I first saw the movie a couple of months ago and thought the ending was lazy, cheap, and underwritten.
Then, when I thought about it a few days ago, I realized that in comparison with the rest of the movie, which was masterfully written, why would an ending like that happen?
Is this Kubrick's ironic sense of humor or something along those lines?
It would be the writer's or editor's sense of humor, not kubrick's. The film was made in a time when filmmaking was very different. Actors acted, period. They did not write, or produce, or grip keys (cuz that's what key grips do, right?) Editors did not direct. And directors directed. Once they were done shooting, they went home. There were no auteurs then, films were tightly controlled by the studios.
-- -- -- --
"Okay, son, I'll give you my authorization code. It's E-A, T-M, E."
the history of cinema doesn't agree with your take
either does the history of The Killing, which was independently produced, entirely outside the control of the studios
2014 Screenings: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls054830628/
All well and good, but if you look at the credits, Kubrick was the chief writer too.
Also, I think you missed the OP's question.
Watta ya lookn here for?
What do you need explaining for you? Surely the ending speaks for itself? What, specifically, do you consider "lazy, cheap and underwritten" about it?
THE INQUISITOR
Movies, Culture, Opinion and more...
http://robertod.wordpress.com/
They carefully plan everything. The heist was complex, the double cross was talked about constantly. But then, when things went wrong as in most heist films, everyone is wiped out. What stops Sterling Hayden from getting away? A runaway dog from a fat society dame.
In comparison to a well thought out heist and believable errors that leads to everyone's doom, a dog stops Hayden. Not him getting killed or caught or double crossed, but a dog ruining his chances.
Kubrick wrote the screenplay along with Jim Thompson, so I thought it was his ironic sense of humor.
I haven't seen many other Kubrick films, so I'm not sure whether this sense of irony is normal for his work.
Yes, I think that's entirely the point. Here is this meticulously planned heist, executed almost perfectly, but Johnny is ultimately undone by a faulty briefcase and a runaway poodle. It's a bitterly ironic twist in the tale, demonstrating that the most unlooked for events, absurdly, can be the catalyst for a man's downfall.
I thought the ending was great. It never occurred to me for a minute that it was the result of "lazy writing".
THE INQUISITOR
Movies, Culture, Opinion and more...
http://robertod.wordpress.com/
You're probably right and I wasn't thinking when looking at the ending.
shareMeh, there's nothing ironic about the ending. It's simply not believable that a guy who acts all cool and composed while pulling the heist of the century (or whatever) then proceeds to *beep* it all up like an idiot when is he is already basically gotten away with it.
1) Why the hell would you risk flying with the money on the same night of the robbery?
2) Why the hell would you buy some crappy suitcase from a pawn shop to store the money in?
3) Why the hell wouldn't you at least tape the case properly shut once you discover the locks are faulty?
4) Why the hell would you start an argument about your baggage at the ticket counter?
etc.
It's almost as if they were going to have a different ending originally, but then the censors stepped in, and forced them to change it to "crime doesn't pay".
I agree with OP, the ending wasn't on par with the rest of the movie.
--
Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!
Meh, there's nothing ironic about the ending. It's simply not believable that a guy who acts all cool and composed while pulling the heist of the century (or whatever) then proceeds to *beep* it all up like an idiot when is he is already basically gotten away with it.Please don't use "meh". It's annoying.
1) Why the hell would you risk flying with the money on the same night of the robbery?
2) Why the hell would you buy some crappy suitcase from a pawn shop to store the money in?
3) Why the hell wouldn't you at least tape the case properly shut once you discover the locks are faulty?
4) Why the hell would you start an argument about your baggage at the ticket counter?
etc.
It's almost as if they were going to have a different ending originally, but then the censors stepped in, and forced them to change it to "crime doesn't pay".
Please don't use "meh". It's annoying.
"Please don't use "meh". It's annoying."
Yes, you are so right. Annoying, childish, and dimwitted. Everybody stop writing it, now.
ateisti, I agree completely. All it took for me was to look at the year this was made - 1956 - and I knew the ending in advance. It's the goddamned Hays Code. It says specifically that "crime does not pay."
It's not that the censors stepped in and forced them to change the ending. It's that you absolutely couldn't even make a movie where the heist was successful in the first place. That's just the way it was in the Fifties, under the Code, so it was specifically written this way in the first place: no changes necessary.
It's just like Asphalt Jungle, another great heist movie, also starring Sterling Hayden, made in 1950. I was watching it, thinking about how great it was, until I stopped for a second, realized that the Hays Code was still in effect, and got the sinking feeling that the ending was going to blow. And it did.
But even with all that, his planning had been done so well - he even checked his other luggage first, hours early. You woulda thought that that woulda been the perfect time for him to ask, "Hey, how much carry-on luggage can I bring onboard?" Or he woulda gone to the airport days earlier and asked that then. And bought the carry-on suitcase days earlier to fit that description as well.
And I agree: he had that "motel" room with that Joe the Greek guy - why not stay there holed up for a week until the heat dies down? I saw those two guys at the airport, and thought - how the hell do they know he'd be there? And then I figured out the answer - they didn't. It was just a dragnet to try to catch the criminals skipping town.
Plus, some anti-obnoxious poodle spray would have been nice.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
jgroub says > ...you absolutely couldn't even make a movie where the heist was successful in the first place.I don't know what you're talking about. The heist was actually successful and went off without a hitch. All their problems started afterwards. If they had split the money and gone their separate ways it wouldn't have been nearly as a good a movie as it was.
I was watching it, thinking about how great it was, until I stopped for a second, realized that the Hays Code was still in effect, and got the sinking feeling that the ending was going to blow. And it did.What made the movie interesting was how greed and deception did them all in. They did make a couple of other careless mistakes but it was Sherry's greed and attempt to deceive her husband that ultimately caused everyone's downfall. The reason crime doesn't usually pay is because of what happens after the initial crime.
You woulda thought that that woulda been the perfect time for him to ask, "Hey, how much carry-on luggage can I bring onboard?" Or he woulda gone to the airport days earlier and asked that then. And bought the carry-on suitcase days earlier to fit that description as well.Johnny did ask about the additional bag when he went to the airport to buy the tickets and pre-check their other luggage. He was told he could carry it on the plane but, at the time, he couldn't have known he'd have all the money which required a much bigger bag. When he bought the bag, he was already running late so he had to take what he could get, but I think he wanted something that was used and would not stand out. When he noticed the lock was broken he didn't have time to address the issue but it wouldn't have mattered since he expected he'd have the bag with him on the plane.
And I agree: he had that "motel" room with that Joe the Greek guy - why not stay there holed up for a week until the heat dies down?They stole a lot of money and people were killed. There would, of course, be a full blown investigation. Staying in town was a huge risk; especially after he saw Peatty all bloodied and battered. Even if he had planned to stay in town, at that point Johnny probably would have realized it was best to get out quick.
I saw those two guys at the airport, and thought - how the hell do they know he'd be there? And then I figured out the answer - they didn't. It was just a dragnet to try to catch the criminals skipping town.Those guys could have been there for any number of reasons including what you said but they were just there together. They did not seem to be actively looking for anyone or trying to notice anything out of the ordinary. I think Johnny should have expected some sort of a police presence at the airport but he didn't behave as if he had anything to worry about. It made no sense that he would attract attention to himself or the bag but that was a necessary part of the film.
I don't know what you're talking about. The heist was actually successful and went off without a hitch.
ateisti says > I agree with OP, the ending wasn't on par with the rest of the movie.I loved the entire movie especially the ending because I did not want any of them to get away with the robbery. I love irony and thought the ironic ending was a lot better than if they had simply boarded the plane and flown off to freedom. That's what would have been boring.
AND the suitcase that he chose - the keys didn't fit the lock...
Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.
You have to remember that when THE KILLING was made, the Code wouldn't allow crime films to end with the Bad guys getting away with their ill-gotten gains. Something was going to occur which would short-circuit the escape with the money, so why not a yipping little cur and a cheap suitcase?
Things are different today, of course. Compare THE KILLING to Bill Murray's QUICK CHANGE, for instance (I love that flick). Steve V.
Yep, the goddman Code....
shareThey thought about everything, right?
Even what should be done if "an emergency occurred before the money was split"
But... Johnny never thought about a proper transportation for that amount of money. That suitcase was supposed to be bought and tested way before he had the money in his hands. Just in case, like in the emergency that actually happened, he had to deal with all the money, instead of only his share.
Johnny wasn't as careful as he could've been. Criminals always think that they are so smart. But even if they are, bad luck might still catch 'em.
*FAT JESUS ON A BIKE* - Deb Morgan
The way the money exploded out of the suitcase as if it were doves being released was painfully beautfil.
I don't know what you mean by "ending" but it doesn't matter, for some reason the money slowley bleeding from the case won the whole thing for me.
"Gambling is illegal at Bushwood sir... and I never slice"
you were right the first time. lazy writing, lazy ending. terrible.
shareI loved the ending. To me it suggested that Johnny in spite of being meticulous with his plan, falls apart when he has to act spontaneously. Not only was the purchase of the suitcase problematic but he drew too much attention to himself when arguing about checking-in the case. Had he been less obtrusive in that matter then he would not have been as easy for Mr Grimes to identify at the end.
I thought the scene with the cash blowing around was so well done. My heart sank when I saw that happen and my thought was of how many died for the cash that gets scattered everywhere.
Away with the manners of withered virginsshare
Yup, planned down to the minute, but, once he had to freestyle it all unraveled. The narration really sets the meticulous tone, and then, the tone completely changes in the picture. Good flick from start to finish in my book.
sharethis is one of my favorite endings ever. Johnny is demoralized, dazed, devestated, in shock, that the plan has failed and all the money gone. Fay tells him to run and all he can say is, 'what's the difference.' The beauty is in the simplicity.
share