The thumb breaking scene?
-
MercurialAquarian — 12 years ago(December 09, 2013 02:36 AM)
Well, it was Hollywood cinema circa 1961. Unless the camera had shifted direction and Eddie was sodomized on the pool table, the bathroom would have been the logical 'suggestion' to the viewer.
Objection, your Honor. You can't preface your second point with
first of all
. -
chosenone2005 — 10 years ago(November 26, 2015 01:19 PM)
I concur here. Sodomy only crossed my mind when I saw the big looming shadow to his right appear, a larger shadow than Newman's silhouette against the glass, suggesting such.
But prior to the shadow appearing, and the first scream was so sharp, I thought he did get stabbed! The next scene, I was just thinking "Drunken Sarah may have been the worst person to come to if he's been stabbedhe's bleeding profusely and she's like 'huh? Is that a knock? I wonder whyoh, someone might be at the doorhello? Who is it? Oh, it's that Eddie fellowwell let's stumble over there and fiddle with the lock till it does that magical opening thingy and then see what he wantswonder if he brought me a bottlehis thumbs look funny."
All in all, however, I agree with the overall consensus on the board. In this modern day and age, going behind the glass wasn't necessary. May have been too graphic for the time to break his thumbs in close-ups above the pool table, and like Hitchcock, the audience is left to fear what terrible things may have happened to poor Eddie behind the glass (and only if their imaginations are dirty enough, "sodomy" may cross the mind) until Sarah opens her door to reveal his broken thumbs. I also agree that since there were only two shrieks, I'd say the breaking of the thumbs was the summary of what we see in that scene. However, offscreen, between then and when he shows up at Sarah's door, his face is too bruised to agree that's all they did.
It would be mostly due to modern desensitization that we'd assume they'd rape over a pool game hustle. -
CaptainSexMachine — 12 years ago(November 25, 2013 02:00 PM)
I thought so too, if they wanted to break his thumbs why would they take him to the bathroom? (Actually I thought that they shoved the money up his a$$ since they told him "we always let winners keep their money.")
-
balducci2 — 11 years ago(April 21, 2014 10:02 PM)
It works both ways. If they wanted to rape / sodomize him, why would they take him to the bathroom when they had a pool table right there? Did none of you ever see or hear of 'The Accused' or the real life incident it is based upon?
Seriously, I think they just took him to the bathroom because they (that is, the movie director) did not want to film a scene of graphic violence. By having the action moved to the bathroom we could see the suggestion of the violence through the dirty window, but it was not as much in our face as if it happened in the open in the pool room.
FWIW, I think it is a stretch / misreading of the scene to believe they did more than break his thumbs. -
CaptainSexMachine — 11 years ago(April 22, 2014 03:10 PM)
I don't think that comparison works. I'm pretty sure the guys in The Accused were quite drunk, whereas a bunch of guys playing pool are probably sober enough to not want to pull down anybody's pants in a bar where someone might just walk in.
-
DaveHasNoTimeForAnyOfThisBull — 11 years ago(January 20, 2015 10:00 PM)
Well, the moral point is that they are lowlife's whom Eddie should never have crossed paths with. So people can assume they did perform graphic violence or sexual acts on him. But he only later mentions the thumbs and nothing sexual.
NO SIGNATURE FOR YOU! Come back oneYear! -
cheezwizard — 10 years ago(April 18, 2015 06:34 PM)
Haha, I just saw that scene and thought maybe they put the money in his butt as well. Guess it was just the thumbs.. but either way, I'd have gone back someday and gotten some sweet revenge on those hoods. I'd have taught them real good!
-
robin-moss2 — 11 years ago(January 29, 2015 04:06 PM)
I just watched the movie for the first time in many years. I didn't see any sodomy. I've seen this film many times over a fifty year period and never has it occurred to me that the thugs were going anything other than breaking his thumbs.
People see what they want to see, and what they want to see is a reflection of their own preoccupations. Anyone who sees sodomy or rape in this sequence has those things in their mind. -
Fletch__F_Fletch — 10 years ago(April 09, 2015 05:35 PM)
I'm also glad this is a topic on the messageboards here. I'm a huge fan of Newman's movies, and up until recently would have never imagined that scene could have been about anything other than Bert hiring some local goons to break Eddie's thumbs.
However now I'm more 50/50 on this scene. I've watched many Newman interview clips on YouTube, and love how in his older, more experienced years he indicates how "hard" he acted back in his younger days, like he was trying too hard and it was evident in his earlier performances
(according to Newmanthe rest of the Universe still believed he was Top Caliber)
. It might be a Leno interview or something closer around
Road to Perdition
, but he makes a reference to his more recent "Less is More" style of acting.
The reason for my second paragraph is to give a little backstory and explain why I'm on the fence when it comes to this particular scene.
CASE for RAPE:
Those blood curdling screams were not due to thumbs being broken; not in my best estimation. The Fast Eddie Felson character we are introduced to wouldn't scream like that over a couple of broken fingers. It'd more likely be something 1,000x more terrifying than that. And perhaps his thumbs were
eventually
broken (afterward), and that's all Eddie is willing to admit happened (especially to his lady).
CASE against RAPE:
Because Newman's scenes are louder & more brash than Gleason's
(especially the end scene, which has already been discussed in a previous post about how
"Minnesota Fats was the real Tragic Character"
)
, it could be believable that Eddie's thumbs were just being broken, and that was Newman delivering his best blood-curdling scream for emphatic purposes.
Like I said; still on the fence. Just glad at least it's being discusses. Power to you for being bold enough to bring it up. Nothing wrong with being honest and indicating what you were either seeing, perceiving or thought you were accurately interpreting. -
skrall-991-949327 — 9 years ago(May 07, 2016 12:40 PM)
I love IMDBI actually came here aft seeing the sceneto find your post! I think it's ridiculous to insult other people for their thoughts on this scene, but that's the world we live in.
The makers of this movie didn't HAVE to go in the bathroom to film the scene. They filmed it through the window in shadow without showing anythingthey could have done the same in the pool hall. If broken thumbs were the objective, you could STILL easily do it without going to the bathroom and without showing bones being bent the wrong way.
So why go into the bathroom? To keep from being seen by a surprise customer? Doubt it. So either director wanted you to THINK something else may or may not have happened in there..or something really did.
Two things to noteif you're going to break someone's thumbs, you might need to lift their hand up for some leverage. We did not see those hands in the scene shown. Not to say they COULDN'T have done itwould just be harder to do.
The 2nd thing is Eddie's face turned against the window pane. They didn't really have to do that either, accept to try to get Eddie's face clearer. It suggests an intentionalshall we say ..positioning?by the thugs.
In the endI say something really bad happened to Eddie besides the thumbsOR some very poor and needless gimmickry by the director. Even the hope of chitchat on the scene is pointless, given the rest of the film's accomplishments.
But thanks for starting the thread.I too was very curious about the scene. Perfectly natural to question what was happening or what the point of it was.