Stoker could have exchanged blows with "Mountain" McClintock, the protagonist of Rod Serling's 1956 live TV presentation (1963 film) "Requiem For A Heavyweight", whose career follows a similar downward spiral...
I’m not sure we both speak the same language, if you call what goes on at the end “happy”. What’s happy about losing the use of your good hand forever? About being double crossed by your manager & trainer? About being maimed by a bunch of creeps, especially when you’ve done nothing wrong, haven’t wronged or double-crossed anyone? At BEST, it’s ambivalent. I’d argue it’s just as downbeat and tragic as it is “happy”. The one straight-shooter among the main characters gets unfairly maimed. That’s no happy ending, sorry not sorry.
It’s a happy ending because of the reasons I explained. It’s not a ‘happy ending’ in the traditional sense, but in noir world.. yeah it kinda is. You’re right, it’s ambivalent, which, again, in noir terms, kind of means ‘happy-ish’. That’s what I tried to explain in the last paragraph…
Well, your qualification of the word “happy” in relation to the ends of films noir notwithstanding, and considering the Breen office’s censorship demands, not to mention the importance to the studios of the commercial potential of any film, there must have been tremendous pressure from the heads of studios on directors/producers/writers to provide happy endings, but I find - and I’m sure I’m far from alone - that those films noir that provide or tack on “happy” endings tend to be the lesser works film noir has to offer.
For example: The Strange Love Of Martha Ivers is a great film, mostly; there are fine performances from LEGENDARY actors, and it’s Kirk Douglas’ debut. I’ll say it again: GREAT film…To a point. But it’s not in the same league as Double Indemnity or Out Of The Past or High Sierra or The Maltese Falcon or The Killers or The Naked City or Crossfire, or even later offerings such as Kiss Me Deadly, in terms of consistency of subject/form/plot (meaning, is it film NOIR - pitch black, I mean - through the entire film?), and i suspect it’s largely down to the tacked on “happy” ending of “HefScott” (or rather “Mastrachek”) driving away from Iverstown and simply never looking back again; “Strange Love” has no business even sniffing a happy ending.
Furthermore…
we in 2025 know what the odds are that ANY marriage will work out (first marriages have a 40%-50% chance of working), so just based on THAT i question the validity of any happy ending in which “love” is the salve that saves the day, especially when it’s going to need to fill the hole created in Stoker’s psyche by what happens to him at the end of the film, along with it resulting in him never being able to lace ‘em up again. In The Set-Up, regardless what everyone else seems to think, Stoker Thompson is NOT a totally-spent fighter; the film shows it. He KOs Tiger Wilson, which he said he would! It’s true that he’s not a contender, but that’s not the measure of how much Stoker loves to box. Also - and this is a huge reason I question how “happy” the ending is - Stoker WANTS TO FIGHT MORE THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD. His wife wants nothing more than for him to stop ( to do what SHE wants him to do). They’re just not a good match, and Stoker never fighting again won’t change that; they have fundamentally different outlooks on life. Maybe in 1949, the filmmakers could fool themselves (and the censors) that the two “complement” each other. Now, in 2025, they simply seem like a bad match. Stoker will be miserable running a cigar stand, serving liquor or doing anything outside the fight game for a living. Also, Julie is not the main character, Stoker is, and it’s Stoker who’s laying there at the end, nearly in shock, surely devastated, favoring a mangled right hand, not Julie. Stoker is the one who just lost the ability to do the only thing he wants to do, and worse, he’s probably going to be at least somewhat disabled for life. She’s actually ok with him being injured, because it will get her what SHE wants. She’s happy it was “only” his hand and not his life, which is kinda sick; Stoker would prefer to go out on his shield, which is probably also a bit sick, but it’s his life, not Julie’s. So, in no way is that ending happy. I do not consider The set-up to be one of those “lesser” films noir I mentioned, so there is nothing in that ending I can view as “happy”. I mean, i think I get what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with it at all. Regardless what you think about how Julie & Stoker stood with each other at the beginning of The Set-Up, Stoker has far less at the end than what he started with. Some may think he made out fine, trading his hand for Julie. Bad trade. Not to mention, I’m far from sure Julie has Stoker’s “best interests” at heart. IIRC, the only time in the film she shows even an inkling of happiness is when she finds Stoker with his hand mangled, which I find quite horrifying. She even says that she got what she wanted! While Stoker is in agony!
Final thing to consider: Maybe if Stoker had come round to Julie’s way of thinking, there could be a happy ending (but then, it wouldn’t be The Set-Up, it’d be more like Rocky). But Stoker has just been utterly screwed over by his management and because of their scuzziness he’s been forced out of the fight game. That’s going to result in a bitter man, possibly bent on revenge. “Happy” is not in Stoker’s future if he can’t fight, especially since he left the fight game on someone else’s terms. “Happy” is not in Julie’s future either, for that matter, not if her happiness depends 100% on Stoker not fighting, which seems to be the case. I don’t think they spent the first part of the film spelling out just how much Stoker loves to box, regardless what is thought of him by the fight crowd (who are shown to be a gluttonous, bloodthirsty, angry, spineless and downright unsympathetic bunch), for no good reason.
More than anything, I view the ending not as “happy”, but as one of those boxes that censorship makes artists cram themselves into. That’s what the Hayes Code office was for, after all.
I probably think about these films way too
much lol, they are a passion of mine; hopefully I didn’t offend, as that was not my intention.
Those are definitely some good points! I agree that there was definitely some Hays Code machinations going on in a lot of these films, including The Set-Up, because, as you say, that’s what it was for. For instance, I’m always amazed at the ending of Gilda, it’s one of those where I couldn’t have worked it out that it was going to end the way it did. Same goes Pickup on South Street. But, as you say, the ‘less happy’ ones are definitely the better ones, because that’s the point. Film noir is film noir for a reason.
Great article. You do know how to pick them.
Thank you!! :D
Very good film. I love boxing films as well as film noirs. This was a double treat.Ryan is always good.
He really is! Fantastic actor.
Stoker could have exchanged blows with "Mountain" McClintock, the protagonist of Rod Serling's 1956 live TV presentation (1963 film) "Requiem For A Heavyweight", whose career follows a similar downward spiral...
Ooh, good call!
A noir story based on a poem, made by the director of The Sound of Music and starring Robert Ryan? How did I miss this?
It’s such an underrated gem!
Ann Savage has to be seen to believed. I look forward to it.
Thanks! I can’t wait to write about her, she’s an amazing character :D
“Happy Ending”
I’m not sure we both speak the same language, if you call what goes on at the end “happy”. What’s happy about losing the use of your good hand forever? About being double crossed by your manager & trainer? About being maimed by a bunch of creeps, especially when you’ve done nothing wrong, haven’t wronged or double-crossed anyone? At BEST, it’s ambivalent. I’d argue it’s just as downbeat and tragic as it is “happy”. The one straight-shooter among the main characters gets unfairly maimed. That’s no happy ending, sorry not sorry.
It’s a happy ending because of the reasons I explained. It’s not a ‘happy ending’ in the traditional sense, but in noir world.. yeah it kinda is. You’re right, it’s ambivalent, which, again, in noir terms, kind of means ‘happy-ish’. That’s what I tried to explain in the last paragraph…
Well, your qualification of the word “happy” in relation to the ends of films noir notwithstanding, and considering the Breen office’s censorship demands, not to mention the importance to the studios of the commercial potential of any film, there must have been tremendous pressure from the heads of studios on directors/producers/writers to provide happy endings, but I find - and I’m sure I’m far from alone - that those films noir that provide or tack on “happy” endings tend to be the lesser works film noir has to offer.
For example: The Strange Love Of Martha Ivers is a great film, mostly; there are fine performances from LEGENDARY actors, and it’s Kirk Douglas’ debut. I’ll say it again: GREAT film…To a point. But it’s not in the same league as Double Indemnity or Out Of The Past or High Sierra or The Maltese Falcon or The Killers or The Naked City or Crossfire, or even later offerings such as Kiss Me Deadly, in terms of consistency of subject/form/plot (meaning, is it film NOIR - pitch black, I mean - through the entire film?), and i suspect it’s largely down to the tacked on “happy” ending of “HefScott” (or rather “Mastrachek”) driving away from Iverstown and simply never looking back again; “Strange Love” has no business even sniffing a happy ending.
Furthermore…
we in 2025 know what the odds are that ANY marriage will work out (first marriages have a 40%-50% chance of working), so just based on THAT i question the validity of any happy ending in which “love” is the salve that saves the day, especially when it’s going to need to fill the hole created in Stoker’s psyche by what happens to him at the end of the film, along with it resulting in him never being able to lace ‘em up again. In The Set-Up, regardless what everyone else seems to think, Stoker Thompson is NOT a totally-spent fighter; the film shows it. He KOs Tiger Wilson, which he said he would! It’s true that he’s not a contender, but that’s not the measure of how much Stoker loves to box. Also - and this is a huge reason I question how “happy” the ending is - Stoker WANTS TO FIGHT MORE THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD. His wife wants nothing more than for him to stop ( to do what SHE wants him to do). They’re just not a good match, and Stoker never fighting again won’t change that; they have fundamentally different outlooks on life. Maybe in 1949, the filmmakers could fool themselves (and the censors) that the two “complement” each other. Now, in 2025, they simply seem like a bad match. Stoker will be miserable running a cigar stand, serving liquor or doing anything outside the fight game for a living. Also, Julie is not the main character, Stoker is, and it’s Stoker who’s laying there at the end, nearly in shock, surely devastated, favoring a mangled right hand, not Julie. Stoker is the one who just lost the ability to do the only thing he wants to do, and worse, he’s probably going to be at least somewhat disabled for life. She’s actually ok with him being injured, because it will get her what SHE wants. She’s happy it was “only” his hand and not his life, which is kinda sick; Stoker would prefer to go out on his shield, which is probably also a bit sick, but it’s his life, not Julie’s. So, in no way is that ending happy. I do not consider The set-up to be one of those “lesser” films noir I mentioned, so there is nothing in that ending I can view as “happy”. I mean, i think I get what you’re saying, but I don’t agree with it at all. Regardless what you think about how Julie & Stoker stood with each other at the beginning of The Set-Up, Stoker has far less at the end than what he started with. Some may think he made out fine, trading his hand for Julie. Bad trade. Not to mention, I’m far from sure Julie has Stoker’s “best interests” at heart. IIRC, the only time in the film she shows even an inkling of happiness is when she finds Stoker with his hand mangled, which I find quite horrifying. She even says that she got what she wanted! While Stoker is in agony!
Final thing to consider: Maybe if Stoker had come round to Julie’s way of thinking, there could be a happy ending (but then, it wouldn’t be The Set-Up, it’d be more like Rocky). But Stoker has just been utterly screwed over by his management and because of their scuzziness he’s been forced out of the fight game. That’s going to result in a bitter man, possibly bent on revenge. “Happy” is not in Stoker’s future if he can’t fight, especially since he left the fight game on someone else’s terms. “Happy” is not in Julie’s future either, for that matter, not if her happiness depends 100% on Stoker not fighting, which seems to be the case. I don’t think they spent the first part of the film spelling out just how much Stoker loves to box, regardless what is thought of him by the fight crowd (who are shown to be a gluttonous, bloodthirsty, angry, spineless and downright unsympathetic bunch), for no good reason.
More than anything, I view the ending not as “happy”, but as one of those boxes that censorship makes artists cram themselves into. That’s what the Hayes Code office was for, after all.
I probably think about these films way too
much lol, they are a passion of mine; hopefully I didn’t offend, as that was not my intention.
Those are definitely some good points! I agree that there was definitely some Hays Code machinations going on in a lot of these films, including The Set-Up, because, as you say, that’s what it was for. For instance, I’m always amazed at the ending of Gilda, it’s one of those where I couldn’t have worked it out that it was going to end the way it did. Same goes Pickup on South Street. But, as you say, the ‘less happy’ ones are definitely the better ones, because that’s the point. Film noir is film noir for a reason.
Love all the films you mentioned!