just take Haskel's body to a hospital and explain to the police what happened? In the movie he was afraid that they would blame him for the blow when he hit his head but by running he almost admitted it. If he had taken the body to a hospital and reported everything to the medical and police personel then that would not be the actions of a guilty man.
shareBut then this movie would be not only be 'a short' but a rather boring short as well
"The Flagon With The Dragon Has The Brew Which Is True"
This is the world of film noir.
First, Haskell hits his head when he opens the car door. To Roberts, this could be construed as murder: a down-and-out piano player with no money and no means to get to his woman, in the vicinity of a dead man with a lot of money.
You have to understand there is a possibility that Roberts is NOT an innocent man; his flashback (his retelling of the events) are in no way reliable. If you believe Haskell was not murdered (which is definitely left open for just that interpretation), imagine how a jaded and cynical Roberts could construct it as such.
Secondly, as a commmon element of film noir, Roberts is a 'victim' of fate, to which he is somewhat aware (as a couple lines of voice over prove), and acts as though there is no way out (i.e. his fate is sealed). This leads to his transgression.
Of course he should have taken the body to a hospital, but that wasn't his logic. Instead he thinks he can get away with covering it up but instead finds himself in a far more complex web of deceit and treachery.
Classic noir!
I agree with mreilly, noir characters often find themselves in a downward spiral that they just cannot get out of. And Roberts states pretty plainly why he didn't take Haskell to the hospital or the cops - he feared they wouldn't believe him. That's all we need, on with the story.
Except... I disagree with the part about Roberts being an unreliable narrator. He's not relating the story to anyone specifically, just going over it in his head while sitting at the counter. There's no reason to lie about the murder, unless he's lying to himself - and that makes him crazy, not just unlucky, which never really comes up anywhere else in the movie. I think he's a reliable narrator, and the story about Haskell hitting his head is true. Whether he was dead already (from whatever ailment he was taking the pills for) is the part that's up for grabs.
Nice.
Classic noir!
Secondly, as a commmon element of film noir, Roberts is a 'victim' of fate, to which he is somewhat aware (as a couple lines of voice over prove), and acts as though there is no way out (i.e. his fate is sealed). This leads to his transgression. - mreilly1-2
People kill people and try to make it look like an accident all the time. And they call the police and report it all the time, trying to cover their tracks. It's the hiding in plain sight theory. The problem with it is that law enforcement has heard about the theory, and therefore look in plain sight too. In any case, the police would have at least had to entertain the possibility that the story given to them by the broke hitchhiker they'd never seen before of how a healthy looking man just up and died might not be completely accurate. I'm not a forensic historian, but I doubt the science for determining cause of death was not as sophisticated as it is now, 55 years later. And even now, how could you really tell the difference if a man fell and hit his head, or was pushed? The prosecutors scientists says one thing, the defendant's another.
Or, maybe Roberts just didn't want any parts and rationalized it to himself that he'd be implicated in a murder to make it easier to abandon the body and get on to LA to see his baby. Or any one of a thousand other reasons. Is it really that implausible to think that a person who is alone with a stranger who dies and whose body has signs of trauma might worry they may be implicated in the death and prefer to just divorce himself completely from the situation?
If Roberts had taken Haskell to the hospital or the police, he wouldn't have gotten to keep the car and money. He had to be thinking about that on some level.
share<If Roberts had taken Haskell to the hospital or the police, he wouldn't have gotten to keep the car and money. He had to be thinking about that on some level.>
Great point.
Actually, the best point I've heard anyone make on the topic.
That would have been my answer too.
The Divine Genealogy Goddess
The only thing I didn't understand is why the hell he offered to take the girl.
And it's not only because she is a girl that turned out to know the real Heskell.
But any person at all.
He was going to have a stressed trip having to chat and pretend he's Heskell all the way till Hollywood. While he could just be alone in the car.
Good point. Maybe he wanted to split the gas bill?
The Divine Genealogy Goddess
You're asking why a man alone on a long trip would pick up a beautiful and desperate younger woman?
shareI just watched this film and it's a film noir masterpiece. The raw, low budget quality really adds to the grimness.
Tom was a fool to pick up a hitch-hiker while disguised as the bookie. That's just over-complicating a situation that's difficult enough already. He should of drove the car to LA as fast as possible and then dumped it somewhere. Tom is an interesting character. There's no guarantee that the cops would of believed his story if he turned himself in. I can see why he decided to make a run for it instead. Sadly, fate decided that he would not have a happy ending.
>Tom was a fool to pick up a hitch-hiker while disguised as the bookie.
agreed. but i suppose it runs into the whole "fate" theme that tom had been preaching/complaining.
Everything is explained then if you accept that Tom was a fool. Afterall, a man who was not a fool would not find himself broke and hitch hiking across country to meet up in LA with a girl who left him to become a movie star to begin with.
Stories don't just happen to heroes, interesting things occur in the lives of fools.
Yes, this is the main story of the movie and Tom being a fool plays a part to why he ends up in the mess he is. The ending seemed a bit far fetched, but Tom has brought it upon himself even if it wasn't intentional. That said, Tom still would have gotten away with it until something else happened to to mess him up or the police discovered some evidence to the contrary, i.e. he was foolish, but not stupid enough to get caught. Obviously, I am not counting the surreal ending put in where he's arrested by the police.
The alternate theory that Tom is crazy is interesting, too. If the film maker put in something where we end up questioning Tom's sanity, then it would make for a compelling argument as to why Tom did what he did and would make him less foolish. It sounds contradictory, but if he's crazy, then he's less foolish. Vera dying would not seem as far fetched, too.
I'm not a forensic historian, but I doubt the science for determining cause of death was not as sophisticated as it is now, 55 years later. And even now, how could you really tell the difference if a man fell and hit his head, or was pushed?
Simple answer: Duke University Lacrosse case prosecutor, Mike Nifong. Google it. That malodorous affair would itself make a terrific Film Noir plot.
Cops don't get brownie points for NOT arresting (yes, they should, but they don't). They get atta-boys for arresting. There's part of the answer.
Prosecutors in real life don't get strokes for refusing to prosecute. They get strokes for successfully prosecuting. Al is right: he's the perfect fall guy for any shady cop or ambitious prosecutor who wants to make a splash by convicting somebody for a crime. Even if one didn't happen. Unfortunately, railroading of the accused happens more often than we'd like to know.
Penniless, drifting, no advocate: basically, Al is very possibly totally screwed. In the world of Film Noir, his actions to cover up the problem is perfectly logical.
[deleted]
Film Noir happened before Quincy M.E. and all the CSI shows. The point of these shows was to prove the REAL cause of death. My question, could Film Noir films work in the age of Quincy,M.E. and the CSI shows?
shareAnother possibility could be that Tom is just not smart. If you take his story at face value he makes stupid decisions over and over again.
shareIn movies and tv cops always suspect the worst, and treat everybody like suspects. I had this in mind in 2005 when I discovered my dad after he shot himself in the head. I picked up the gun, which left my fingerprints on it. He didn't leave a suicide note. He had held the gun in his left hand even though he was right-handed. Everything added up to the kind of scenario that, if it had been film noir or an episode of "Law and Order", would have had the cops all over my ass. But the real-life cops were polite, didn't question anything I told them, and I never heard from them again.
share