MovieChat Forums > Detour (1946) Discussion > Tom invited his own 'Fate"with his stupi...

Tom invited his own 'Fate"with his stupidity and bad judgment

posted 10 years ago by jinmo2010
6 replies | jump to latest

-Tom should have gone straight to the police when he found Hasekell was dead. An autopsy would have supported his claim that Haskell was already dead when he hit his head on the road when Tom opened the passenger side door. Of course then he wouldn't get to keep the $700 and the car but it would have been much better than becoming a murder suspect. (He even tosses his own stuff out alongside Haskell's body, so that it could be identified as his own!!!! How was Tom planning to live on with identity of someone officially dead??

-Tom should have never picked up a hitchhiker--attractive female or not--and further complicate his already complicated situation. After all, he was driving a dead person's car under fear of being suspected as his killer.

-As soon as he realized that he had made a mistake by picking up the woman ("Vera"), he should have contrived to somehow get rid of her before she complicated the matter even further. There are so many ways to think of that he could have dumped her by the roadside. It was extremely stupid of him to try to explain what had happened (very likely even revealing his real identity) to her, the dangerous character of whom should have become apprant the moment she started to try to blackmail him). It should have been obvious to him that Vera herself was running away from the law and she would have never contacted the police even though she kept threatening to over something that she had nothing to gain by doing.

[–] DBLurker 10 years ago

Not to mention, Vera attacked Haskell (the scratches on his hand). So in the end he could've actually threatened her that it would've been easier to frame her for murder if he wanted.

Also, yeah, don't pick up hitchhikers when you are driving a stolen guard and a possible suspect for murder. That's just stupid move. Then again, Tom's character was supposed to be a shmuck.

[–] mdonln 10 years ago

Wow, I just saw this movie and posted pretty much the same general comment. It's so nice to see there are others who go through life, NOT seeing themselves as merely victims of random circumstances.

Obviously I know it's a movie and there would be no story if things didn't happen to the characters and they didn't react in certain ways, but far too often characters can come across very stupid and un-relatable. That kind of stuff is a huge turn off and ruins a lot of movies for me.

I often mention this in my comments but, more often than not, I'm told I'm being unrealistic because most people don't think like that. Apparently, things do just happen to some people in life (or so they think). It's always nice to be reminded there are others who think and behave purposefully and responsibly!

That said, I enjoyed this movie because of the way it's presented. Hearing Roberts' internal dialogue as things occur helps to explain why he goes astray. He has a pattern of talking himself into trouble because he jumps to the wrong conclusions; accepts worst case scenarios as a given; and feels powerless.

It all starts in our heads. The things we say to ourselves matter but unfortunately, for a lot of people, that internal chatter is negative and destructive. It may come from the things others have said to and about us but ultimately, though most people never realize it, it is in our control.

[–] jinmo2010 9 years ago

I extremely like and agree to your comment

[–] Phidippides 9 years ago

-Tom should have gone straight to the police when he found Hasekell was dead. An autopsy would have supported his claim that Haskell was already dead when he hit his head on the road when Tom opened the passenger side door. Of course then he wouldn't get to keep the $700 and the car but it would have been much better than becoming a murder suspect. (He even tosses his own stuff out alongside Haskell's body, so that it could be identified as his own!!!! How was Tom planning to live on with identity of someone officially dead??

Given that the story takes place in pre-CSI-investigation days, I'm not sure Tom would have believed he would have been believed by the cops. Besides, a lot of defendant-friendly court cases only came down in the 1960s, so in the 1940s defendants accused of murder would have had a tough time.

-Tom should have never picked up a hitchhiker--attractive female or not--and further complicate his already complicated situation. After all, he was driving a dead person's car under fear of being suspected as his killer.

He was probably thinking of his own plight where he had a tough time getting rides. In fact, he makes a point of mentioning the difficulty of hitchhiking earlier in the movie, which probably moved him to pick up Vera.

-As soon as he realized that he had made a mistake by picking up the woman ("Vera"), he should have contrived to somehow get rid of her before she complicated the matter even further. There are so many ways to think of that he could have dumped her by the roadside. It was extremely stupid of him to try to explain what had happened (very likely even revealing his real identity) to her, the dangerous character of whom should have become apprant the moment she started to try to blackmail him). It should have been obvious to him that Vera herself was running away from the law and she would have never contacted the police even though she kept threatening to over something that she had nothing to gain by doing.

Was she running away from the law? I think that Tom only suspected she was bluffing after they got to the hotel, but he couldn't really be sure. I suppose that's what made the story interesting - he didn't believe her but also didn't want to risk the chance of having her go through with reporting him to the cops.

~After enjoying that movie, I figured I would drop by IMDB to read about its problems.

[–] josephnatescott 9 years ago

Al (the character you guys are talking about) killed Haskell. Al is nuts. The whole movie we see is Al's confused, self-serving reimagining of what he hopes someone could believe happened, based on some clues that he is largely blocking out of his own mind and a desperate desire to see himself as blameless.

[–] liscarkat (18888) 4 years ago

We clearly saw that Al did not kill Haskell. We also clearly saw that he did not intentionally kill Vera. No, Al is not nuts. Nothing in the movie suggests that he is. In order to believe that he is, you have to just make up your own story based on nothing that is actually in the film.