MovieChat Forums > Ladyhawke (1985) Discussion > The white elephant in the last scene bef...

The white elephant in the last scene before the credits (Spoiler)

posted 15 years ago by Closrapexa
21 replies | jump to latest

After rewatching it today, I suddenly thought of shomething. In the last scene, everyone was so happy and the clergy were clapping for the couple, but honestly, I thought there was kind of an obvious white elephant in the room.

Like the presence of two dead bodies, one of the nailed to a chair with a sword, two meters in back of the clergy.

I mean, not to ruin the happy ending or anything, couldn't help wonder how morbid people were in those days, that dead bodies everywhere didn't matter to anyone. Plus, the first thing Navarre would have done afterward, in order to show his love how much he loved her, would be to remove a huge bloody sword out of some one.

Now that's the kind of first date I'm always game for:)

"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view" Obi-Wan Kenobi

[–] Seymour-Pats 15 years ago

The clergy probably all viewed the Bishop as evil and an instrument of the devil, so his death wouldn't have been mourned. (Even those who didn't know something of what happened to Isabeau/Navarre probably knew the Bishop was evil.)

[–] glr-beltran 15 years ago

Yes that´s a bit unrealistic ,I don´t think he could kill a Bishop and get away with it,even if he was evil..

[–] Seymour-Pats 15 years ago

I don't think it's unrealistic at all, for two reasons.

1. The bishop says to Navarre in front of everyone "but kill me Navarre and the curse will go on forever." So he admitted in front of everyone that he had put a curse on someone, which requires the work of the devil (in that day, people had tremendous fear of the devil, and the death of an instrument of the devil would have been welcomed, no matter who the person was).

Also, there had likely been rumors of what had happened to Navarre (he had been the Captain of the Guard and therefore his absence would have been noticed and talked about), and the bishop's words probably caused the people in the church to realize that the rumor was true.

2. According to Imperius, the bishop was not well-liked. He described him as a man who was "hated and feared" and "despised even by Rome itself", which indicates that the bishop no longer had the support of the Catholic church.

[–] glr-beltran 15 years ago

Town´s people didn´t know anything about the curse affair,according to the novelization,and most of the clergy were foreigners,they have come to confess to the Bishop...Anyway,I don´t buy it!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Seymour-Pats 15 years ago

grl-beltran, I am not talking about the novel, I'm talking about the movie. And most of the people in the cathedral that day were not ordinary townspeople, they were clergy members. Even though they were out-of-town clergy members, rumors about the bishop could easily have flown through the religious leaders, and obviously had, because Imperius says the bishop was "rejected even by Rome itself" which indicates that the clergy did know the bishop was not a good man.

As an aside, I do not understand the repeated references to the book, as if that should be a guide to anything in the movie. The only book I've seen of Ladyhawke came out in 1985, after the movie (the movie was filmed a couple of years before it was released). So the movie is not in any way based on the book.

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

Yeah, ‘cause “the novelization” derives directly from the actual fucking script. You took the short bus to grade school. That’s not a question.

[–] Tekawitha 12 years ago

many times in the middle ages, the titles and positions of bishop, cardinal and such were bought,sold, inherited,etc, unlike today, where the title is given by the Pope. so there were a lot of people like this bishop in those days.

~*~~*~

"Ooh!Pass the popcorn! This is gonna be good!"

[–] PaladinNJ (21525) 5 years ago

A lot of the Popes also bought their positions as well.

[–] KutWrite (1317) 7 years ago

Yes to the above, plus...

...in those days many people bought Bishop and Cardinal positions. I believe, even one of the evil Borgias!

Besides, many of the lower clergy had been sold into servitude there. If you're basically a slave, who cares who "Massa" is?

[–] smoko 15 years ago

When I read the subject line I thought you were going to complain about Phillipe and Imperius holding hands. So gay. But yeah, having two dead bodies stinking up the joint, that would be awkward too.

[–] Stevicus-2 14 years ago

In addition to what's already been mentioned, it's shown at the beginning that the bishop was paranoid about a possible rebellion, since he knew he had been taxing people penniless. That's he was so hot on getting Philippe back after he escaped from the dungeon, since he was afraid it could mushroom into something bigger if word got out. Everyone in the bishopric seemed to be living pretty miserably, and the bishop was a tyrant, throwing people in the dungeon and executing them.

But the OP is correct in that film does leave you wondering how it might have turned out afterwards. Obviously, the bishop was evil and even tried to kill Isabeau in front of numerous witnesses. As others mentioned, Rome was even against the bishop, but it's unclear what would happen to this particular territory ruled by the bishop. I was wondering if Imperius might have been promoted to bishop. Of course, he'd probably need Isabeau and Navarre to run things for him. Since Isabeau was a countess, she might have been placed in some secular administrative role. Navarre was also apparently some person of rank, as he mentioned his father and his family's alliance with Rome.

[–] maximumcool 14 years ago

First of all, after the way Navarre just kicked the crap out of half a dozen guards and the captain of the guard, you think a bunch of priests with no weapons are really going to start something with him???? I sure as hell wouldn't!

Second, this is the first time Navarre and Isabelle have been able to touch each other, or even really see each other in quite a while. I don't think they'd care that much about a room full of bodies.

Third, in the middle ages you got a lot more used to bodies in general I imagine. But I could be wrong in my opinion on that.

Fourth, the bishop is despised and not liked. Even foreign dignitaries would have been aware of this and probably had low opinions of him. And besides, if he dies, someone gets promoted! They're probably happy as hell that he's gone.

Fifth, pulling the sword out of the bishop would just make a bigger mess, plus then he'd have to stop and clean off his sword before putting it back in the sheathe and so on. And he's got better things to do, like give a big ol' hug to the girl of his dreams.

--------------------------------------
"Go away or I'll call the brute squad!"

[–] OmegaWolf747 14 years ago

That's how it was in the Medieval age. People weren't as squicked by death then as we are today.

--
"House. My room. Can't walk. My medal. My father. Father, don't!"

[–] Seymour-Pats 14 years ago

Yeah. I really don't think there would have been any problem with the people in the cathedral or anywhere else for that matter. A lot of the people in the cathedral were members of the clergy who knew the bishop was a scumbag. The pope knew he was a scumbag. Also, the bishop says "But kill me Navarre and the curse will go on forever." It's pretty clear from that whole exchange that the bishop wasn't really a man of God.

In terms of there being trouble later, I doubt it because the soldiers (who are the only ones around with weapons) knew and respected Navarre. They probably knew the bishop was a scumbag too (or they'd find out).

Again, the novelisation is meaningless in this regard because it was written after the film (and intended as a companion). In addition, these novelisations are generally written from the screenplay, not the finished film, and that can cause the novelisation to diverge from the film (which would mean, when assessing the intent of the film, in a case where the film and its novelisation diverge, you go with the film). Besides, when judging the story, the film came first and really has got to have the final word.

[–] Shiny-NZ 14 years ago

Part of me read this thread and thought... you can believe a woman turns into a bird and a man turns into a wolf but you have trouble with everyone standing around in stunned silence at the end?

Yes, it's a strange reaction, perhaps it has something to do with a curse being lifted or something, like it's a side-effect that everyone around the main people involved just stand there dumbfounded and mute. Having never seen actual magic performed I couldn't rightly say.

[–] ames0826 13 years ago

Dorothy killed the Wicked Witch of the West with hundreds of her troops around and got nothing but three cheers. Similar situation.

[–] Kawada_Kira 12 years ago

Like everyone else on this thread said, the bishop was a scumbag and everybody knew it. The clergy, who were nearer to him than most people, would naturally know it better than most. He was a cruel ruler, a tyrant, and an all-around nasty human being. The bishop himself mentions at one point how he fears the people of the area are on the verge of rebellion. Doubtlessly the clergy would have heard of what he had done to Navarre and Isabeau as well, so they wouldn't be particularly surprised to see them turn up at the cathedral to kill him. They probably had been expecting it for years. I doubt they would have mourned for his thuggish enforcers either. It was surely a great relief for them to see the bishop and his captain disposed of. It means a change of leadership, the chance of change for the better.

"Couldn't care less" = "don't care at all"
"Could care less" = "care at least a little"

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

Why is it a “white elephant”? The phrase was slang for something that is completely unwanted or worthless, like an Edsel Ford or having sex with a troll. What the OP meant to say, and should have said (if educated) was “the elephant in the room.” Yes, I am being a prick, for 2 reasons: (1) I LOVE this movie, Matthew Broderick and the soundtrack notwithstanding, and (2) carelessness offends me.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 5 years ago

In that case, you don't need a comma between just two elements in a series, specifically between "notwithstanding" and "and" in your last sentence.

And if we're being REALLY technical, a "white elephant" has to be a thing, so "sex with a troll" would not qualify. An Edsel is a good example, though, in my opinion.

Sorry couldn't resist

[–] R_Kane (15828) 5 years ago

Well done, sir. You should not resist.