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
-
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.
-
MsELLERYqueen2 — 13 years ago(November 12, 2012 06:48 PM)
She might have called home and all that. They don't need to show her making the call.
And she certainly deserved more prison time than Tavernier. She's the one who started all this.
~~
Jim Hutton: talented gorgeous hot hunk; adorable as ElleryQueen; SEXIEST ACTOR EVER -
maximusveritas — 12 years ago(February 26, 2014 06:59 PM)
These are more like problems with the plot rather than holes, but I agree with much of what has been brought up in the thread.
I also had a problem with Tavernier staying quiet while Carala was banging on the bars outside. He had to know it was most likely her and even if there was nothing she could do, it would be good for her to at least know what was going on.
I also had a problem with his behavior after escaping from the elevator. At first I thought he heard the cops talking about him as they went up the elevator, but even if not, he was incredibly slow in reacting to the girl recognizing him and reading the paper, staying frozen in his seat as the cops surround him. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 11 years ago(February 15, 2015 12:51 PM)
Regarding your last paragraph: he and his girlfriend weren't professional killers. They cooked up this one plan and things went wrong very suddenly. A professional (like a gangster) would have been very careful. This amateur criminal just didn't think that the cops were closing in on him. He wasn't used to hiding from the cops. His girlfriend was the same way: she had no problems walking around the neighborhood that night, asking everyone if they had seen him.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 11 years ago(February 15, 2015 09:36 PM)
Also, regarding your last paragraph, I forgot to mention another point:
when he finally escaped from the elevator, he had no knowledge of the murders which took place at the motel
he knew that Carala's body couldn't have been discovered when he was in the elevator. The power was out most of the time, except for a VERY brief time when the one worker turned it on and the elevator moved a bit. Then when the power was on long enough for him to escape, he knew that the body could have been found at that time (and it was), but that wouldn't have been enough time for his picture to get in the paper. Besides, when he walked outside, it was quiet out there. If Carala's body had already been discovered, the area would have been swarmed with cops, people, reporters, etc.
Therefore, he had no reason to assume that his picture would be in the paper, linked to any murder. The girl's comments about it "being the same man" wouldn't have meant anything to him. He probably would have assumed that she was just being silly.
Once the girl and her father (?) left the cafe and he saw the paper, the cops surrounded him, and he was probably stunned at the fact that he was the prime suspect in a murder which took place when he was in the elevator.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen -
sfm4 — 11 years ago(August 22, 2014 04:29 PM)
Here's one more plot hole that no one seems to mention. Before he shoots the couple, Louis tries to start the Mercedes and can't get it into gear. The German man tells him that he's "hidden" first gear (to foil car thieves apparently), but he never gets a chance to tell Louis where it's hidden. After Louis shoots the couple, he's able to get the car in gear easily and he drives away with Veronique. How did Louis do that so easily if the placement of the gear was hidden and he
wasn't told how to access it? -
kenny-164 — 11 years ago(September 03, 2014 11:46 AM)
I dont know what is meant by hiding first gear. I thought that was merely a joke making fun of Louis's not being able to put it in gear. How does one hide a gear?
Imo the attempt to identify mistakes by characters that are plausible as plot holes is a fraught enterprise, and usually unsatisfying one. Better to raise questions than to reach a firm conclusion.
Take the example of leaving the rope. I agree that Tavernier was distracted by the phone call, and the film's editing "shows" quite clearly that his timing in answering the call served to put off his secretary and the security guard's concerns. Then realizing he had to answer the call and doing so, he forgot about the rope. A mistake, but it happens. Mistakes happen in real life, too.
A more significant question (as significant as the rope was) concerns the ending. A question was raised here if the police really had enough evidence from the pictures to convict Tavernier and Mrs. Carala. I think not. While they could be used to try and help establish motive, motive is not enough to convict someone with, and even on motive the pics are only a start of providing motive. After all not everyone who has an affair kills their spouse. To say the least. The film makes no reference to the police having obtained sufficient forensics, either. There may well have been some other evidence that could have been pointed to by the film, but it was not.
So someone above had referred to Mrs. Carala's behavior when hearing the policeman's recitation of their likely sentences as amounting to an admission. I watched that closely again last night and do not think such behavior was so clear as that. Not at all. It was rather ambiguous.
In short too many of the posts here about plot holes represent a view of the film that is too tied to the literal and to the narrative. The point of the film, after all, is encapsulated in Mrs. Carala's meditation on the pictures, how they show the two lovers togehter, and how no one can take that away, meaning their time together, and related to that her memories of them being together. Even IF she goes to prison and spends many years there, she will still have that. But I don't see the ending as saying she definitely will spend a great deal of time in prison. It is not that kind of film. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 11 years ago(February 14, 2015 11:36 PM)
I think that the point that the cops were trying to make was that she was the one who started this whole mess. Since it was clear to the cops that she and Tavernier were having an affair, and since the cops already suspected that Mr. Carala had been murdered, they made it clear to her that they would investigate further, but that the truth would come out at the end. That was how I interpreted the ending, that they were basically warning her about what kinds of investigations they would be making based on those pictures.
Besides, who else
could
have committed the crime? Not many people left in the building that one evening, and some of those other workers saw each other, etc.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen -
kenny-164 — 11 years ago(February 23, 2015 07:31 AM)
MrsEllery,
I came back to this film's boards, and find your comments. But I also reviewed the other posts on this thread, and am reminded of the in my opinion too wide a definition too many use to define the term plot hole. In my post from last fall, I merely expressed my impression that Mrs. Carala's behavior when the detective examined the developing pictures with her was ambiguous. By that I meant that her behavior did not in and of itself amount to an admission of guilt. But that did not mean I thought she had, well, no legal exposure. But to be clear I don't think the ending is really meant to be primarily about whether she in fact is convicted, and if so for how long. It is instead an ending focusing on her meditation that no one, not the law, no one else, can take away from her the love she had with Tavernier.
But, I suppose we can go over the particulars.
Mrs. Carala was not in the building, did not see how few people were present, and so I don't know how we are supposed to think she would have considered that. In fact she would have no way of knowing about the grappling hook and rope, either. Of course the fact that it fell to the ground, and was retrieved by the little girl before Mrs. Carala took it from her, might have indicated some problem. But that is also ambiguous - nothing Mrs. Carala does after taking the rope indicates she thought it meant that Tavernier had in fact killed her husband, or did not kill him, for that matter. She continuedd walking the streets looking for him and giving the impression she still felt he had chickened out. In fact I believe her thoughts on how it was almost better that he had chickened out was AFTER she took the rope from the little girl. I wlll return to the rope later, however.
A subtle point perhaps is that Mrs. Carala was already aware that the police were quite capable of reaching the wrong conclusion, since she determined it was Louis as the boyfriend of the flower shop girl who was the real killer of the German tourists. She had already experienced being told Tavernier was guilty of those crimes when she knew the police were wrong. Was it really necessary that she then in effect concede Tavernier killed her husband merely because the detective said so?
On the other hand as others have noted here, Tavernier and Mrs. Carala were not experienced criminals, and both made mistakes. COuld Mrs. Carala have made a "mistake" in admitting guilt when she did not have to? Yes, but again I read that final scene as too ambiguous.
Others here have I think adequately explained some of the alleged plot holes that really aren't. I agree for example the pictures of the couple are not a plot hole - someone else could have taken them, and in any event even relative implausibility on that point is not enough to make it a hole in the plot. It is possible is enough.
The one thing I think is left as implausible is how the rope fell to the ground. I can even go so far as acccepting that the rope might have fallen off the railing on the floor where Carala's office was. Perhaps the weight of the grappling hook could have pulled the rope over the top of the railint. But the design of the building was that the wall of the floor of Tavernier's office was set back from the floor below it, and so if the rope had fallen from the railing above, it would have landed on the floor and not fallen down the side of the building to the ground below. And obviously no one would have been around to do that. So I do think there is an issue with the rope. I know someone else commented that the rope's fall indicates a certain irony, that Tavernier did not have to go and get it from the railing given what ensued, and of course if it were still there, hanging from the railing when the police arrived and began looking around, they would have seen it and concluded it made their initial assessment of suicide questionable. But I do think it is not plausible.
Still that's the only element of true implausibility I end up with. -
MsELLERYqueen2 — 11 years ago(February 23, 2015 04:29 PM)
Thanks for your comments.
For the most part, I agree with what you are saying.
I think that, in the final scene, the cop just speculates on the sort of punishment she will receive. Of course she hadn't been sentenced yetnot even arrested yet! At that time, there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Tavernier was guilty, but I think that the cops were working at it, starting with those pictures.
If the story were to continue, then the details would be published in the paper, and there would likely be some people who would remember seeing a man climbing the building around the time the murder was committed. That, plus other possible mistakes he and Mrs. Carala might have made, would be enough to send them both to jail.
By the way, Mrs. Carala would have known about the rope, the grappling hook, and the other details of how Tavernier was going to commit the crime. She just wouldn't have known if he actually went through with it (at least not until later). I agree that there was a certain amount of irony in the fact that Tavernier didn't have to go and get that rope after all, because it fell. That's probably why the filmmaker decided to show it on the ground, with the little girl playing with it.
~~
JimHutton (1934-79) and ElleryQueen -
kenny-164 — 11 years ago(February 24, 2015 06:49 AM)
MrsEllery,
I have noticed others talking about seeing a man climbing around the building. I certainly don't think one can count on someone having seen that. Certainly in planning the murder Tavernier did not see that as a big risk, either, so to think they would think back on that and have it be a major reason to admit guilt is a poor fit.
Forensics were not what they are today. Tavernier for all his mistakes doesn't seem to have left any evidence of his physical presence in Carala's office. Unless the gun can be traced to him, he was smart enough to leave it at the scene.
The most damning evidence against him, other than motive, was proximity. But a good defense lawyer would note that he did answer the call upstairs by the switchboard operator. Would the prosecutor be able to prove that he had enough time? Imo producing the rope and grappling hook would help, without which the defense could also argue against how Tavernier could have completed the act in the time given.
I would expect the French police ot have had enough forensic capability to determine, however, that Carala did not fire the gun. They probably would not have bothered testing for that if all other signs pointed to suicide, which they at the end no longer did.
So on balance I think it more likely than not that a conviction would be the outcome, but far from certain it would be.
Which brings me back to my main point - the film is not really about whether they get caught, but about the risks they were willing to take, and how even at the end MRs. Carala sees her love affair as in effect wotth it.