|
Post by tipou on Mar 25, 2010 17:12:17 GMT
hey. how are you guys. deep discussion here. well, it got better, from the white undies to the director's meaning. perhaps there is hope for our gang.
welcome bluehorse, yeah, good tastes in movies. IASL is not only one of my fave RS movies, but one of my fave movies, period.
in other cases, a director wanting a happy ending to satisfy a test audience would make me cringe almost painfully. but this movie needed to end in hope and love.
in fact, i agree with rueful, they very well may stay together forever, otherwise they would not so readily go after one another like they did.
it goes with the believability of the story as a whole that two people, even very much in love, should not throw themselves at each other like leeches on a florida bather when they have not seen each other in years and years.
i would have, but that is another story altogether.
|
|
|
Post by numbat on Mar 25, 2010 17:21:55 GMT
Oh, i think they did want to generate hope, but at the same time there is also doubt.
I don't think it's the lack of a kiss as much as the lack of anything whatsoever that is concrete in the ending. Because of the huge amount of things that he has obviously gone through prior to turning up at the train station, anything else could have also happened and that is where the doubt comes in.
He could be on leave, only able to come & find her to give her the pearl, and then he may be back off home (to the US). He appears to be in a US army uniform not an Australian one and she is in Australia. He may have married someone else, he may have some post traumatic stress that will result in them not living happily ever after, any number of things.
Yes, anything can happen to anyone after the end of any film, but for me it's the fact that we don't know what has happened before the end of the film that leaves the ending open to interpretation. Mick is an ambigous character right to the very end.
In the same way that you say they could have deliberately made the ending more ambiguous if that is what they had intended, I think they could have also deliberately made the ending more happy if that is what they had intended. It's swings and roundabouts really!! I think they did it as they did to precisely get us to talk about it as we are.
But - I absolutely think they stay together!!!!
(and now i'm going to bed because it's 1.30am and Mick has dominated me enough for one night!!!)
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Mar 25, 2010 17:28:54 GMT
TIPOU!!! Ahem. I'm back from my stint as domestic servant. While I was driving, I was thinking about the ending and why the lack of kiss didn't strike me as strange. I suddenly realized that it's because I'm so familiar with that gentle touching of the face gesture. Sorry to be personal here, but I've been married a long time, and after times of strife or struggle, or after difficulties that may not relate to our relationship but to the outside world, that is often what we do, just instinctively. Head down, hand to the face, no words. So intimate, a moment of great reconnection between two people. So I guess that is why to me it was such a sign of deep love (and as Tipou said, hope). Sorry to be such a sap. But I really love this movie too. Edited to add: Sorry numbat, I was typing as you were, so I didn't see your reply. Agreed that they could have made things more definitely sappy, but I think that wouldn't have been in keeping with the tone of the film. And I keep coming back to why would he deliver the pearl in person if he was (for example) married to someone else. That seems highly unlikely. Still, it is never a problem to agree to disagree around here! Well now I know what you'll be dreaming about tonight!
|
|
|
Post by numbat on Mar 25, 2010 17:34:46 GMT
See i can't go to bed because now i'm a bit over emotional about all this. I was only trying to explain to bluehorse why i thought they didn't give the movie an obvious, sappy, happy ending. That's not to say for a moment that i don't think it is the most glorious, emotional, heart wrenching ending which is why i always end up bawling. I obviously did a very poor job
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Mar 25, 2010 17:38:27 GMT
Oh, no! Your points are very articulate and well taken!!! (see my edits above)
It was like a light bulb over my head, when I finally realized why that gesture was so familiar to me (I guess I'm a little slow). So obviously that colors my perceptions of not just the meaning but the director's intent.
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Mar 25, 2010 17:41:20 GMT
numbat, you in fact made a point. we expect movies to be so blatantly obvious, in your face, that we dont expect lovers to stay together unless they lick each other's face for half an hour in the end. this one was much much much more subtle, as was the whole movie. i appreciate when a director does not feel the need to explain EVERYTHING twice as if we were twits.
|
|
|
Post by numbat on Mar 25, 2010 17:43:02 GMT
My points may be articulate but you don't agree with any of them!!!
Bluehorse felt that the ending was a goodbye not a reunion.
I think they will be in love for all time.........................
(I'm a bit tired i think)
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Mar 25, 2010 17:54:06 GMT
LOL! I disagree with a lot of articulate people. And I agree heartily and gladly with your personal interpretation of the ending, which of course is my preferred one. I also agree that the fact that Bluehorse interpreted the ending differently by definition means that viewers can have different interpretations. I just disagree with the notion that because it's not all wrapped up in a bow, we can't make assumptions about the direction the future takes (whichever assumptions you choose to make). If that were the case, we'd be discussing whether Petruchio and Kate eventually wind up divorced, or Ross decides to join Uncle Cullen on the pillar, etc. Every movie ends at a fixed moment of time. I think now I am just splitting hairs, and I don't want to do that, because I am so glad to be having a deep discussion about a movie again. It seems a long time since we've done this.
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Mar 25, 2010 17:55:57 GMT
RIGHT! and about a good one too. thanks to numbat, so, numbat, dont be sad...
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Mar 25, 2010 18:02:11 GMT
Yes, Numbat, big hug! PS Blame that on Nell, who got me thinking of teletubbies last night.
|
|
|
Post by tipou on Mar 25, 2010 18:04:29 GMT
TELETUBBIES. now we are back to our usual intellectual level.
|
|
|
Post by numbat on Mar 25, 2010 18:06:14 GMT
But that was my original point - what i have been saying all along!!!! You can make assumptions, but because Mick is such an ambiguous, complex, multi-layered character (because of the brilliance of the actor playing him - what was his name again? ), the assumptions that you might personally make are of your choosing. We three make the assumption that they stay together for all time, but bluehorse doesn't. And that is the mark of a great movie in my book!!! (and now i really am going to bed - so don't start arguing with me after i've gone!!!)
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Mar 25, 2010 18:09:56 GMT
But I have to argue--it's my nature! I was saying what I thought the director's intent for that scene was. That doesn't mean viewers won't see it differently!
PS Goodnight!
|
|
|
Post by numbat on Mar 25, 2010 18:11:13 GMT
Stop it now!!!!
|
|
|
Post by rueful on Mar 25, 2010 18:12:05 GMT
LOL! Ok. I agree with you totally in every way. Have sweet Mick dreams.
|
|