MovieChat Forums > No Way Out (1987) Discussion > The Ending is a Betrayal

The Ending is a Betrayal

posted 14 years ago by iamjohnsname
24 replies | jump to latest

A film has to know what it's about.

If the film is about the corruption of powerful people, as one character says "You have no idea what the people with power can do." or something like that, then every scene must serve that theme.

If the film is about claustrophobia and being trapped in an inescapable scenario, as the title of the film suggests, then every scene must serve that point.

If the film is about the 'little guy' taking on the 'powers that be' to prove that justice can prevail despite overwhelming odds, then every scene should support that.

In fact, a film can be about all of those things. But it is integral to the film that every scene exist for a purpose. If your scene isn't showing us something of importance, take it out.

And most importantly, if your movie has nothing to say, stay home.

So I ask you then:

What the @#$% was that ending doing on that film?

To what does it add depth or meaning or understanding?

Or is it merely a gimmick? A trick played on an audience by a writer who probably thought himself clever for pulling the wool over the eyes of his audience.

Shame on him for not being true to a purpose.

[–] transmentalist 14 years ago

This argument keeps coming up on this board. It holds a lot of weight, but I still like the ending more than hate it.

I think an argument could be made that, as Yuri, Costner's character is the ultimate "little guy," up against not only the US conspirators but against his own Soviet handlers as well.

Also, it took me a while to connect this movie to another story that "felt right" despite what could theoretically be accused of a similarly gratuitous "surprise ending."

It's H.C. Neal's "Who Shall Dwell," a story many of us probably read in grade school, about a typical family dealing with an impending nuclear attack, with the surprise ending being that they are a Soviet family preparing for an American counter-attack.

The message is probably different (I doubt that "No Way Out" tacked on that ending to teach us that Russians are people, too). But the dramatic turnabout that "makes you think" just felt similar to me.

Bottom line, I still feel this movie's ending fit with its overall themes of paranoia and struggling against corrupt power.

But I'll always admit that it comes out of left field. The "hints" (double Stoli, "one of them," etc.) were never meant to be spotted on a first viewing (meaning they're not actually hints so much as justifications)

Ultimately, though, what may be infuriating about this ending for so many people is that we're led to believe Costner has one set of motives, only to learn that he may actually have a completely different set of motives. THAT would indeed be a betrayal of the audience.

However, the reason I forgive the story is that, in the end, he actually is the same guy we've been rooting for the whole rest of the film. He really did love Susan. He really was more loyal to the US than to the USSR. He really did want to see justice done.

[–] LTUM 13 years ago

yes, he was sincere

i thought of a couple of new contexts this last time i saw it

if scott shot himself, then it was all tidy and farrell could have just went with it, letting scott take the fall. but he didn't sit with that, he sent the kid to marshall with the paper showing the gold box was from bryce. so even after all that, he was still trying to nail bryce.

and the photo resolution was complete right at the end, showing tom farrell. so even if he had tried to go along with bryce's idea to pin it on scott, would it have worked? (since the photo shows tom was at susan's)

so to me, these two things show that the story was set up to continue on after the credits, that the battle was not over and maybe just beginning.

i can imagine a huge media war of mega proportions over all this, which at the time would have been unprecedented. many saying tom farrell was URI and others buying bryce's story, but all teh while bryce having to explain the gold box.

and you can imagine that bryce would comtinue with his goons to spin evidence, create new angles. i could actually see a sequel of it was played right, written right. (dang that is the first time i ever considered that! and it happened right here typing this lol)

drugs...changed...everything..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related

[–] lreed7950 13 years ago

No need to get unnecessarily philosophical: The ending doesn't work because it's profoundly ridiculous and unnecessary.

It's already a huge stretch that the secretary of defense coincidentally selects his mistress's lover to be his official liaison after he happens to be reminded of him by a newspaper article he stumbles across. Then for them to have chosen, of all possible cover-up stories, one that pins the murder on a rumored soviet double agent who just so happens to be that very same liaison.

Too much.

[–] mysikot 12 years ago

Actually the ending wraps up the question : why was Farrell selecting Sean Young to be his mistress : because he was told to do it by his Soviet handlers. It's being said at the end and makes perfect sense. It was not coincidental !
If only he didn't fall in love....

[–] Fire God 12 years ago

I very much disagree. Were there coincidences? Absolutely, but not nearly to the extent you suggest, particularly in your example. Brice hired Farrell, in large part, because Pritchard introduced them and most likely told Brice he would make a very good addition. In fact, at the very beginning of the movie, Pritchard asked Farrell if his "note" meant that he wanted to work with them, to which Farrell responded by playing it down as only a Christmas Card. This makes a lot of sense to me, and I find it very likely that Pritchard wanted his old acquaintance to work for him for a number of different reasons, and that he was instrumental in having Farrell be on Brice's mind for the position. I'm not completely ignoring the newspaper article, but it certainly wasn't the only main factor.

[–] eagle-ri 9 years ago

"Ultimately, though, what may be infuriating about this ending for so many people is that we're led to believe Costner has one set of motives, only to learn that he may actually have a completely different set of motives. THAT would indeed be a betrayal of the audience. "

Which makes the audience feel just what people in the movie would feel if they found out, betrayed. Plus, up to that point we didn't really know if Yuri even existed, and he wasn't anyone that the audience suspected. I think it was a good ending.

[–] MurphAndTheMagicTones 9 years ago

The interesting thing is, I think Costner's original mission was to discredit Secretary Brice on orders from the Soviets, and getting him into a sex scandal at that time would have been devastating. Remember, Brice was a sleazebag womanizer, but he also was good at his job and wasn't afraid to put power-hungry senators in their place. Someone like him would be formidable for the Soviets to deal with in the mid-to-late 80s. And presumably, when the KGB found out Brice had a mistress, it must have been Christmas.

But then Yuri/Tom actually ended up liking Susan Atwell and realized Brice and Scott planned to pin the murder on him. And with two witnesses who could identify him, they could make it stick. And clearly Yuri/Tom was only into completing missions without collateral damage if he could avoid it, as Susan's death, Sam's murder, and Nina's near-assassination would indicate. He was protecting anybody who was innocent of this that he could. A KGB agent infiltrating our military in disguise doesn't do things to get themselves in the paper like daring rescues at sea in the middle of a storm.

---
"A real friend or mentor is not on your payroll."---Prince, 1958-2016

[–] HowYaLikeDemApplesWill 9 years ago

"I think an argument could be made that, as Yuri, Costner's character is the ultimate "little guy," up against not only the US conspirators but against his own Soviet handlers as well."

Yes, that's the gist of it. In most of these stories where there is a Communist mole buried within the US government, the mole is generally a pawn to the Soviets, and ultimately a power-broker within the US. The book The Red President, which came out about the same time as this movie, reflects this dynamic as well.

Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

[–] Strazdamonas 13 years ago

A movie can show more than one thing and be about more than one thing. infact, if the movie is following a every scene for same thing apttern it becomes predictable, preachy and often boring.

--------------
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough good men to do nothing.

[–] mpdc_jonathan 13 years ago

Actually I loved the ending. To me, this is one of the best films of all time.

The film does lead the viewer to think it is about the corruption of powerful people and there is also the claustrophobia element (related to the corruption) but I love how at the end we see that the bogus investigation into Ivan actually did discover Ivan.

I liked the Tom Ferrell character because it appears that he is beyond the corruption that he is surrounded by. He appears to be a good guy doing the right thing but at the end we see that he was no different than the others, he was corruption, betraying those close to him by being a Soviet spy.

I thought the ending fit well because it was not expected, yet they did give clues along the way the a first time viewer missed.

[–] iamjohnsname 13 years ago

That's a fair enough point to make. But it was a point they were already making without the addition of yet another corrupt character.

Additionally, jonathan you say:

I thought the ending fit well because it was not expected, yet they did give clues along the way the a first time viewer missed.

I disagree. Maybe when this film was released it was an unexpected twist. But nowadays (and I only saw it for the first time recently) almost every detective/mystery film has a twist ending, where it turns out his partner was a baddie all along or the woman was just using him or some such reveal at the end that rarely adds anything to the film, just changes our perception of it.

I genuinely go into movies expecting there to be a twist because it has become a genre convention. These days, for me, the real surprise is when there isn't a twist ending.

Sooner or later, everyone needs a haircut.

[–] LTUM 13 years ago

that's a good point. it has become commonplace. like the saw movies.

but yes, at the time it was a huge huge surprise to everyone, the twist ending. it was like WOAHHHHHH

drugs...changed...everything..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related

[–] onbrightonrd 13 years ago

Not only was that kind of twist ending not quite as commonplace when the film was released, but one has to remember the political context of society at the time the film was made. 1987 was still during the Cold War, and conventional wisdom in American films was NOT to give the audience a hero who is actually working for the Russkies (this was only three years after "Red Dawn," after all).

However, I disagree with the original poster on this thread. Farrell IS trapped by the Soviets as well as the Americans. That is why we see him resist interrogation at the beginning of the film and then leave at the very end. His contact says, "Let him go...he'll return. Where else does he have to go?" But we sense strongly that Farrell will never go back to either side.

There is an utter sense of disillusionment, and similar to the ending of "Three Days of the Condor," we believe the protagonist is left out on his own against the world. In the larger scheme of the picture, Farrell is still one man against massive, brutal, and corrupt forces, still striving for personal survival.

[–] LTUM 13 years ago

damn fine points. especially the top paragraph, about a hero from the other side. hugely ironic, and though i'm sure that registered with me subliminally i don't think i have realized it until now

also perceptive about 2 days of condor. yes, both had the same vibe at the end. good call, friend

drugs...changed...everything..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8MGBn3KawM&feature=related

[–] jolem53 12 years ago

Just finished watching it a minute ago. Yeah, the ending pissed me off. Good movie until last two-three minutes. Kinda ruined the whole thing.

Great cast, great suspense, drama, action...all flushed down the toilet at the end by a cheap 'twist.'

By the way, I saw this when it first came out. Remembered it was a good movie but had forgotten the ending.

[–] LPurch6636 12 years ago

What confused me about the ending was that it was **a man from the CIA** who , at the ending of the movie, Kostner appealed to. Was the CIA guy in cahoots with Yuri's Russian handler? I just don't get this part of the movie... Help!

Flanagan

[–] one189teen50five 12 years ago

First of all, no SPOILERS were added to this thread. Second of all, I don't really know who the Russian guy is supposed to be other than maybe Tom's boss or mentor...I don't know. I think CMDR. Farrell went in to this scheme not meaning to fall in love with Susan. He really became jealous of Hackman's character and when Susan ended up dead, Tom knew they'd blame him. He wanted to see Hackman nailed and the only way to do that was with that gold box. The jerk did it and deserved to be thrown out of the government. Please spell Costner with a C. It was never with a K.

[–] Zz9pza 12 years ago

If Tom loyalties were truly 100% with the USSR, he and the Russians would have owned Bryce. Which I guess was the original intent of the mission. Tom fell in love, and after Susan was killed, his own personal mission was revenge on both sides. Bringing down Bryce meant the Russians couldn’t use him. That would be justice for Susan’s killer, and a slap in the face to the Russians for putting him in her path to start with. After this I believe Tom would have lived a very dangerous, and very short life.

I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

[–] Iconoclast321 (428) a month ago

Nice

[–] ozguny 11 years ago

I agree with you. You're damn right.

[–] Cinemaskype 10 years ago

As Yuri, there really WAS No Way Out. His Soviet handler let him go because "He'll come back. Where's he going to go?"

[–] Stratego (30820) 3 years ago

What? No. The point is that a man is always trapped no matter which way he turns (hence the title). Pretty much every twist ending is a gimmick intending to get a reaction out of the audience, but this twist ending did fit the rest of the movie, I think. Yeah, it's very contrived and extremely coincidental, but the entire movie was like that as well.

[–] Iconoclast321 (428) a month ago

I kind of agree - I was sure that Yuri was going to be Brice. I think that would have served the rest of the movie (the buildup, the themes) better.