MovieChat Forums > They Might Be Giants (1971) Discussion > What happened at the ending? **SPOILER**

What happened at the ending? **SPOILER**


When I first saw this film I thought that the Dr. Watson character had slipped into Holmes' view of the world at the end in the park. In other words, she had slipped into his insanity and saw Moriarity just as Holmes did, but, later when I viewed the film again I felt that the characters had died at the end. Obviously this new understanding of the ending changed the entire feeling of the film for me. It now seems so bittersweet. Did anyone else see it that way?

I know this board isn't getting a lot of traffic, so I will check back once in awhile in the hopes that eventually someone will see this post.

reply

Not really, is all I'm going to say.

reply

?

Whatever...

reply

[deleted]

Thanks for the response. I just watched the film again and unfortunately I have to say it reinforces my opinion of the ending.

"Let it be said that they found us very close together. In the light," is the last line spoken by Holmes.

It seems very much like they died to me. This scene opens with ominous music too. As funny and light hearted as the rest of this film, it is a strange and dark ending. But if you look at the rest of scenes a little more carefully you will see that they all have a tinge of sadness, regret or desperation to them.

I still love this film, but the ending causes some real problems for me.

reply

I just watched this movie for the first time. I love Sherlock Holmes but I was very dissapointed in this ending. When Holmes was searching for Moriarity in the "Who's Who" book, I realized he himself was Morarity. His subconscious was giving him clues to his real identity. He was his own nemesis and he had blocked out his own memory of his past (he said he had no childhood memories) when his wife had died (Lucy?) I thought his love for Watson would break down the barriers and release him from his self imposed exile in the fantasy world of Sherlock Holmes. I don't know what the horse coming upon them means, nor why it's approach would bring their deaths. Maybe the ending in the play was clearer. Maybe they hoped for a sequel.

reply

Holmes is Morarity. That's an interesting premise. Are there any scenes in the movie that might support that theory. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm open minded.

reply

There have been a few Holmes fans that have suggested the idea which fit into another book of the period "The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" (It showed up in Barring-Gould's Annotated Sherlock Holmes). Edward Wellen's "The House That Jack Built" is a story that takes the idea to its logical conclusion. The premise is that Holmes not finding anyone truly worthy of him subconsciously created Moriarty and eventually they came into conflict. Another idea touched on but not well explained is that the Holmes post-Return was Moriarty.

reply

The very first time I watched the movie, I felt that they both died in the end. It seemed that they were standing in the road at the entrance to the tunnel, and the light shining on them from behind was headlights from an approaching car. There are other clues in the movie. Watson tells Holmes early in the film that "I will cure you if it kills me!" Later, he says "Someone is going to die tonight--it might be me." Add the pseudo-marriage vows that they speak as they approach the tunnel, and the "they found us close together" line, and it seems clearer. But what *is* that light that comes from behind? If it is flashlights wielded by police, as another viewer suggested above, well, that's quite comforting! I will watch it again and see if I can believe that instead. Either way, it's clear that Watson took on Holmes' madness to be with him, which is beautiful and tragic and would clearly keep them apart if they were captured by the police and institutionalized.

reply

The only problem with that theory is that cars don't travel through tunnels like those in Central Park...they're just pedestrian walkways. Unfortunately, though, I don't have a better theory to offer -- that's why I'm here on the board looking for answers lol!

reply

'the light from behind', I believe, is from the headlights of a vehicle --
-- the same vehicle used by the assassin who failed to kill Holmes earlier.

After the grocery store scene, we can reasonably assume the assassin realized he did not successfully kill Holmes (again), so he ended it in the park



reply

Your original response to the film is as valid, as the assumption of death. The Horse was a good metaphor for the approach of evil, but only the approach as we never hear it arrive.

I thought it was a wonderful ending, truly in sympathy with Don Quixote. It was worth death to face an enemy so magnificent and deadly. We all die, but some of us die brightly lit, facing our enemies, clothed in the beliefs that we hold dear.

I love this film. Many decades have passed since I first saw it, and it is stll a favorite. Brilliant on so many levels.

reply

The Horse as evil, hmm, good call. I forgot all about the symbolism of horses, especially the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This horse obviously represented evil and death. Thanks so much.

How did Don Quixote end? I have had it on my bookshelf for years, but I still haven't read it.

reply

I think Don Quixote ended with Don Quixote dying of a fever.

I just watched the film, and I must say it was very funny in parts. At the time, the ending seemed a bit abrupt, but not entirely out of synch with the rest of the film. After reading some of these posts, and after nursing the DQ-TMBG connection a bit more in my head, I started coming around to the idea that the two did die in the end. But now that I've thought on it for a while, I'm starting to think the light and the approaching (but never arriving) horse just reiterated the oft-repeated and undeniable truth of our mortality. That is, I think they both resolved while staring into the tunnel "to death do us part," in full recognition of the fact that death would, at some point, part them.

Thoughts?

reply

Quixote became lucid before he died, and suffered great remorse for his exploits.

reply

I always felt that the approaching sound of a horse implied the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, with that Apocalypse being the inevitable ascendancy of modernity over the life of classical culture and civility (remember, Mr. Small would not speak to others before being properly introduced). As Holmes and Watson, now fully involved in their assumed personas, approach the darkness of the tunnel (see Conrad: Heart of Darkness vs. reality check: Under a secluded bridge in Central Park at night with all of the modern urban cautionary concerns implied), we experience a light that could easily represent both their fulfilled enlightenment and their doom as they step into the path of (choose one): 1. the ever-present mugger in the modern scenario; 2. the automobile (horseless carriage), which encapsulates its occupants in a cocoon of diffidence; or the modern horse of the previous century, the iron horse, which trumpeted the coming of the industrial age.

At any rate, the film is rich with metaphorical references which tend to provide more for thoughtful discussion than for the search for singular interpretations.

reply

I like this response very much indeed!

reply

Just watched this wonderful film again. Woodward makes the deduction in the meat locker at the grocery store that the clue "20 grand" had to do with a riding school at 67th St (hence the clop-clop of horses' hooves coming from the tunnel). It is also at that pt. that Scott and Woodward seem to become as one in their "mission" and love for one another, Scott telling her that she is a genius and now a real detective. After 4+ viewings, it seems the director left the ending intentionally vague and inconclusive.
It is nonetheless a bittersweet, all-too-human (and great) film. I noticed that everyone in Scott and Woodward's procession that gathers force and bodies as it nears the kiosk, were all examples of uncelebrated common folk, the undifferentiated masses who do the thankless jobs in society, getting no recognition or fame, but who still yearn for "romance, excitement and danger". They all wanted to find purpose and adventure in their lives, especially Jack Gifford's Walter Mitty-ish librarian, who finally gets to be the Scarlet Pimpernel of his dreams as he fights that cop "to the death" in the dairy section with a plastic toy sword and feathered cap.
Scott and Woodward too yearned for something more out of life, and possibly became engulfed by their illusions at the end. I just couldn't get a definite feel at the end on whether they really did die. From what or whom?

reply

"From what or whom?"

You make a good point. Now, I'm going to have to watch it again. :)

reply

Hi. They Might Be Giants is one of my all time favorite movies. My reaction to the ending was exactly like yours. I first thought she had decided out of love for him to join him in his insanity and see Moriarity just as Holmes did. Later, however, I too decided that they both died in the end. What helped me a lot was watching the movie The Fisher King with Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges. This is a fantastic movie with exactly the same plot. And in the end, the romantic and the realistic are lying side by side at night in Central Park with a wooden doll between them, ready to risk it all to demonstrate their faith in the romantic ideal. I think viewed from a kind of mythological point of view, They Might Be Giants says there is always a cost or sacrifice in choosing to believe that you can make the world a better place. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong. I just love that movie. Hope you are still checking this site. Sincerely, Frances

reply

Oh, I almost forgot: the magnificent musical score by the late great John Barry! To have probably the greatest film composer who ever lived score TMBG just enhances the guilty pleasure this movie has always held for me.

reply

Sancho Panza saw windmills where Don Quioxte saw dragons. Simply because we do not see dragons does not mean they are not there. Perhaps, Sancho was the crazy one refusing to see the reality of his surroundings for what they were.

And this could very well be the case of Watson and Holmes. The audience does not hear the hoofclops until Watson does. As in the stories of Holmes & Watson, the latter was always the last to know. Why would this crimefighting duo be any different.

I rather enjoyed the ending of this film. the bright light the sound of a majestic unknown. Could it be that Moriarty is God? Holmes postulated that he was responsible for the seeming tragic accidents and he mocked all those that came to walk with Holmes and Watson in the dead of night. Perhaps New York is in a box of Moriarty's creation and Holmes has figured out how to confront him.

What ever the endingone thing remains certain. Holmes and Watson faced danger most foul together and defiantly, and yet recognized the power of their enemy.

Besides when the heck would they have died?

reply

Wow what a movie! I just saw it last night but missed the beginning. I do have to watch it from the start. Magical! I thought they died at the end and it did fit with the insanity that ran the plot right through the movie.

I loved the old couple in the riding school in the old run down building, what imagery. I must admit that when we where kids we played like this all the time and were always dissappointed that the reality of daily life stole us out of our imaginary world.

Don Quixote I will have to look up and read!

reply

Has anyone noticed correlation between this ending and that of the cult series "The Prisoner" three years before? Not that the solution is the same, but in both I think the viewer fits the ending to their own view of life. For me it said Watson was joining Holmes' world, whereever it might be.

The main value of the ending, and Watson finding the clue in the meat locker, is that it saves us from another cop-out film that ends in a chase, or frenzy in the store in this case.

reply

Unless you accept Playfair's reality, there's no obvious reason to think that they die. I prefer to see it as the transcendent merging of Watson's rational and irrational sides; her story is one of growth, after all. If I were a religious person, I might see the film as the development of faith. If I were a cynic, I might see it as the destruction of a first-class mind and its descent into fantasy.

As with most things, what you take away from this film depends on what you bring to it.

The practical side is that anything that happened next would be a letdown: Moriarty killed them, Watson went mad, Playfair was crushed by reality, or nothing at all . . . It's much more satisfying to leave the characters suspended in a state of potential and the viewer guessing. James Goldman certainly had a knack for finding uplifting endings to sad stories.

reply

Irek--I, too, feel that Watson had an epiphany--a leap of faith. The story had no finite ending---just that state of potential they now shared. I saw this in the theatre as a youth. I loved it, but was perplexed--as are many here. The more I've watched it--the more I realize that it isn't a film for those who want a clear-cut end. The story just reached the point where Watson's love for Holmes overcame her empirical nature. Love won out.
It left us guessing. Any wrap-up we impose on it was not provided by the filmmakers.

reply