Movies with endings that don't resolve anything (SPOILERS SHOULD BE EXPECTED) (1 Viewer)

[Jonathan T.]

No, his mother very clearly says it can never be undone.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Maybe not by watching the film once, but by going back, and rewatching, and analsing, and thinking, and discussing it with others, then it makes sense. The main explanation I have seen (the one on Salon) doesn't rely on any external information, it is based solely on information contained in the film. It's all there - it just takes more effort to actually figure out than usual.

 

[george kaplan]

Well I don't know if that's one of the sites I've seen, but I do know that Lynch had to post 10 'clues' due to all the backlash, even amongst his fans, about the incomprehensibility of the plot, and those are incorporated into the solution.

I still maintain two things -

1 - NOBODY, who has never seen this film before, and knows nothing about it, could be put into a confined room, and have the film played (any number of times), and just by watching the film and using logic, figure it all out. I don't believe anyone ever has, or anyone ever could, and to those who've claimed to do so, I simply don't believe you.

2 - a film that doesn't self-contain at least enough information to basically figure out what's going on is flawed. Memento is a challenging film, but all of the meat is right there for someone to think about and figure out. Lynch moves back and forth throughout time, and changing from "reality" to "Freudianly symbolic dream world", without leaving "sufficient" info about those changes. To say that, "oh, in all the dream sequences we can see that she wears the watch on her left hand, and in the real world we see she wears the watch on her right hand, etc.", is fine as a posterior explanation, but not as something that someone could reasonably have used in watching the film in isolation to understand it.

To those who mention films like 2001, Total Recall, Blade Runner, etc., I think you're missing the point of this thread. This isn't about films that don't resolve every little thing (what film ever has or ever could?), or that have multiple possibilities. This is about films with endings so vague, so unresolved as to be completely unsatisfying. If you haven't watched Blow Up, for instance, do so, and then you'll understand.

Take for example Total Recall. We may not know at the end whether he really went to Mars or not, but no matter which explanation you believe, the film makes sense. This is a matter of leaving some uncertainty, but in a good way. Such is not the case with a film like Blow Up that never tells you who the victim was, who the murderer was, why the murder took place, etc. Defenders of the film will say "well it's really not about a murder, it's a statement about loneliness and isolation, etc." Bullshit. Vertigo is a film about those things, but it resolves the plot. I swear, in Blow Up, it's like the filmmaker was too stupid or lazy to be able to figure out a satisfactory ending, and so he thought, hell, I'll just put in some avant-garde bullshit in here, and just leave it at that.

It kind of is like the end of Monty Python, except that they're being funny and essentially doing their "now for something completely different" bit. No one can doubt for a moment that the film is a comedy from the get go. Can you imagine however, if it was done straight, as an action/adventure film (like LOTR), and then ended that way by jumping into the present? Would that be satisfying? Would it be OK to say at that point, "well you might have thought this was a medieval adventure film about knights, but it was really an artistic avant-garde statement about..." - please. :rolleyes

 

[Colin Jacobson]

How does this film's ending not resolve the issue?

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It's probably not fair to criticize Back to the Future 2 for its unresolved ending since it was designed as half a movie - it'd be the same as slamming Fellowship and Two Towers for that problem. However, I mention it because the ending REALLY disappointed me when I saw it theatrically in 1989. I think I knew they were making BTTF 3 at the same time, but I didn't realize 2 would have such a vague ending. I was POed!

It didn't help that the film's tone was so much darker than the first flick. I've come to like 2, but at the time I hated it...

 

[Zack Gibbs]

But BTTF 2 resolves every major plot point of its internal story. Sure, it ends on a cliffhanger (just like the first one), but it's not like you spent the whole movie wondering if Marty was going to rescue Doc from the old west.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Like I said, it's probably not a movie that deserves to be in this thread. I just brought it up as part of a discussion of a movie that initially left me unfulfilled because of its design.

I'd disagree that the first movie ended on a cliffhanger. That bit about straightening out Marty's kids at the end of BTTF was really just a goof - it wasn't originally ended to connect to a later movie. I certainly saw it that way in 1985 - it was a cute ending to the flick but not anything that made me feel like there was a cliffhanger.

2 was very different. Hell, it ended with a trailer for 3! And yes, it resolved the specific story about Marty's 2015 family, but since Marty was still stuck in the wrong era and now needed to save Doc, the full tale was FAR from over. I left BTTF with the feeling of a complete story - I left 2 with the feeling I'd seen half of a movie...

 

[Jonathan T.]

Well that is because you did.

It's pretty much the same story with Star Wars, Episode 4 is a self contained story, because it had to be in case the other two were never made. Empire on the other hand is only half a movie....

 

[Colin Jacobson]

And that's part of the reason why I think Zemeckis handled the end of 2 poorly. When I left Empire, I felt perfectly satisfied. It left things hanging but still came to a decent conclusion. It was the same with the first two LOTR flicks. I didn't have the sense of incompletion that I got with BTTF 2.

I already said that BTTF 2 probably shouldn't qualify for this thread - I brought it up to convey the feeling I had in 1989. Now I'm sorry I did so...

 

[TheLongshot]

Well, I think the big difference is that BTTF 2 and 3 were made concurrently and released 6 months of each other. Similar thing for the Matrix sequels.

I think that's what the problem is with a middle movie of a trilogy. Kinda hard to end things satsifactory for the film, when you need to set up for the finale.

Jason

 

[Colin Jacobson]

So why didn't the endings of Empire Strikes Back or Two Towers bother me in the least?

 

[Dale MA]

Funny you should say that because Back to the Future II & III were written as ONE movie, the script was called Back to the Future: Paradox but because the script was SO huge they had to cut it down, so they decided to make it into two separate movies -- so, you see it IS half a movie.

Anyway, the Back to the Future Trilogy is one of the most perfect movie trilogy's ever IMO.

 

[Jonathan T.]

I love back to the future, and unlike most, II is my favourite, even though the scenes in the future are so very much cornier than I am sure they seemed back in the late 80s, early 90s (or the way I remeber them as a child).

 

[Eddy-C]

The ending to The Dreamers made no sense to me but I'm not into films from that era so maybe it was a homage.