The ending. - The Long Goodbye (1973) Discussion

[–] westdrop-1 17 years ago

Wouldn't say the ending is rushed, I think it's in keeping with Marlowe's character that he just can't be bothered with it all and wants a resolution. After all, he's just a bloke with a cat.

There are two types of men in this world. Those with a loaded gun and those that dig. Now start digging.

reply

[–] professorhess 17 years ago

i think the way it was shot is kind of lame, camera angles, etc, but i still really like it

reply

[–] maz89 12 years ago

Well, why do you think that the camera angles were "kind of lame"?

Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose.

reply

[–] gobias 12 years ago

So was that Eileen that Marlowe walks by after killing Terry? Also is it ever established where the money comes from to bail Marlowe out at Marty's?

reply

[–] gilper653 12 years ago

The money comes from Eileen. You hear Marlowe saying a "fairy godmother" brought the money, and later you see Eileen coming out of Marty's building in her car.

reply

[–] jc-299 17 years ago

me the same. thought he was a lifelong friend?

reply

[–] suzypulledapistol 17 years ago

Why? He got *beep* over by loads of people all his life, including his friend. It's an important theme. Shooting his so-called best friend is the best thing he ever did. It's him saying he's not gonna be a patsy anymore.

reply

[–] faraaj-1 17 years ago

I thought the ending was great. His reaction to the revelation of his friends deception was quite a shock. The last scene very obviously paid homage to a classic noir The Third Man.

Along these mean streets walks a man who is not mean himself - neither tarnished, nor afraid...

reply

[–] PatrickCurren 17 years ago

I think it's "Down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid."

reply

[–] die_cheney_die 17 years ago

In a movie utterly false to Chandler, the ending sinks even farther than that which led up to it in misrepresenting the Marlowe ethos.

Altman said he didn't finish the book, and the bogus ending is proof of that statement.

reply

[–] bstephens21 17 years ago

The Marlowe of the 40s who could bust the bad guys and come out clean himself is gone. In the modern world, the only way for Marlowe to "win" is to kill the guy.

It's not Altman being utterly false to Chandler's character, it's Altman realizing that that kind of character can't exist anymore, and in fact, probably never did outside of fiction and the movies.

Not all that different an ending than that of Chinatown. In one, Polanski says the detective can't win against such corruption. In the other, Altman says he can only "win" by becoming corrupt himself.

reply

[–] McGonigle 16 years ago

In a movie utterly false to Chandler, the ending sinks even farther than that which led up to it in misrepresenting the Marlowe ethos.

This is the most faithful-to-Chandler movie adaptation I've ever seen. All of the others, without exception, are too rushed to convey the lazy southern California atmosphere that permeates the novels.

And, if you read the book (which dates from the 50s), Chandler makes it pretty clear that the world has changed since Marlowe started his business, and not in a good way. While Chandler's Marlowe doesn't go as far as Altman's Marlowe, it's not a stretch to say that Altman's movie is a logical extension of Chandler's train of thought into the 1970s.

I know I'm shouting, I like to shout.

reply

[–] lakealice 10 years ago

I did not like that Marlowe killed Terry. It is untrue to the Philip Marlowe character created by Raymond Chandler. The character was "morally upright" and did not use violence to settle scores. I guess some people can think of this as a revised story with a more modern Marlowe, but I can't separate it from the original character, and
I don't agree that killing Terry was the "modern" and updated thing for Marlowe to do. Great movie, otherwise, though!

reply

[–] Threston 17 years ago

Marlowe trusts no one in the film except Terry, so whatever has happened to him at the hands of others (the harsh treatment by the police, the beating and indignities from the gangsters, the lies told to him at the sanitarium, even his finicky cat) he can accept. Those actions may be unjust, but -- at least according to an ethical code of his own -- he does not view them as personal affronts. SPOILER ALERT But he at last realizes that Terry, whom he trusted and counted as a friend (the only one he considered his friend in the film) has actually betrayed him, used him, lied to him, and thus placed him in the jeopardy he has endured. That, in the current cliche, is personal, and he deals with it summarily. The shock of his taking such action seems out of keeping with his behavior thus far, but it serves to highlight how great was his feeling of betrayal. In a film with, by today's standards, a remarkably low body count, and with most of the violence offscreen, that final scene takes on a much greater intensity and meaning. We now see that Marlowe is not a pushover or a weakling, but his resolve is reserved for those times that really count to him. This cannot be forgiven. For the rest, as he says throughout the film, "It's okay with me."

reply

[–] craigrmurray 17 years ago

In the Chandler novel, Marlowe does not kill Terry. Confronting him was the purpose of the hunt.

reply

[–] Gus-69 14 years ago

This is a movie, an adaptation. It doesn't have to follow the novel step by step.

----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/

reply

[–] vbelyshev 16 years ago

amen to this comment! i loved the ending, loved the whole movie...but this marlowe was a lot more interesting to me than boggart's. no offence to those that dissagree.

reply

[–] genrebend 12 years ago

Brilliant thematic analysis. This sums up, quite succinctly, why I love the movie so much.

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 17 years ago

Everything about Altman's Marlow is consistent with Chandler's character, except the ending. But I felt it fit the mood. There was only one thing that wasn't "OK with me", and this was it.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lubin-freddy 17 years ago

Thanks. I show my films students "The Long Goodbye" along with "Chinatown", after having shown "The Maltese Falcon", and make the point that Altman's Marlow, for all his coolness, hip banter, and '70s cynicism, is actually very close to Chandler's character. I remember thinking that when I saw the film at its first showing (in Jerusalem), when the critics thought it's a parody, and panned it as such. This can be contrasted with the Gittes character in "Chinatown", who THINKS he's the real thing, just as the film fools us unto thinking it's a nostalgic revisit to an old genre-friend, but as the film develops, we realize he's not what he thinks he is - just as Noah Cross tells him. I want to develop this idea in a longer comment in the near future.

reply

[–] djsnafu23 17 years ago

Don't bother.

Only kidding, woudl be nice to red some more on that... Do you think it's morally acceptable (purificaiton as th other guy states), or vigilante butcherism?

myspace.com/bankrupteuropeans

Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib

reply

[–] Noir-It-All 12 years ago

lubin-freddy

@I want to develop this idea in a longer comment in the near future.

I hope you do.

"Two more swords and I'll be Queen of the Monkey People." Roseanne

reply

[–] lcrews 17 years ago

Throughout the whole film, Gould's Marlowe is a relic from the '40s transplanted into the '70s. He lives my a different moral code. As he keeps repeating, "It's OK by me."

But at the end, he finally jumps forward into the present day, and it's not OK with him. It's meant to be jarring, and it succeeds, IMHO.

It's also meant to be a contrast to Bogart's Marlowe. Bogey never would have done that, but that's what happens when Altman gets a hold of a genre picture.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] craig-disko 16 years ago

For me the ending makes perfect sense. I'm a big fan of the Chandler novels, but I've always viewed TLG as being very seperate and distinct from that world, with Gould's Marlowe more of a "descendant" of the original.

Gould's Marlowe is most definitely a man of principles rather than morals, and I've always thought it's because of this that he's alone, save for his beloved cat. By the end of the film the realisation that someone who he thought was his best and maybe only friend has used him, flippantly put his life at risk and completely stripped away what little humanity he clings on to (poor cat) leaves him with little choice as to what course of action to take. It's Lennox who's the inhumane loser, not Marlowe, and nothing really does say goodbye like a bullet.

Frankly I'd have done the same.

------------------------
For why, Keats? For why?
------------------------

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ridge-m-1 10 years ago

Did you watch the picture? Altman's Marlowe is an early fifties character that is out of place with the customs and mores of early seventies America.

Altman refers to him as Rip Van Marlowe.

reply

[–] Squeeth2 13 years ago

Is it really four years since I wrote that?

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

reply