MovieChat Forums > Behold a Pale Horse (1964) Discussion > The ending: Humanist v. Christian? (sp...

The ending: Humanist v. Christian? (spoilers)

posted 10 years ago by ollopa-154-60301
3 replies | jump to latest

This is an extraordinary film. I caught it last night on TCM and I am astonished that I had never heard of it.

As a child raised in a Roman Catholic family, I visited Lourdes (shortly after the film was shot there). On reaching maturity, I became a humanist and have remained so throughout my life.

Spain's Republicans had good reason to hate priests. Yet Pilar saw beyond her hatred to recognise a man who could be trusted. Francisco's ethical code required him to do the right thing, even though he faced a Facist firing squad for his actions. Manuel Artiguez came to recognise this during their dining-table tete-a-tete and resolved to do the right thing too. If he had killed Viñolas, Francisco would certainly have been executed. By opting for the traitor, he struck a final blow against Facism before dying a heroic death. But he applied humanist ethics in acting to save the priest.

Why did he come back? To strike a final blow against Facism. To die an heroic death. And (perhaps at the last moment) to save the priest.

[–] winonaforever2 10 years ago

I just found the ending so sad. It's almost like those fascist pigs won, particularly that scumbag Vinolas. I thought Artiguez would either survive or die and kill Vinolas at the same time. I guess he had a choice between VInolas and Carlos (I think that's the informer's name) and he chose the traitor, which makes a point too. But I think at that point Vinolas is already aware it was the priest who spelt the beans so i don't think killing Carlos saved the priest. I think it was more to get even with Carlos after he betrayed him. Vinolas didn't even do anything and he was gloating and talking himself up at the end. What a bastard. Although what can you expect from fascists. Maybe when the kid grows up he'll take revenge.

[–] IceboxMovies 9 years ago

Fred Zinnemann's argument for the ending was that Artiguez would shoot the traitor because Vinolas would seem like an honorable adversary to him while the traitor would "seem like vermin." I always thought it was this ridiculous, and the ending of the film is a huge disappointment. A true "final blow against Fascism" would have been to shoot, well... the fascist himself. How Zinnemann and the studio executives at Columbia could possibly believe that an ending as anticlimactic as this one would result in a box-office hit is beyond me.

[–] filmfanaticNorCal 9 years ago

There is an obvious religiousity to this movie. Manuel returns to save the priest and also to prove he is a good and committed human being. Although Manuel hates the church for what they did to the Republicans during the war, the movie is about redemption. Manuel saves the priest by not killing Vinolas and getting himself killed, which makes Vinolas the hero who then pardons the priest.

Life is for lovers, and lovers are for life.