The thumb breaking scene?
-
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. -
Kingteb — 9 years ago(September 06, 2016 11:02 AM)
i don't know why but this comment made me lol like an idiot. it also seemed to me like he could've gotten raped. why would they put his face against the glass and get behind him just to break his thumbs? but who knows.
-
BlueJean25 — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 01:55 PM)
I think the shot of Eddie's face pressed against the glass is just for dramatic effect. The thumb-breaking needs to seem like a big deal because Eddie knows he needs his thumbs to play pool. It's also pretty much what happens in the book:
"They dragged him to the wooden toilet at the back of the room and two other men held him while Turtle carefully broke his thumbs. First the left one and then the right, taking them firmly on either side of the knuckle and bending them backward until the small bones in them broke.
Along the middle of the wall behind Eddie there was a two-by-four, to which the wall boards were nailed. On this was a row of empty bottles, and several of these fell to the floor from the jarring, jerking movements of Eddie's body, pinned against the wall. When the bottles hit they tinkled and jangled noisily; but Eddie did not hear them because of the overridingyet distant, detached, far-offsound of his own screaming."