MovieChat Forums > karlhinze
karlhinze (11)
Posts
Replies
That’s a fair point also.
That’s definitely a good explanation. Although I’m pretty sure the Coens said it had no relevance to the film.
I don’t think they did to be honest.
As far as I remember, Sy died and then Larry had a chat with Professor Finkle who, when asked, said he was still getting the letters.
There may have only been a few days between each of those events happening, so to Finkle, he still saw Sy’s last letter as relatively recent, i.e. still coming.
I certainly wouldn’t say the letters kept coming “long after” Sy died.
Danny’s reaction was brilliant too.
No, it was just filmed with her going into the water and reversed for the movie.
You just didn’t get it because you’re obviously not very intelligent.
It’s a plot device unfortunately. The Coens probably came to a bit of a dead end and the best they could do to move on was to make it so they didn’t go with Tom into the woods.
A few comments here giving other “excuses”, but they’re delusional. It’s by far the weakest part of the story.
Appreciate I'm bringing up a post from over a decade ago, but although I watched it once when it came out on DVD, I've only recently re-watched it twice and I've been looking for an explanation to this very question. Sadly, I don't think there is one because I've gone over it and over it in my head several times now.
Just to clarify, the script says this:
<i>I'd gotten Doris to steal the money, the pansy had gotten wise somehow, and I'd had to kill him to cover my tracks.</i>
So why would he get Doris to steal the money? He wanted to go into business with Tolliver, which he wouldn't be able to do if... Doris stole the money. And if he believed he had been scammed and wanted his money back, then wouldn't he have been in a better position to get it back himself?
I could maybe understand if Doris objected to the deal and convinced Ed to do anything to get the money back, including maybe to kill Tolliver, but that's not given to us as an option.
And as the OP said... why would he need to cover his tracks? What did he mean by that?
I don't mind the fact that we don't know what happened to the money - Tolliver could have already deposited it somewhere.
But I try to make sense of why he's been charged with Tolliver's murder and I just keep hitting a brick wall no matter which path I go down. It's a real shame because I love this film until that point. And the Coen's are usually very good at tying up loose ends, but I really think they've dropped a real clanger with the ending of this one.
Re: the ending. I read this comment on a website recently so I cannot take any credit; but I think it sums it up perfectly:
“Since the film revels in its paradoxes, we don't see the tornado's devastation. Maybe the Hebrew teacher gets the shelter to the door open and hurries his students inside. Maybe the tornado goes in a different direction. Maybe the bad news is something Larry can recover from. Accept the mystery”.
As for the beginning… it doesn’t really mean anything. It’s just an old Jewish fable that isn’t really relevant to the plot of the film, as far as I’m aware.
View all replies >