MovieChat Forums > The Bedroom Window (1987) Discussion > The Ending

The Ending

posted 17 years ago by jonathanbeales
15 replies | jump to latest

So the Police thought Terry was the serial killer and were just about to charge him as they had lots of evidence against him(all his lies,people seeing him in the bar,people apparently seeing him stab Sylvia etc) but dropped all their suspicions about him on the back of him and his new lover setting up a guy who they had no evidence against.

Sure Henderson would've been found guilty of attacking Denise for the second time but since there was no forensic or reliable evidence(no one would've believed anything Terry said),he wouldn't have been charged with any of the murders.

Have I got this right or did I miss something at the end?

[–] padzok 17 years ago

The main detective had always suspected Henderson. It's implied he's arrested Henderson for previous crimes, but never been able to get the judge to give a long sentence. So it's no surprise that he was easily convinced at the end.

In due course, we can imagine that Terry's boss would also choose to confirm what his wife had told him.

But yeah, like with many movies (Flightplan especially) you'd expect the main character to at least be arrested pending enquiries, rather than allowed to go free with a pat on the back and a paramedic's blanket.

[–] jonathanbeales 17 years ago

"In due course, we can imagine that Terry's boss would also choose to confirm what his wife had told him."

But didn't his wife tell him that Terry had been harrassing her and wanted to carry on the affair? If anything,it would be bad news for Terry if his boss went to the police because it would look as though he stabbed her for rejecting his advances.

[–] padzok 17 years ago

Yeah, you're right.

The evidence against Terry for the stabbing was fairly convincing.

But I figure that once some parts of his story check out, he'd have more credibility for the parts that werent corroborated.

[–] mikeoak840 17 years ago

But if Terry hadn't run from the theater, he'd probably have been cleared. The weapon, if dropped at the scene, would've had Henderson's fingerprints - he wasn't wearing gloves. If the killer took it with him, even better. Terry says, "I didn't do it - it was Henderson - he took off!" The cops would've called for a squad car to be waiting at Henderson's house before he could've made it home. Henderson sticking the knife under his jacket or in a pocket would've left blood on his clothing. He would've gotten blood on himself killing her based on the volume of blood on Terry's shirt, her husband, etc. Henderson goes home and the cops grab him - he's got blood on his clothes and they may or may not find the knife. The big question would be - how did he end up with the victim's blood on his clothes unless he was involved? It would corroborate what Terry's story would have been. But instead, Terry runs, cops find no knife, so they'd assume he took it with him and disposed of it. Or they find the knife with Henderson's fingerprints and he's nailed. Now if it were a case where the real killer sticks the knife in his hand, or he stupidly pulls it out of the body...yeah, making a run for it seems like an understandable impulse.

[–] dave4248185 17 years ago

Good points Mike. Also here's an answer for the earlier question about getting more evidence against Henderson. After his second attack on Denise... his apartment would now have fibers from Sylvia's expensive (and probably rare) cocktail dress.

[–] nodgnoc 17 years ago

I like this film and I love Elizabeth McGovern, but clearly one needs to just sit back and enjoy it for what it is, not as anything remotely believable. There's plot holes and contrivances enough for a few films. RE: The scene where Terry "just happens" to drive down the same street where they found the dancing girls body in the dumpster, followed by her arm (with the attendant bracelets that identify her) that "just happens" to fall off the gurney as they wheel her away are nonsense, but are needed to advance the plot line. Terry driving up to Edgar's to talk with Denise and "just happens" to find a parking spot right in front of a bar that's teeming with people. OK, maybe someone just pulled out as he approached the bar, but it's still a minor annoyance. After the confrontation with Terry at the opera house, Silvia goes back into the theater and just stands there and waits to be killed. When was the last time you walked back into a theater after visiting the concession stand and just stood there in the dark? Never. You walked back in, found your seat and sat down. Near the end when it's been established that Henderson doesn't need to follow her home because he's seen her wallet and leaves the seedy bar, wouldn't a normal situation just call for Terry to just wait for Denise to exit so that they could phone the police and head for her apartment while ensuring that he's right behind her in the other car. As it is, how come Denise doesn't make sure Terry is right behind her as she heads home? They talked earlier about not getting separated. The timeline indicates that she left the bar and headed home only about 60 seconds before Terry steals the police car and heads out after her, yet despite speeding along with the siren blaring, she arrives home a good 5 minutes before he arrives. with more than enough time to park her car and slowly walk around her building and the elevator with mace in hand before finally getting attacked. He should have caught up with her after no more than a mile from the bar. After all, she wouldn't have been speeding home. Did they have to put in the cliche where Terry almost runs down the beer delivery guy, (of course he misses) but hits the hand truck full of beer after stealing the police car? Prior to that, Terry's rental car doesn't start right away as they're about to follow Henderson to the seedy bar. These 2 cliches are as overused as the car careening out of control on the sidewalk and hitting a flower cart. Finally, what the hell does the ending mean other than Terry isn't guilty of the latest attack on Denise? It's presented in such a way as to make us believe that Sylvia's and the dancing girls murders are resolved. Huh? How does they're plan to trap Henderson explain that? It doesn't in any way, shape, or form. Perhaps I'm being too petty, but it's things like this that drive me a little nuts. It's just a movie after all, but I would appreciate a bit more realism and less contrivance from time to time. After writing all of this down, it makes me wonder why I like the film. The only plausible answer is that Elizabeth McGovern was my favorite actress throughout the 80's, and I wouldn't own the DVD if she weren't in the film.

[–] BethH24 17 years ago

you have to like Brad Greenquist though.He is brilliant in this film.

I noticed all the flaws you mentioned too, and i know it may not seem believable in some parts, but i think you shouldnt take it too seriously and just enjoy it.

I would say Brad is the best actor in the film, his role was all about the acting, since he only spoke one line and then one word in another scene, and Elizabeth McGovern is the other best actor in the film.

[–] maddog30-2 16 years ago

I agree with your plot holes. However, when Silvia goes to return to her seat after talking with Terry, an usher tells her that the ballet is about over and it would be best if she waited there in the back.

[–] nodgnoc 16 years ago

It wasn't an usher, it was the killer Henderson who is clearly seen in shadow. Also, she stood there a good 5 - 10 seconds before Henderson talked to her. The point is, why stop at all? You walk back into the theatre, head down the hall, find your seat and sit down without stopping in the rear. It was just another plot device that rang false with me, in a film with too many of them.

Bob C.

[–] moewadle 12 years ago

This is from a book. I would like to know how all of that was handled in the book. Probably better. I am not going to read the book to find out but do have to say the plot/story had great potential for an excellent Hitchcock type noir story but there needs to be some changes and Guttenberg was all wrong for the lead male. Huppert was fine and so was McGovern the script needs reworking and a someone with more serious demeanor to replace Guttenberg.

[–] BethH24 12 years ago

moewadle, what do you think of Brad Greenquist's performance in this film?.

[–] morganseer 9 years ago

Henderson goes home and the cops grab him - he's got blood on his clothes and they may or may not find the knife.
_____________________
If you were Henderson, would you head right on home?

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

As the theory about the abundance of blood goes, he would have had blood on his clothes.

So then, where else would he go?
- To his favorite bar, where witnesses could see blood on his clothes? Nah.
- To his workplace? Same problem of getting seen with blood, (night watchman, or co-workers on the late shift - remember, he left work later than usual). Nah.
- Drive around to regain his calm? Risking getting stopped by police? Probably not.
- Drive somewhere to wash the mace out of his eyes and off his face? Remember he would not want to be seen (and smelling of mace...).

In fact, the mace in his eyes would probably have made it difficult for him to drive anywhere that was unfamiliar... tough to read road/street signs with teary eyes reducing his vision...

Home seems to be a reasonable choice...

As far as going from the concession stand directly back to her seat goes:

1) the concession stand would likely have been well lighted
2) entering the theatre, the house lights would have been turned down/off since the ballet was in progress, and only the stage would have been lit, with varying lighting as the performance continued
3) it would take a minute, or several, for a person's eyes to adjust, so she needed to stand just inside the entrance, waiting for that adjustment.

[–] mikeflw1 8 years ago

So the Police thought Terry was the serial killer and were just about to charge him as they had lots of evidence against him(all his lies,people seeing him in the bar,people apparently seeing him stab Sylvia etc) but dropped all their suspicions about him on the back of him and his new lover setting up a guy who they had no evidence against.

Sure Henderson would've been found guilty of attacking Denise for the second time but since there was no forensic or reliable evidence(no one would've believed anything Terry said),he wouldn't have been charged with any of the murders.

Did you watch the movie FATAL ATTRACTION?
It also had something of a "Hollywood Ending"...

That is until you watch the alternate ending! As the "Hollywood Ending" implies, most loose details are simply ignored at the end of typical USA movies. As a special feature in the DVD (and Bluray?) releases go, it is explained that the alternate ending was the original ending, but test audiences did not like it. There may have been a difference in the runtime of the movie, with the "alternate ending" that made the movie a bit too long. (Movie theaters could lose one screening a day over just a few minutes, so runtime is/was a big deal. I would need to watch FA again to check on the time, since I have not watched it recently though.)
So, the original ending became the alternate ending, and the "Hollywood Ending" was used instead.

Blame Hollywood for the ending

[–] dark_frances 8 years ago

It pretty much depends on how sure they were that Denise's attacker was the same guy who committed the murders. That still does not explain why Denise could not have come out in the beginning and said that Terry was surely not her attacker (perhaps she could not tell for sure which guy at the line-up was the murderer, but she must have been sure it was not Terry, certainly since she had no trouble being alone with him behind the line-up window). But if Denise's attacker was surely the murderer, it does explain why Terry goes scot-free.

there's a highway that is curling up like smoke above her shoulder