I have seen it for the second time,and I noticed some plot holes.Don't get me wrong,I think this is a great movies,but s
-
kenny-164 — 11 years ago(September 02, 2014 01:09 PM)
The grappling end of the rope was for pulling one's self up a floor. In going down you could pull the rope over the railing with both ends down below it, hold onto both ends as you descend, and on reaching the landing below pull the end with the grappling hook down, with the other end going up and over the railing with the whole thing then coming down on the person pulling it.
-
ant_sushi — 15 years ago(July 19, 2010 11:11 PM)
The only hole that occured to be was that when the lift stopped he was going up, but when it was put back on it went down.
Shouldn't it have continued going up?
I just watched it and when the power went on, it did go up but he quickly stopped it and pushed the button to go down. -
ohwellokay — 15 years ago(September 26, 2010 08:25 PM)
It seems a lot of people wonder who was taking the photos. I haven't seen the film in a little while but if the pictures of Louis and Veronique were developed at the same time then wouldn't they be from the same camera?
Is the owner of the camera ever mentioned? We know Veronique had a little bit of a crush on Tavernier, and Mrs. Carala had recognized her as "the flower shop girl". It's possible the pictures were taken candidly by Veronique. Again, it's been a while since I've seen the movie so I don't remember if any dialogue would prove this wrong ornot. -
repete66211 — 16 years ago(May 06, 2009 10:07 PM)
I really like the movie, BUT
1.) I have a hard time believing he's going to forget about the rope. So what if the phone's ringing. All it would take would be a quick flip and the hook would disengage.
2.) Even if he did forget about the rope I don't believe it would be that visible from the street. And so what if it was? It was an open and shut case of suicide so the police wouldn't be looking around for ropes. And if they did find the rope it doesn't necessarily implicate Tavernier.
3.) So even if he does go back to the office he wouldn't just leave his car runningWITH A GUN IN THE GLOVE BOX. How hard is it to turn off a car? (Hint: about as hard as disengaging a grappling hook.) Besides, if the plot required the car to be stolen why can't the kid just hotwire it?
4.) If you're returning to an office and the guard is leaving you probably want to take the stairs just in case he turns off the power. And if the power is turned on again and lowers you to the bottom you should probably escape through a door rather than take a nap.
5.) Julien and the girl drive by the cafe. Improbable event, but even so it could have been someone else's car. And what's her face could see into it well enough to know it's not her b/f driving. And if he were running off with another woman do you think he'd be stupid enough to drive by the cafe he's supposed to meet his lover at? You know, THE ONE WITH WHOM HE JUST PLANNED A MURDER?
6.) Who was taking their pictures? Film that small can't be blown up to 8"x10" with that sort of resolution. Nor would it have the depth of field those photos had. Also, it's a bit lucky the photo developer recognized the German guy in the photo. I mean, how else could the police know of the connection?
7.) Running all over town asking if anyone has seen her lover doesn't make for a very good alibi.
Like I said, it's a really good movie, but there are a few loose strands that could have been tidied up to make it better. -
BilboTheDefiler — 16 years ago(May 18, 2009 09:09 AM)
i agree entirely.
another thing that bugged me is how all the cops completely bought the suicide story, but once they saw the pictures they immediately assumed that julien was the killer. wtf? all it proves is that they had an affair, so maybe the husband found out about it and killed himself? they didn't really have proof for the murder.. -
ashogo — 16 years ago(January 03, 2010 12:36 AM)
Well, Julien did tell them the story about being trapped in the elevatormaybe they used that and put 2 and 2 togetherpolice also have methods for determining whether a suicide is really a suicide
you're right though it doesn't seem like there was enough evidence against them.
A point against the visibility thing thoughI think it's pretty plausible that Julien climbed up there without being seen. You'd be surprised, but in cities people don't tend to look up that much. -
ashdre — 16 years ago(January 30, 2010 11:43 PM)
See, this is one of the reasons why I came to this thread and I'm glad you mentioned it. There was virtually no evidence to tag Tavernier to the murder of Mr Carala. The doors to his office were all locked (including the one that's never locked) and the grappling hook that Tavernier used to get up there was taken away by a cute little girl after it was mysteriously on the ground (another plot hole, really). There was proof to an affair between Tavernier and Mrs. Carala, so what? Doesn't mean there was a plan of murder. It bugged me. I can disregard all the other plot holes mentioned, but not that one, because it's such an important one. Good movie, though.
-
Twiky — 15 years ago(March 11, 2011 04:30 AM)
I think the little girl picking up the hook and the lift coming down after power failure, imply that Tavernier already unhooked the rope and was almost leaving the building (coming down the elevator).
The photographer of the couple is a mistery, maybe a close friend, maybe we don't need to take things so literally, the photos represent 'intimacy' photos, but I think in 1958 Louis Malle wasn't ready to show some hardcore making love photos yet!! Anyway the photos could have been with more of a 'from the photographeds' hand' viewpoint.
About the cop not having enough evidence to assume Mr. Carala was murdered, he throws a hook (the accusation) and the fish (Mrs. Carala) byte!! The confession is all the evidence that you're looking for.
Peace. -
freudified_n_funkified — 14 years ago(May 26, 2011 08:21 PM)
I thought it was a nice touch that the grappling hook fell on it's own. I think had he already gone up and unhooked it he wouldn't have just dropped it to the street. As the plot device that catalyzes the rest of the movie, it's a nice little irony that it apparently simply dislodged itself.
-
Twiky — 14 years ago(May 27, 2011 12:12 AM)
I like your theory more, nonetheless why is he coming down then?! Maybe it's just a failsafe of the elevator.
It's also possible that when he did a swinging motion to free the hook it fell to the ground, not that he grab the hook and throw it down, I wasn't implying that eh eh.
Peace. -
Zoomorph — 10 years ago(April 25, 2015 11:16 PM)
+1
Also, why did the chick admit to the plot against her husband at the end? There was no evidence and she could've easily admitted their affair without admitting to murder.
Good film. ie, worth 5/10. Far from a great film.
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~ -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 11 years ago(February 15, 2015 12:01 PM)
Excellent points. I think that these characters just weren't that bright. They cooked up a plan, but they weren't great at dealing with the unexpected.
As for point # 6, I answered this for someone else on the thread already: if Mr. Carala was out of town for awhile, the lovers might have gone on a holiday to another town where no one would know them. They could have asked random strangers to take the pictures.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen -
sirgeddon — 15 years ago(October 24, 2010 09:59 AM)
What you are pointing out are not really plot holes but basically what you think are poor decisions by characters. People make bad decisions all the time and at the time of murder, you would think they will be prone to error because they are very nervous.
When Tavernier was climbing down, he heard the phone ringing and had to answer it. He had no time to unhook the rope because if the woman came inside the room she would find he was not inside and that will prove he had murdered the boss.
About Florence asking everyone about Tavernier, she assumed that Tavernier had chickened out and not murdered her husband. If he had, why would she think he would be out on the town with another girl ?
About the photos on the camera, I agree that was silly but again, I would say that was another stupid thing they did. They were just private photos and they didnt really think anyone would get hold of them.
About who took the photos, it could have been a friend. We dont know too much about their back story, so it doesnt matter. -
demersonw — 13 years ago(June 21, 2012 09:41 PM)
Also I think a lot of those bad decisions are the whole point of the film. This couple plans the perfect murder, it seemingly goes off as planned and then the ex paratrooper boyfriend makes the dumbest mistakes he possibly could have a botches the whole thing.
Also I like the irony of how he went back up into the building to get the rope so he wouldnt get caught but then the rope falls to the ground and he wouldnt have gotten caught anyways. But then the only reason he does get caught is because he does go back into the building, allowing the kids to steal his car, kill the germans, and then have the photos found by the police.
Then the irony in the interrogation scene where he didnt want to say he was in the elevator but there was no reason to because he could have just said he was getting something from his desk. Thats not incriminating at all and perfectly understandable. Then he finally does but if he had stuck to his original story of being drunk and not remembering, the cops wouldnt have been able to put him at the scene of the crime and he probably wouldnt have been as much of a suspect. I figured at then end, since the cops had evidence of an affair and he confessed to being at the scene of the crime, they suspected him enough to trick her into confessing at the end.
Also the photo thing doesnt bother me. I assume they are out of town, probably a little town somewhere where people dont know who they are and they just asked a passerby to snap some photos.
Still not saying its a perfect film by any means but I do think a lot of the accused plot holes are actually what makes this film so great.
before you can get rolling, your life makes a beeline for the drain. -
Christopher_Smilax — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 03:43 PM)
What you are pointing out are not really plot holes but basically what you think are poor decisions by characters. People make bad decisions all the time and at the time of murder, you would think they will be prone to error because they are very nervous.
When Tavernier was climbing down, he heard the phone ringing and had to answer it. He had no time to unhook the rope because if the woman came inside the room she would find he was not inside and that will prove he had murdered the boss.
About Florence asking everyone about Tavernier, she assumed that Tavernier had chickened out and not murdered her husband. If he had, why would she think he would be out on the town with another girl ?
About the photos on the camera, I agree that was silly but again, I would say that was another stupid thing they did. They were just private photos and they didnt really think anyone would get hold of them.
About who took the photos, it could have been a friend. We dont know too much about their back story, so it doesnt matter.
Thank you.
Howard Hughes was Italian? -
PoppyTransfusion — 13 years ago(September 11, 2012 07:06 AM)
OP: I don't think they are plot holes.
Madame Carala is exposing herself by searching for Julien but equally not everyone know she is or what she looks like, e.g. after her arrest the police do not recognise her. I doubt in 1958 it would have been easy to check if her husband had flown to Switzerland. At the beginning the security guard and receptionist talk about how mysteriously Mr Carala travels. Perhaps his travel plans were mysterious to his wife as well so that she would not know where he might be staying in Switzerland.
Tavernier was her hitman. She was the architect of the crime, according to the police. We don't know the terms of the Carala relationship re-money in the event of divorce and neither do we know the nature of their relationship. Again according to what the receptionist and Tavernier say he is not a nice man. Also divorce initiated by women was rare until the very late 20th century.
Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make -
joshuayeary — 13 years ago(September 13, 2012 03:55 AM)
She said he was in Switzerland because that was where he was planning to go before he was murdered. If she was to pretend like she was ignorant about the murder, she would have to act as though she believed he had gone to Switzerland.