Talk:Lady in the Lake
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Allmovie[edit]
- Lady in the Lake at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Spelling of Marlowe first name[edit]
In the other movies and books, Marlowe's first name "Philip" is spelled with one "l". But in this movie (not sure about the book) it is spelled with two "l"s, "Phillip".
See here at about 0:40 (and also the name in the window): http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/34657/Lady-In-The-Lake-The-Original-Trailer-.html
I think that references to the Marlowe character outside of this film should be one "l", and references to the character in this film should be two "l"s.
KConWiki (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also - This book says that Chandler himself was upset that they spelled Marlowe's name with an extra L in this film.
KConWiki (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Plot holes midway[edit]
Per the intratext note added midway in the Plot section, there are some plot holes here regarding Chris Lavery's death that never get addressed. (Well, there are lots of plot holes that never do.) Just what was Mrs. Fallbrook/Mildred doing there, gun-in-hand? Marlowe maintains his timeline returning from Arrowhead clears him (with the coroner's timeline, that fixed Lavery's death while Marlowe was still in Arrowhead or en route back). Marlowe also observed that leaving cold water drip on Lavery's body would artificially accelerate its internal temperature drop (and create the illusion of the time of death being earlier than it had been).
That then potentially invalidates his alibi, which depended on the matter of a few hours later to clear him. He could have arrived when he did, but the cold water obscured the actual time of Lavery's shooting. (I'm not proposing him as a suspect, only going through the permutations here.)
What about Mildred? First, there should have been the strong scent of gunpowder in the air (and about the pistol) had she just descended from shooting Lavery when Marlowe encountered her. As an experienced private eye he would have noticed. So she didn't shoot him just then. OK, what would she be doing there, gun in hand, if she had actually shot him some hours earlier? Given how thoroughly drilled Lavery had been she didn't need to come back to determine if he had died. She was back there for some reason. What?
To "sanitize" the scene? If so, she did not appear to do a very good job of it before departing it (only to run into Marlowe at the bottom of the stairs). Unless she had planted the Fromsett handkerchief, and indeed was trying to make off with an incriminating pistol (subsequently - cleared of any prints by her gloves - pawned off on Marlowe). Nothing adds up very tidy.
But what about that handkerchief. That's quite a wingnut - not something Lavery would have wadded up and put on the edge of his washbasin before climbing into the shower. So, how and when did it get there? Seemingly (only plausibly) after Lavery had been shot. If so, left by whom? An anxious Fromsett on the lam, or Mildred (seeking to frame Fromsett)?
Well, it's not clear there is any relationship - or antagonism - between Mildred and Fromsett (as Fromsett was new enough to Kingsby's life to have had no connection to any of the original murderous events up at Arrowhead (prior to the recent discovery of a decomposing body dredged up from the pond). But she did seem to know of Mildred (as in speaking of the alleged antagonism between Mildred and Chrystal, and their thus inexplicable proclivity for swapping clothes - which evidently had last occurred just one month prior, well after Fromsett's arrival at Kingsby Publications.
(And just how long had there been any public friction between Derian and Chrystal for Fromsett to have selected the job as a possible means to eliminating the wife and making off with the husband and his fortune? Those timelines don't appear to jive, either.)
The one seeming intersection between Fromsett and Mildred (and Chrystal) appears to be Chris Lavery. He clearly romanced (we are led to believe) Chrystal. It certainly seems he and Mildred had (or at least had had) something going on together. No? OK, then what had gone south (if Lavery was no longer involved with Chyrstal, purportedly for at least a month before Mildred had actually offed her)? A fling with Fromsett? Or any involvement with Fromsett from the time (something like six months to a year prior) she arrived in the Kingsby orbit? Or had those two actually had something prior to that? Perhaps far enough back that she learned from Lavery about Kingsby marital troubles that would have steered her to seeking an "opportunistic" job working for him?
Had she been jilted by Lavery? Had she been there the night of his murder? (How did her perfumed hankerchief get on his washbasin, evidently after he'd been shot?) Was she tidying up loose ends, popping Lavery, still hoping to make off with "Derry"? If so, hiring Marlowe would have been quite rash.
Just why did she hire him? To find out if the Mexican divorce was actually real (in order to move in on Kingsby, in the clear)? Who sent that phony telegram? Somebody who didn't know how to spell Chrystal's name, right? That points to whom? Could Mildred have known Chrystal well enough but not known her name's correct spelling? Lavery? Certainly not Fromsett, she had to know. Though she - or any of them - could have intentionally misspelled it (to throw suspicion at more likely suspects).
The misspelling's introduced as part of the plot, which basically rules out (unless raised and dealt with) it simply being an error introduced by an innocent Western Union operator hearing "Crystal" on the line without the sender bothering to spell its unusual silent "h" out. So which one of the possible suspects, knowing the proper spelling or not, sent it? And why?
Enough plot holes for now. No point in permuting more when some possible answers may fill existing gaps and obviate adding new ones. Anyone have any sound ideas on any of this here, ideally tight enough that it can legitimately be worked succinctly into the plot to tie it more tightly than it is (or even the movie itself is)? 2601:196:181:BE00:C872:33EE:600B:8CAC (talk) 17:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- The editor needs to respect MOS:FILMPLOT and to learn about proper sourcing before wasting everyone's time with his speculations. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Man, talk about having a terrible attitude to do anything at this encyclopedia - starting with multiple insults. How high-handed and enlightened you are. You need to look in a mirror - and ponder the two words "humble" and "helpful". Really. 2601:196:181:BE00:44F8:2AB7:E8C2:908A (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)