this type of role of all time.
shareThat's it in a nutshell! Oh, those bitter tears at having been duped. This movie gets better every time I see it, and you are right, McQueen was perfect.
I did greatly enjoy the 1999 remake, but the original is still the best.
She was doing her job - bringing him in for justice - but she didn't really want to do it, so she was more than a little conflicted. If you watch her expression, her first reaction is one of relief that he didn't walk into the trap, then realisation that she's lost him (or that she never really had him) - distinctly bittersweet. Either way, it's the end.
share