somebody please explain the ending?
-
L0GAN5 — 15 years ago(October 22, 2010 06:25 PM)
The problem is both Arlyn Page and Tom can tie him to the dead hooker, but he doesn't know where to find Page. Cable is pretty clever, because he gets Tom out of the way but uses his disappearance to have Klute track down Page. His only link to Page is through Bree Daniels, so he plants the letters in Tom's desk to not only make Tom look mentally disturbed and explain his disappearance but also put the police onto Bree.
It's key to his plan that he puts the police onto Bree, otherwise he would have have written sick letters to any unconnected prostitute. Once Bree is dragged into the investigation he can hire a private investigator to use her to trace Arlyn Page. I think he hires Klute because Klute has a personal investment in trying to locate his friend. A normal investigator would probably give up after Bree can't identify Tom, so he needs someone who won't give up so easily i.e. has a personal stake in it. He knows that Klute will try to track down the man who beat her up, and the trail will lead to Arlyn Page. He follows Klute and Bree around and once they find Page he kills her eliminating the last "witness" who can tie him to the dead hooker.
Things turn sour when Klute ties the letters to Cable's typewriter, so uses the ruse of buying Page's "little black book" to draw Cable into the open, which dramatically backfires. -
andrew_edmonds — 15 years ago(October 23, 2010 07:14 PM)
Thanks..that does explain to me his reason for getting Klute. He knows he wont give up easily and can be involved somewhat in locating Page.
If only Klute investigated the typewriter in the beginning he wouldnt even have to have met Fonda..now that would be a shame!! She looks stunning in this.
Great movie and keeps you thinking even days after. -
smith-684 — 14 years ago(May 18, 2011 01:37 PM)
At the end of the film Bree is absolutely not ready for a full-time relationship with Klute. That doesn't mean it couldn't happen in the future. I had to learn to get over wanting a happily ever after in films but I still want some of them to work out. A dear friend of the family is an ex-hooker, married for years, stable, responsible, funny woman. Lives change. There's always the possibility that Klute and Bree ended up together. I JUST figured out why it's called Klute and not "Bree." Klute is the one man who isn't asking for her body, turning tricks for him, being his victim, or abusing her in any other way. Even the line-up producer was kind of a pig. Every man in the film other than Klute is a vile pig (Tom technically wasn't in the film, so we don't know if he was a pig or not). Bree's shrink is a woman, the other women we see from Arlyn to Nancy McKenna are also horrid, but the shrink shows the most kindness to Bree, and the most normal part of her life. ONE woman, a boatload of awful men, then finally one good and decent man. Klute. That's why the title is Klute.
-
GuyOnTheLeft — 12 years ago(August 14, 2013 12:50 AM)
Actually, technically Tom was in the film, and I don't mean the photos they showed. He was in the opening scene.
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc -
sdiner82 — 10 years ago(April 05, 2015 05:05 AM)
To: smith-684
Sorry I'm 4 years late in responding to your eloquently written comments about KLUTE. I completely agree with every word you wrote. I first saw the movie at an advance press screening in 1971 and was so overwhelmed by Jane Fonda's performance that I'm afraid I found the mystery plot filled with holes. I didn't see the movie again until a few months ago on TCM and was once again mesmerized by Ms. Fonda (in the ensuing decades I've yet to see an actress do what Ms. Fonda did in KLUTE (sorry Meryl). Tonight, again on TCM, I watched KLUTE for the third time and this time tried to concentrate on the plot, which is intricately constructed but covers all the bases necessary to make the movie a first-rate thriller (no plot holes at all, and Donald Sutherland, who I initially felt was miscast and gave a rather sepulchral performance, is sensational)! When the movie was first released in 1971, many critics, including Roger Ebert, felt that the title KLUTE was a misnomer, and the movie instead should have been titled BREE. They were wrong, and you explained so beautifully why this masterpiece is rightfully title KLUTE.
Many thanks! -
AnaElisa — 10 years ago(April 21, 2015 11:17 PM)
Thank you for your post, sdiner82. Like yourself, the first couple of times I watched Klute, I could only focus on Fonda and her stunning performancethat was one time when the Oscar was right on the money.
I now just finished watching the DVD. It is nice to be able to pause, or go back and check things out in the plot-line. I swear, every time I watch this film, I love it even more. What a great, great movie!
Donald Sutherland is perfectly cast as Klute. I can not imagine another actor in that role. He plays it so wonderfully. I always thought the chemistry between Fonda and Sutherland was spot on. In a fairly recent interview, Fonda stated that the chemistry was not just an act, and they were deeply involved during the filming.
Ahh, romance. Don't you just love it.
-AnaElisa