Meaning of the ending (please answer this)

I believe the dream ending was tacked on because the Hayes Office wouldn't allow Fritz Lang to end it the way he wanted.


Captain Warren 'Rip' Murdock: I'm the brass-knuckles-in-the-teeth-to-dance-time type.

Dreams don't necessarily have to include one. Believe me, I know, I have very realistic dreams where i'm no part of the action, but just an observer, it's like watching a movie.... of course, whatever i'm watching is connected with me in one way or another...

.;*We Live Inside A Dream*;.

I strongly disagree. In my dreams I often change from one person to another or observe things in which am taking no part. I don't think the movie is very dream-like, but I find it very believable that a person could invent all of the details of the mystery, even those of which he was supposedly unaware. Of course the doorman looked familiar because, since Richard was dreaming the whole thing, HE controlled the whole story! Even the scenes in which he took no part were still part of HIS imagination. I think if you consider this a little more you'll realize the error in your thinking.

Great analysis from tmaj48, and I have no doubt the Hays Office may have had a hand in the ending.

But... for me it still works. Beautifully. This movie is as close as it gets in a movie theater to entering that twilight world between dreaming and reality.

My answer to tmaj48, and the fact that the professor isn't in every scene? The dream is ultimately not his, but ours. We sit in the dark, exploring our fears and sense of risk and pleasure, as well as our latent guilt and disappointment at ourselves. And then we get to wake up and go home and marvel, a little awkwardly, at how incredibly compelling and enjoyable it all was.

I first saw this movie almost 20 years ago. I haven't seen it since, but it haunts me still -- in the best possible way.

"When you dream, aren't you always part of every scene, as a spectator
if not a participant?"

No, that depends on the dreamer. I have had many dreams played like scenes in a film, in which I was not really present.

Frederik van Eeden, an acquaintance and colleague of Freud, did his own dream research as well as dream experiments (he tried to break glass in one dream, to see if the laws of physics still applied in the known way).

Following his method, by keeping a dream diary next to my bed, at one time I was able to have lucid dreams (to know that I am dreaming and being able to direct the dream in one way or another).


That said, I love The Woman In The Window as a whole. I saw the professor falling asleep, and seemingly awaking in a dreamlike state, in which adventurous and terrible things happened. To me it was only logical and just that he woke up from his bad dream.
(Without this surreal entering and ending, I would have given this classic a slightly lower rating. As it is now, I find it to be perfect.)





"The Beamer Xperience: 9 feet wide home cinema bliss."

I tend to come down on the side of agreeing with OP that they didn't really play fair on the dream gimmick.

Let's say you're having a dream and a character in your dream does something, like say swipe a pen. Then you the dreamer show up in your own dream. But you (as a character in the dream) are unaware of the event that happened earlier in the dream (in this case, swiping a pen). But you're the one dreaming, and it happened in the dream, so wouldn't you know?

This movie is primarily the main character's dream. We the viewers see things happen in the dream which the dreamer (as a character in the dream) is not supposed to be aware of. But how could we see it in his dream and him not know?

Arguably one could chalk that up to dreams not being entirely logical and having action on several levels of awareness. But for purposes of the plot flow of a movie, that's a little out there.

I like this movie very much, but really hated that it all turned out to be just a dream. Maybe in its day that seemed like a novel device, but it sure doesn't now.

"1. When you dream, aren't you always part of every scene, as a spectator
if not a participant?"

Not for me (one can effectively be a spectator in a portion of a dream, without being conventionally present; happens to me all the time - its a little like watching a movie, in fact). And presumably, I'm not the only one this happens to.

I believe all of those "rules" about what can or can't happen in a dream, are old wives tales. I can't think of any of those rules which haven't been broken in one of my dreams. Never-the-less, some things are more likely to happen than other things; most of those rules probably indicate rarities, rather than things which can't occur.


Been making IMDB board posts since the 90s, yet can't bring up any from before December of 2004.

Please tell me Lang wanted to end the movie differently. As it is, it's a crass ending to an otherwise enjoyable film.

I find it very hard to believe that Fritz Lang would have wanted the awful, childish, simplistic, banal ending that the movie is now saddled with. It reeks of studio interference.

While there were many "code endings", I'll argue (without knowing Lang's intent) that this is not one of them! The code would not have required the "happy ending" whatsoever. In fact, if anything, it would have required a "tragic" ending because Robinson had killed someone (although probably self-defense) and was an accomplice to attempted murder and justice (legal or poetic) needed to be served. If anything, the ending is an ingenious device to skirt the code!

That aside, the entire film set up the ending twist beautifully, and would have been a lesser film without it. Why? As I watched it the first time I began to think "this guy is an idiot... he keeps implicating himself... the nitwit is actually leading the search party to the body... etc, etc". However, when the ending twist came, it all made perfect sense and the cheap plot devices (the character being stupid in order to produce circumstances with more suspense) in the story turned out to be brilliant clues to the truth of the whole story!!

It's sad that so many people just don't get it. I think one of the big problems everyone has with this ending is that in the 65 years since its release, this plot device has been (over)used, and has become somewhat cliche. However, remember that this was 1944 and the idea of an entire film being a dream was pretty fresh! The ending is PERFECT. :-)

The point of the movie is not necessarily the ending.

Why not think about the life of this man, the choices he has made? Is he happy? Having a dream like this might tell us otherwise. And yet this is supposed to be a successful life.

Another thing to think about is, what an imagination this man has! Do you ever let your mind just completely wander and see what you find? Maybe should try it some time. Could be something of an antidote to the humdrum realities of life.

great ending imo, really made the movie for me.

Re (4), it wasn't just whether the murder was in self-defense or not. Remember, he was happily (we think) married and with kids, yet he was in the rooms of a woman he just met until 1 AM. If that information got out, there could be huge consequences in that era for his personal and professional life.