Why does the film end so abruptly after the man falls? It almost seems like there should have been another scene, or the one that is there was cut short, especially the very sudden fade-out, where it really appears that there was going to be dialogue. Any input?
sharei just watched this film on tv and was struck by exactly the same thing. The film races along and makes light of many sections. For instance there is no real reason for romance to blossom between the two leads and the change from criminal to hero in the eyes of the law happens within a blink of an eye. It is almost as if someone has said "you have 1.5 hours to get from here to here, oh and fit in a romance". The wartime feel of the film is very evident but its message is a confusing one - help suspected criminals, if you feel that they are right, because the authorities are wrong and inept. What is being said here? If you happen accross a wanted man give him the benefit of the doubt first because he might actually be a misunderstood hero? Having said that the enemy is portayed as devious, clever and lacking a moral grounding - an important aspect during any war, claiming the moral high ground.
Also with the final scene, stunning though the fall was for its time, the enemy is portrayed as basically good if a little misunderstood. By which i mean the final line, which is what maybe hitchcock wanted debated in much the same way as the famous James Cagney film "Angels with dirty faces" where you are not sure if he is acting scared as an act of redemption or because he really is scared.
yeah, I quite liked this film but the ending was possibly the worst Hitchcock ending I am aware of...
shareHitchcock learned his lesson. It is ALWAYS the hero hanging by a thread (see North by Northwest). It is almost like he shot the virtuoso Statue of Liberty of scene and didn't even care enough for the obligatory embrace and kiss between Priscilla and Bob. It is a bit startling. it needs another 3-4 seconds MORE.
shareVery abrupt indeed. Did anybody notice that the fall looks almost exactly like that of Die Hard?
share[deleted]
According to Hitchcock biographer Patrick McGilligan, Hitch said he always tried to avoid ending a film with a "hat-grabber" scene. By "hat-grabber," Hitch meant a denoument scene - a scene played after the big climax - during which the audience would be so busy preparing to leave the theater by grabbing their hats, standing up, walking up the aisles, and talking that they would miss the scene anyway. Many Hitch films have somewhat abrupt endings. Two I can think of just off the top of my head are "North by Northwest" and "Frenzy." I can think of a few exceptions, too, like "Rear Window" and (to an extent) "Psycho." A true showman, Hitch was always mindful of audience reaction.
shareHow about the ending of Vertigo, which made almost no sense at all (in an otherwise equally senseless film) the villain falling (or intentionally leaping, as I saw it) just because a nun comes to ring a bell -what utter nonsense!!!
There again, the ending seems forced and more than a little "contrived," to say the least and put it as kindly as I can.
Mel Brooks ripped into that denoumont mercilessly in HIGH ANXIETY for good reason.
I understand the "hat grabber" argument, but I should think that after all the twists and turns hurled at one during a Hitchcock film, it would unlikely that anyone would just get up and leave before the credits rolled -expecting some final twist or a stinging line of dialogue before the fade-out.
Even accepting that, no director worth an Oscar nomination would willingly and deliberately ruin an otherwise good film by simply stopping it dead and tossing on THE END.
There had to have been some sort of post-production tampering or studio interference at work.
"If you don't know the answer -change the question."
I have to respond to your take on the ending of Vertigo.
I watched it for the first time over a year ago, in my Film as a Narrative Art class (on Hitchcock films - that class got me into Hitchcock). I remember being at a loss for words after watching it, unsure if I liked it or not. I felt like there should have been some resolution with Scottie and Midge (who was least leaving the mental hospital). And what about the real Madeline's husband, who conceived the entire plot? Was he caught?
However, I read somewhere that Hitchcock had originally thought of an ending scene resolving these questions, but didn't for some reason. The ending shows Scottie overcoming his vertigo - overcoming after so much pain from his love, loss, and loss again.
The reason why Madeline/Judy falls after seeing the nun, I think, is guilt. She thought the nun was the ghost of the real Madeline, perhaps?
Anyway, that's my two cents. Guess this would be better on the Vertigo board, not Saboteur, but I felt compelled to reply :)
I didn't crave any closure re Madelaine's husband nor Midge & Scottie - sometimes friendships can end abruptly and messily like this. Also very Shakespearean to just drop it and move on. (eg Lady MacBeth's psychologically nonsensical character arc.)
I definitely agree with your other points.
It's my favourite Hitch -- so dark, disturbed and troubled.
What about the following:
1) Why did Kane try to save Fry and risk his life? It does not make sense. He was his enemy. Was it so that they could have Fry speaks up secrets?
2) Why did Patricia reveal herself to Fry at the top of the Statue? She risked her life with that. Did she want to buy time? Why? After all, the police were there.
[deleted]
"1) Why did Kane try to save Fry and risk his life? It does not make sense. He was his enemy. Was it so that they could have Fry speaks up secrets?"
because Fry was the only person who could clear Kane's name (apparently)
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think I read Saboteur's ending on a book. But I don't remember which book it is.
I think Hitchcock said that the audience can make the rest of the story, because Pat knows that Kane is innocent and Fry is the Saboteur.
I think the story is fairly easy to put together at the end, so much so that it never needed to be shown. Therefore, what did you want? A dot-to-dot connection as to what was going to happen? Did you need to be shown that Barry was most likely going to be cleared of his charges and live happily ever after with Patricia? Use your imagination a little; not everything needs to be spoon fed to the audience as if they're feeble-minded.
"I hope I never get so old I get religious." Ingmar Bergman
Yeah. We should see Tobin arrested, and the Robert Cummings character pull the Percilla Lane character into the top berth of their sleeping car of a train while referring to her as his wife. Then the train should have entered a tunnel.
The End.
My humble opinion...the ending wonderfully gave us viewers the opportunity to end the story in our imaginations. Not saying it was a "cop out", which maybe it was...but would we be thinking about and imagining about what happened after the abrupt ending if it weren't executed as such?
Please do not attack me for my opinions...we're all entitled to them.
In a Hitchcock interview years ago I remember he said that Kane proved his innocence by trying to save Fry's life even though he didn't succeed. If you think this ending is sudden you need to see Hitchcock's movie The Birds.
shareEarlier Hitchcock endings were equally abrupt. 'Young And Innocent' and 'The Lady Vanishes' in particular. Perhaps as Hitchcock is known for his suspense, he might have thought that there was no need to carry on with the film after there wasn't any more room for suspense.
At the end of 'Saboteur,' that Robert Cummings has survived the ordeal and that the leading lady is in love with him as she reaches out to kiss him. It saves writing a winding up scene as there really is no need to go any further.