The Endings of Hitchcock Movies Are Very Abrupt

[Aike]

I have watched several Hitchcock movies this past month after buying a DVD collection.

One thing I´ve noticed is that the endings are quite abrupt. The main problem is solved pretty fast and once is it done the movie is over.

Is this typical of Hitchcock or was it the standard back in the 40s and 50s when he was at his prime?

BTW, the movies I´ve watched are Psyhco, The Birds, The Trouble With Harry, Family Plot, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Vertigo, Rope and Saboteur.

 

[Switch]

I wouldn't say they're abrupt, but many of his films lack endings that are satisfactory to my modern sensibilities.

Just a few comments on specific films ...

The Birds - What happens next? Oh, and I was interested in that budding romance!

Psycho - The dreary psychiatrist's monologue. Ugh.

Rebecca - I wanted to know more about that head maid chick and her relationship with the evil bitch.

Vertigo - Yeah, this was too abrupt. Needed time to sink in, maybe a closing scene. Jimmy Stewart comatose again?

Rope - The conclusion here, OTOH, seemed to be drawn out with no real payoff in the end. Stewart figures it out and is horrified ... but it seems like there should be some sort of intellectual struggle here between teacher and pupil, instead we just get police sirens.

 

[Kirkman1987]

Never bothered me. Why kill all that suspense and excitement with a plodding scene at the end. Hitchcock ended his story as soon as the excitement was over.

Hitchcock was the master of suspense....of building suspense and exploiting it up through the climax. I doubt a fleshed out ending afterward interested him.

Some of his abrupt endings are actually very clever. Rear Window ends perfectly, and I always get a laugh from the ending shot of the train going into the tunnel at the end of North by Northwest.

 

[scotpens]

Psycho - The dreary psychiatrist's monologue. Ugh.

That scene does seem quite talky today, but audiences were less sophisticated 50 years ago and the exposition was necessary to explain just what was going on in Norman Bates’ head. Hell, I’m sure a good portion of the movie audience then didn’t know what a transvestite was.

Some of his abrupt endings are actually very clever. Rear Window ends perfectly, and I always get a laugh from the ending shot of the train going into the tunnel at the end of Rear Window.

Don’t you mean North by Northwest?

 

[Kirkman1987]

Yeah, I need to proofread my posts a little more.

 

[Gaith]

Hitchcock's endings are wonderfully precise and concise. They're designed to throw you back into reality with a violent thud, and because the credits were short enough to put at the start back then, he could really do so. It all has to do with being the Master of Suspense - if it's suspenseful right 'til the end, with an absolute minimum of wrap-up, the tension lingers on your mind longer. Now, as for some specific films...

The Birds - What happens next? Oh, and I was interested in that budding romance!

The violent bird attacks were a manifestation of the mother's subconscious/repressed resentment towards any woman who might distract her son from his overly devoted attention to her. As a possible mate, Tippi is her prime target, but the attic attack leaves her so traumatized that her sexuality is utterly destroyed, leaving her childlike in her helplessness. Only then can the mother embrace her as a surrogate daughter, knowing that her son can't fall in love with a blubbering wreck. Thus the movie ends at the story's natural conclusion.

Psycho - The dreary psychiatrist's monologue. Ugh.

Yes, that was a mistake.

Rebecca - I wanted to know more about that head maid chick and her relationship with the evil bitch.

She was obsessively devoted - what's more to know?

Rope - The conclusion here, OTOH, seemed to be drawn out with no real payoff in the end. Stewart figures it out and is horrified ... but it seems like there should be some sort of intellectual struggle here between teacher and pupil, instead we just get police sirens.

Blame Jimmy Stewart for this one - in the play the movie was adapted from, it was clear that the professor had had flings with both boys, so his summoning of the police not only condemns their crime, but their common bi/homosexuality, also. Stewart didn't want to play teh gay, though, so the ending (which, again, is the exact proper ending) loses a good deal of its thematic force.

Vertigo - Yeah, this was too abrupt. Needed time to sink in, maybe a closing scene. Jimmy Stewart comatose again?

I actually agree with this one - Vertigo is much more of a drama than a thriller, so the standard Hitchcock thriller ending leaves something to be desired. Foreign prints of the movie actually carried an ending Hitchcock didn't want, where censors demanded that the audience hears that the villain was arrested, and while the scene isn't perfect (there's a weird and inappropriate humor beat at its start), there is something eerily appropriate in its quiet fade.

 

[Switch]

The violent bird attacks were a manifestation of the mother's subconscious/repressed resentment towards any woman who might distract her son from his overly devoted attention to her. As a possible mate, Tippi is her prime target, but the attic attack leaves her so traumatized that her sexuality is utterly destroyed, leaving her childlike in her helplessness. Only then can the mother embrace her as a surrogate daughter, knowing that her son can't fall in love with a blubbering wreck. Thus the movie ends at the story's natural conclusion.

Hmm. Evidently I'll have to watch it again.

She was obsessively devoted - what's more to know

Let me take a more considered stab at it. Rebecca didn't end concisely at all: there was the grand reveal concerning Mrs. De Winter's condition ... and then it just trailed off. It should've ended there, but when it didn't my first thought was "Mrs. Danves!" and sure enough, here she comes. But her actions aren't even associated with any of the revelations about Max's actions or Mrs. De Winter which have occupied the last 20 minutes or more of the film, rather it's simply that she can't stand the idea of Max and the second Mrs. De Winter living happily together at Manderley. It all feels disconnected. It could've ended earlier, it could've gone on to something interesting, but it did neither and in the end just fizzled out.

Still a good film though.

 

[Zeppster]

Hitchcock's films are pretty much all about character studies. And the ending pretty much solves itself most of the time. Especially when a killer was involved.

Shadow of a Doubt, Psycho, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train. You pretty much know in these films that the killer is not getting away with it in the end. But it's all about how the killer is trying to get away with it and why they are doing what they are doing. You know if someone kills someone in the film they are going to get caught or have their downfall in that film.

There's also a lot of Running man themes or finding out about crimes type themes that Hitchcock has done. Those endings are abrupt too because you know the bad guy is gonna get caught that the guy that everyone else thinks did the crime that really didn't will get away with it. Some have a combination of the two. But those stories will usually end abruptly. You know the real bad guy will get caught in these themes.

Vertigo is very abrupt and for a Hitchcock film unexpectedly so. Because in most Hitchcock films with fairly abrupt endings we know the bad guy is gonna get it. This movie isn't really about the killer. We basically see the killer in this for a total of about 5 minutes and he's a pretty flat character. This movie was really about Jimmy Stewart's character and Kim Novak's characters or how Stewart sees those characters. And it's also got the theme of basically ending back where the movie started.

Rebecca is not abrupt ending. It's probably the slowest end for a Hitchcock film. The movie is basically about a character we never see until we find out she was really an evil bitch.