Dead body with string attached?
Why can't Tom just dump the dead body into the ocean?
share[deleted]
Um, well both of them fall in, but Tom gets back onto the boat, and I distinctly remember him untying the rest of the rope from the boat and throwing it all into the ocean. The rope must've got caught in the rudders or whatever you call those things... sigh, in the end I thought he'd made a clean escape! I really wanted Tom to get away with it! After all that evasion and brilliant scheming he forgot to check to make sure the body was gone... and that became his undoing.
Also, Alain Delon is such a stunning man. It's hard to see him wanting to be anyone else-- he's got so much charisma and magnetism.
[deleted]
Damn you. I hope you are kidding, becuse otherwise you just ruined the ending for mw with no spoiler warning.
Perhaps there should be a spoiler warning, but since you hadn't watched the film (or the end at least) shouldn't you be a little more cautious before entering a thread under the title "Dead body with string attached?".
What did you expect to find in here ?
the very fact that you wanted tom to get away with it means that the film did it's job in conveying the spirit of the highsmith novel. i think the ending reflects the morality of the day: filmmakers just did not think the audience would buy the idea of the bad guy getting away with it. that's something that's only entered into the mainstream in the past couple of decades.....
sharePatricia Highsmith herself disliked the ending because it changed her novel - Ripley gets away with it in the book. That was one of the things she felt strongly about - she did not feel that a story always had to end with the villain getting caught. It was the one thing she disliked in a film that she otherwise thought was good in terms of its casting of Tom Ripley.
shareNot only this, but also the rope was apparently caught in the propeller, yet the boat was running on sails at that moment (and also docking in the port, which is strictly prohibited!)
Highsmith is right and very realistic about crime: it does NOT always get solved. That's why her Ripley character is so convincing.
Just look at the high crime rate that does not get solved.
the very fact that you wanted tom to get away with it means that the film did it's job in conveying the spirit of the highsmith novel. i think the ending reflects the morality of the day: filmmakers just did not think the audience would buy the idea of the bad guy getting away with it. that's something that's only entered into the mainstream in the past couple of decades.....
Except of course that the the physical novel, instead of its spirit, ends with Tom clearly getting away with it. So what you're saying is that filmmakers were pussies back then and novelists were light-years ahead of them. As it has always been with literature and cinema.
This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel. share
the very fact that you wanted tom to get away with it means that the film did it's job in conveying the spirit of the highsmith novel. i think the ending reflects the morality of the day: filmmakers just did not think the audience would buy the idea of the bad guy getting away with it. that's something that's only entered into the mainstream in the past couple of decades.....
The film really did recreate the spirit of Highsmith and had me rooting for Ripley. I very much wanted Tom to get away with it despite knowing that logically he is a pretty despicable character! I know Hollywood had the Production Code until the 50s which wouldn't allow a murderer like Ripley get away his crimes but France didn't have the same code so I was surprised by the choice to have him caught. At least his arrest wasn't explicitly shown and was slightly ambiguous. share
One of the best kept secrets of European movies, is that in the '50s, '60s and '7's they were was moralising as their allegedly lowbrow American cousins. Watch any crime movie Jules Dassin or Jean-Pierre Melville, or the '70s Italian police movies, and the criminals are always caught, or they're killed - in any event, justice is always served.
This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.
That is very true about European movies. Made even worse by the fact it was an artistic choice instead of the stupid produciton code limiting them. Though a friend told me that even in the US the production code wasn't legally binding, just something producers adhered to with financial gains in their mind (we watched a movie from that era with an ending where the baddie won and couldn't believe it- rumour has it that the censor fell asleep...)
....
http://soundcloud.com/dj-snafu-bankrupt-euros
Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib
Though a friend told me that even in the US the production code wasn't legally binding, just something producers adhered to with financial gains in their mind
It couldn't be legally binding. That would have been a violation of the First Amendment. While banning overt sexuality and nudity could be legally enforced at the time since obscenity was not covered by the First Amendment, legally requiring criminals to be caught or married couples to sleep in twin beds and banning the use of words like "abortion" or "pregnant" and requiring divorce to be presented in a negative light would have been unconstitutional.
As I understand it, the Production Code was voluntarily adhered to by the studios in part to avoid government regulation and in part because it was difficult to get distribution of movies that were not approved by the MPAA.
share
As interesting as it is depressing!Thought I'd read Hitchcock was furious he couldn't pass his intended endings due to this Code but that too may have been due to studio pressure rather than a legally binding code.
...
http://soundcloud.com/dj-snafu-bankrupt-euros
Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib