One thing many cinephiles and average movie goers alike rail against is "the happy ending." As in the Happy Ending of cliched legend, where everyone lives happily ever after and reality is thrown out the window. Of course happy endings have their place, but the thing is, while people rail against them, they don't realize most of their favorite movies have anything but an unhappy ending. They are not all over the top happy but few endings are complete downers. Most movies just end, as in the story is concluded. But this is already getting messy so let's step back and qualify.
Most cinephiles agree Alfred Hitchcock is near the top of the world's greatest filmmakers. And most cinephiles have gone off at one time or another about "the happy ending," and how hated it is. But how many Hitchcock films end staring into the stark face of despair? Not many. Vertigo's ending certainly isn't uplifting as Scottie walks to the ledge following Judy's death but it could be argued that with his vertigo and obsessions now gone, exorcised so to speak, perhaps he will finally get on with his life. I doubt it, but there's room there for argument.
And Psycho? Well, Vera Miles doesn't get killed, Norman gets caught and in the safe custody of the state, tips completely to the side of the Mother personality. It's not happy but it's not despairing either and provides closure. And how about Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, North by Northwest, Notorious, Shadow of a Doubt and many others? The guilty are caught, killed or punished, the heroes and heroines rescued and/or vindicated and in some cases, like Strangers on a Train, there's even a little joke thrown in at the end to send everyone home with a smile on their face. Many more Hitchcock's end this way, with a wink and a nod and an "all is right with the world again" philosophy (right up to his last, Family Plot), than don't.
And how about James Bond? The most successful series in film history with over twenty films and exactly one has a downer ending (On Her Majesty's Secret Service). Even Casino 
Royale has a satisfying revenge ending after an initial downer but the ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service is hopeless. And to me, despite thinking highly of the film as one of the best Bonds out there, feels rushed. I would have like a little more time devoted to Bond and Tracy, just a few more minutes, as husband and wife. Then the ending would have had much more impact.
And now we arrive at the real problem. The problem most of us have with a happy ending is the same problem we would have with a bleak ending that didn't work: We would dislike it if it didn't fit the story. It's not that it's happy or bleak, it's that it doesn't work. Both Ian Fleming and the producers of the film adaptation knew they didn't want Bond married, so both the book and film conclude with Tracy Bond's drive-by killing at the hands of Ernst Stavro Blofeld while George Lazenby as Bond struggles mightily with conveying the emotion of loss (and ultimately loses the struggle). It's an ending that not only feels wrong for this movie (and I know there are plenty of fans of this movie out there - please remember, I'm one of them) but feels wrong as an ending for a movie of this type in this particular franchise. I'm sure Fleming wanted to do something different, wanted to give Bond more depth or just a more complex history, but marrying him only to kill the bride feels like a cheap attempt to add gravitas to the series. [please see comments for further discussion of this]
Most movies find a way of combining despair and redemption for endings that satisfy both needs. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest has despair in R.P. McMurphy's lobotomy and mercy killing by Chief Bromden but then redemption as Bromden escapes to freedom. On the Waterfront has Terry Malloy defeated and beaten but then redeemed as he leads a new work crew aboard the cargo ship. The Searchers has many shades of grey as Ethan (John Wayne) "rescues" Debbie (Natalie Wood) from her new life and returns her to her old providing despair, redemption and moral ambiguity rolled into one tight little package. And one writer whose article I read a while back even states that "happy endings" are more often not happy but affirming of the human spirit. He provides many examples of both happy and bleak endings including one of the bleakest of all, I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang. With the Chain Gang ending now in the mix let's take it a step further.
Beyond fitting or not fitting the feel of a movie or its plot, the biggest difference between a good or bad happy/bleak ending is how long the director dwells upon it. In I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang James Allen (Paul Muni) is an innocent man wrongly imprisoned and subjected to the brutality of the chain gang system in the South. By the end of the film he has escaped and survives by stealing, the false charge thrown on him in the first place. It works because it is expressed quickly and without histrionics. The audience gets it and "The End" flashes on the screen.
On the happy side, Dorothy (Judy Garland) awakens in the concluding scene of The Wizard of Oz to find everything is okay again. It's short and sweet and perfectly befitting of this charming children's tale.
But when those endings are dwelled upon, lingered over, problems arise. Take E.T. the Extra-
Terrestrial, a film I swear I never thought I'd bring up here. Providing that story with a happy ending makes perfect sense to me given the characters and plot. But oh how that ending is dragged out. In what feels like forever Elliot (Henry Thomas) and E.T. (voice of Debra Winger) say their goodbyes while John Williams' music reaches new levels of goopy ascendance. By the time E.T. says "I'll be right here" indicating he will always be in Elliot's heart this viewer starts to get angry. And if that overwrought sentimentality and hyper emotional piano playing isn't enough, the mother ship upon exiting makes a goddamn rainbow in the sky!!! Crikey! I admit this is one movie loved by many a cinephile with which I am at complete odds. I just don't get it. I find this kind of happy ending to be the kind that gives all other happy endings a bad name. Overdone, overwrought and beaten until dead.
And just when you thought I couldn't possibly annoy my fellow cinephiles any further I offer up as my example of a bleak ending going too far, The Godfather Part II. Now I am a fan of the Godfather movies. I'm not wild about the third one, but as unintentional comedies go, it's not bad (I can already feel the hate mail being written). However, even recognizing the superb filmmaking at work in Part II, I can't help but feel Coppola drags it out too long. Let's face it, there's almost no need for this film to exist in the first place as everything we need to know about Michael's moral downfall is made evident by the conclusion of the first film. The second film doesn't take his character any further than that final scene in the study from The Godfather, it just confirms that he is dead inside and his father was not. Three and a half hours is a long time for a simple elaboration on a point already made. Nevertheless, I like the film ... up to a point. By the time we get to Fredo being killed on the lake it feels as if the ending has been happening the whole movie. From the start we know Michael is a bastard and the second he discovers Fredo's betrayal we know he's going to have him killed. We watch with a sense of dread for what we know is inevitable. That's great and works extremely well. But then Coppola keeps emphasizing Michael's solitude, losing Kay, waiting in the boathouse at his mother's funeral, standing at the window while Fredo is killed and finally, and with a none too subtle visual stroke, alone on a bench in a dead, frozen landscape. It all feels like too much, like the director signalling, "Behold my courageous exploration of the human soul!" The Godfather Part II is an excellent sequel to the first but seems too enamored of its own sense of despair.
And then there are countless other examples of movies with happy or bleak endings that either take it too far or admirably restrain themselves. Too many to mention here but two of my favorites are:
Chinatown - Best bleak ending EVER. Quick, focused, stunning.
Dodsworth - Best happy ending EVER. Despite being made during the Production Code Era, Dodsworth leaves his wife to be with the woman he actually loves. And does it just when you think all is lost.
If you have favorites, happy or bleak, let me know. Or give me hell over some of my opinions expressed here. Either way, I'm just happy to be here for you, even when things look bleak.
*********
Ed. Note - One of the great things about blogging is interacting with people who read and disagree with what you wrote. In the comments I have had the opportunity to re-assess my feelings on the ending of On Her Majesty's Secret Service and have changed "tacked on" to describe the ending to "rushed" and have added a sentence of elaboration. I know many still disagree with that but "tacked on" was the wrong choice of words and didn't express what I was trying to say.
132 comments:
I'm cool with the ending of E.T. until the rainbow. That's just ridiculous. I still like the movie, though.
On the subject of Spielberg, Empire of the Sun has a great happy ending that isn't dragged out, and just lets the genuine emotion come through. For me, the beginning and ending of that film are the best parts, which you can't often say about a movie.
I just saw L'Argent yesterday, and that ending is pretty goddamn bleak. I can't say I think it goes too far, as the film's style is so removed from the action, but I'm not a hundred per cent with Bresson, either. I don't know, I might post about this movie, so maybe I shouldn't go into it too deeply.
I think Empire of the Sun is probably Spielberg's best effort of the eighties. I didn't feel phony or forced to me like E.T. did. Although I admit it's been a long time since I've seen it but I do recall liking it very much.
When Spielberg goes for emotion rather than letting it happen he loses me. Like the ending of Saving Private Ryan with the cemetary breakdown. I think the movie would have worked better without that framing mechanism at all.
As for a bleak Spielberg, how about CETK? Not bleak, but surreal and bizarre. After all, his family leaves him and then rather than try and go back he continues onward and then hops aboard a ship he knows from just seeing the others get off and his quick briefing, will take him away for decades of Earth time. So the movie has a wonderous, optimistic feel even though we're watching a character effectively ditch his family. Which is kind of a weird ending when you think about it.
I haven't seen a lot of Bresson, but from what I have seen, your quote the film's style is so removed from the action seems to be the phrase I've been looking for to describe how I feel about what I have seen of his. That hits it on the head for me. That's how I feel when I think of Au hasard Balthazar which I like and have praised here before. Nevertheless, when people say, "Oh I couldn't watch it because I can't see an animal mistreated" I nod in agreement but secretly think, "No, actually you feel so removed from what's going on it doesn't matter."
I haven't seen Close Encounters in forever, but I agree, that's an odd, interesting ending. So is the ending to AI. I also agree that the framing device in Saving Private Ryan should have at least been re-written, if not outright ditched. The only reason I lean towards re-writing it is because the cemetary at Normandy is always striking, and could have been worked in more effectively.
Bresson just baffles me. I honestly don't "like" his films, but I genuinely want to see more of them, whereas with Godard, for instance, I don't like his films and will only continue to watch his films out of a sense of duty. So I guess that says something positive about Bresson.
Kent Jones does a commentary for L'Argent, which I'm about halfway through. So far, though, unless I've missed it, Jones hasn't really explained what Bresson is shooting for with his style, even though that's about all he talks about.
You sorta-kinda mentioned this, since you used it for your banner, but The Conversation does have a great, bleak ending. It also has one of my favorite lines: "I'm not afraid of death. I am afraid of murder, though."
Yeah, I chose that banner to use today because of the post. I think it has a great bleak/happy ending. Bleak in that Harry has been defeated but happy in a way because in his defeat he's free. He just gives up and plays his sax. There's that sense of relief you get when something you have been dreaded finally happens, and then you feel, "well now I'm in it and there's nothing more I can do."
I'm not sure I agree that the word "happy" applies to the ending of The Conversation. I've always taken that ending to mean that Caul has completely lost it. By your logic -- and I've actually seen this argument made (by Salman Rushdie, no less!) -- the ending of Brazil can be seen as happy. I understand the argument, but don't fully agree.
Speaking of Gene Hackman movies, Night Moves has what I think is a pretty terrific bleak ending.
As for bad bleak endings, I think the finale of Electra Glide in Blue is pretty much the epitome of tacked on darkness. The story's over, but darn it, unhappiness equals art, so let's add this stupid little coda where the hero (SPOILER!!) gets killed just because.
I was just using the word "happy" as opposed to "bleak" but didn't really mean "happy ending" in that sense. I just meant there's the bleak side and the side that perhaps Harry has resigned himself to defeat and in that resignation is now free of all the neuroses that have been shackled to him all this time. Still not very optimistic, but there's a little something there that's not quite despairing either.
I've never seen Electra Glide but I've read about it enough that I may as well just lie and say I have. But I haven't so I won't.
In my opinion, a happy ending is no more conventional than an unhappy ending.
What films need are good endings, that is, becoming ones... and as far as I am concerned, an "unhappy" one can wrap the story as well as a happy one, if the writer and directors know their stuff
"But oh how that ending is dragged out"
I totally agree. I feel I could like more Spielberg's films if he knew where to stop. Films like "A.I." or "Saving Private Ryan" are at least one hour too long.
And unfortunately, this goes also for many films produced by Spielberg (if not directed by him): I recall "The Goonies" as a film who could have ended at least half an hour before it does.
As per happy/unhappy finales (spoilers follow):
My all-time favourite film, "This land Is Mine" has an uplifting ending: The teacher played by Charles Laughton overcomes his fears, breaks his Oedippal dependence, denounces nazi Tiranny, dares to declare his love for maureen O'Hara (and it turns out she loves him, too!), and becomes a respected by his fellow citizens and students alike... But then the price of it is that the Nazis come for him and it's obvious that he'll be shoot against a wall. He hasn't time to do anything with Maureen beyond a parting kiss. And yet the film lets you with an "up" feeling.
In "The Eiger Sanction" Clint Esatwood sets off to eliminate a traitor while climbing a mountain, and gets everybody (who happen to be innocent) killed, except the actual traitor, who happens to be Clint's best buddy. Clint cannot complete his mission and finds he can't trust nobody anymore, not even her lover. Not a happy ending, but a good one.
"The Apartment", a bittersweet ending: Jack Lemmon is dignified, but unemployed; Shirley MacLaine has finally seen that she was dating a heel, and is a free woman now... But it is open to question whether she will fall for friendly Lemmon or into the arms of the next Fred McMurray.
And how should I consider the ending of "Witness for the Prosecution"? Happy? unhappy? fair? Unexpected, in any case.
And how should I qualify
I love the ending of Witness to the Prosecution and the movie in its entirety. There are many movies (Shock to the System and more seriously Crimes and Misdemeanors come to mind) where the viewer isn't sure what to feel by the end. Happy for the characters having successfully suppressed their conscience? Despairing that all is lost morally?
And the Laughton movie This Land is Mine is yet another I haven't seen so this post is turning out to be great for recommendations too. Which is good because I've done absolutely nothing with my Netflix queue since October. Anyway, it sounds wonderful and I hope to see it soon.
I'm glad thatI got you interested into watching the laughton-renoir film, though I hope you stopped reading at the right moment (given the spoilers alert)
Not that knowing the ending distracts from enjoying the film, but still...
As "Witness for the prosecution" I recall one critic putting the film down in a harsh way, on the grounds that-in his opinion- that the Wilder, through the Laughton character, was condoning capital punishment... Darn, I'm not for capital punishment, but it doesn't keep me from enjoying the film (or teh twist ending), but it seems that some guys are too dogmatic to enjoy a film.
Best bleak ending: Godard's My Life to Live.
It just...comes, dealt with and it's over. And although I haven't seen any Bresson, the phrase "style removed from the action" fits it perfectly.
I was not ready for the ending in Chinatown at all when I first saw it, because while I'm used to bleak endings in classic noir, there is never such an explicit triumph of evil as there is there. I honestly took it against the movie when I first saw it, but I'm thankfully over that now.
And I've never like E.T, even as a kid.
I gotta say, I do NOT like the ending of Witness for the Prosecution. I thoroughly enjoyed the film up to that point, but it was all too twisty and contrived for my tastes. Also, I'm pretty sure Marlene Dietrich has the honor of doing the worst cockney accent in history.
I do love A Shock to the System, however, and Crimes and Misdemeanors is the greatest movie, with arguably the greatest ending, in Allen's career. For myself, that ending fills me with both despair and hope, ending as it does with the sweet image of Sam Waterston dancing with his daughter at her wedding. I think it's interesting that an atheist like Allen still portrays the rabbi as the most decent person in the film. Allen may see him as blind in all senses of the word, but Waterston's character is still the only one who affirms life and hope and human decency.
It's just a great, humane, dark, deeply complex and extremely entertaining film.
I have one movie with two genuine endings - one bleak, one happy - the Last Laugh. The first feels the most authentic, the second feels like one of those fake Hollywood endings. I'm not sure where the film community comes down on this, but since the film is by F.W. Murnau, I guess both endings are "right."
Re: Witness for the Prosecution, I don't think being for or against capital punishment detracts from the film. I can see why Bill finds it too twisty at the end, and yes, Dietrich's accent is pretty bad but I love it nonetheless.
KH, I also was lucky enough to actually see Chinatown within a decade of its release so it wasn't written up by film historians yet and there was no internet so when I saw it I also saw it fresh as you did. I never held that ending against it though, I thought it was pretty incredible from the get go.
Is Noah Cross really triumphant at the end? I mean, he's not happy that Evelyn is dead. Evil wins, but I don't know that it's "triumphant". Plus, Cross gets shot in the arm, which I'm told is painful.
Bill, I'm with you completely on Crimes and Misdemeanors but I would add this: To me Allen is showing both theism and atheism as essentially valueless in the face of life's real problems. The two lead characters of the film, Allen and Landau, each have a 'therapist' so to speak. For Allen it is the atheist or nihilist philosopher of which he is so enamored and for Landau, the Rabbi. And both offer nothing of value to either of them in their moments of need. Yet, it's true, that they both offer the kindest words during the movie, with the philosopher's playing over the Rabbi dancing with the bride at the end, which is beautiful. I like the idea of a secular philosophy or theistic belief system being powerless in the face of everyday existence.
This post is turning embarrassing for me as I have to admit to further movies I haven't seen. And yes, The Last Laugh is one of them. But I'm buying it soon so I don't care. My wife and I have already starting the buying old movies thing so I have to wipe out my netflix queue and load it back up with new rentals.
Anyway, I've heard The Last Laugh is truly great and I'm very excited to see it, and though I know from reviews what you're speaking of with the endings, that's a whole different thing than actually seeing them so I'm very curious now to see them play out.
Jonathan - The Rabbi's advice is only powerless because to follow through with it would require the kind of integrity and moral fortitude that Landau doesn't possess. His character is scared and weak and, possibly, quietly sociopathic. He COULD have done as Waterston advised, and while it may not have gone better for HIM, it would have been RIGHT.
Well yes, the same goes for the philosopher and his advice on love. That's the point I was trying to make; Allen shows it is powerless because humanity has an incredible talent for ignoring good advice and looking out for number one. And so all the wisdom in the world is powerless when it's your marriage or your job on the line. Suddenly, self-preservation instinct rears its head. Many movies do that but then pull back at the end. Allen's movie says, "No, these people are going to look out for themselves until they're dead."
Johnathan: I haven't seen The Last Laugh either, which is stupid of me because I love all the other Murnau I've seen to pieces.
Actually, all of his movies have great endings. Nosferatu, Sunrise and especially Tabu now THERE'S a downer!
You're forgetting a "belief" Judah has that makes murder the only choice for him - that his wife will never be able to handle knowledge of his infidelity. This reveals Judah's role in the trinity for which Jonathan has provided two arms: his wife worships him as a saint.
That's fair, although I think Landau represents something more specific than mankind's survival instince. I think that most people who made the choice he does would feel genuine remorse afterwards. A lot of good that does the victim, but I think remorse is a more common reaction than what Landau eventually feels, although that, of course, is probably far more common than I'd like to think.
As an aside, and an opportunity to yet again promote a favorite writer, check out Donald E. Westlake's The Hook for another interesting look at a character similar to Landau's.
KH, me too, I love the Murnau I've seen and will see it soon.
Marilyn, that's a better way of expressing it than I was doing. My point being that we all have conflicting belief systems and make decisions every day that probably run counter to what we believe though most are small, for instance, knowing that lying is wrong but omitting facts or fabricating something anyway. The problem with a great secular philosophy or theistic belief, whether it be democracy for all or loving thy neighbor is that those philosophies and beliefs exist in the abstract and thus provide little guidance when applied to the specifics of everyday life. But thinking more about Judah believing his wife couldn't take it - God what an asshole! What a self-centered jerk.
As for me, when I killed my first lover I immediately went to the police. And if it hadn't been a cardboard standee of Nicole Kidman I grabbed from a Blockbuster Video dumpster I might have even been arrested.
Instead of laughed at.
Mercilessly.
Here's the online blurb for The Hook: The Hook brilliantly unveils a literary deception fueled by envy, fury, guilt, anger, and admiration. When Wayne Prentice sells his soul to his old friend, he begins a Hitchcockian journey to all the things he has ever wanted -- at a price far too great to pay.
It's available online in PDF form for four bucks. I just downloaded it and will read it here at work on breaks. The blurb, like most blurbs, is awful but I trust from your opinion that the book is good.
The problem with a great secular philosophy or theistic belief, whether it be democracy for all or loving thy neighbor is that those philosophies and beliefs exist in the abstract and thus provide little guidance when applied to the specifics of everyday life.
So what? The thought "I'm going to have salmon for dinner tonight" is abstract, too, until you actually do something about it. Calling a moral guide abstract doesn't rob it of its value, nor does saying the same thing about salmon render it any less delicious.
Jonathan - The Hook is really good. I may be in danger of overselling it, but my opinion of the novel is so high that I don't really care. And it's only "Hitchcockian" in that the plot is kicked off in a manner similar to Strangers on a Train, although that means that the adjective should really be "Highsmithian".
"I'm going to have salmon for dinner tonight" isn't a moral guide, it's a statement of intent. Anyway, what's the beef? There's no disagreement here. I'm just saying that 'love thy neighbor' is a great philosophy but according to the assholish behavior of your neighbor or you, or a specific feud over a specific property claim, it offers no real life guidance. That's it. That's all I'm saying. Jeez louise. Do you have stock in some moral guidance advice company?
Calm down, I'm not angry, and I didn't intend for my tone to convey that I was. I was just saying that every thought is abstract until it's acted upon, and therefore I don't think that calling a moral guide abstract reveals anything about that particular moral guide.
I think you're just mad because I brought up salmon.
Then I suppose I should have used the word "vague" or "general" instead of "abstract." The guidances are non-specific which of course opens them up to an individual's interpretation of what must or should be done.
Did your moral guidance advice company lose a lot of money recently on the stock market? Is that what the problem is?
And by the way, my Nicole Kidman standee used to wear a salmon tee shirt at night. It brought back some pretty ugly memories for me when you mentioned salmon.
Well, to stick with Crimes and Misdemeanors, "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty cut-and-dried, so Judah would have had to work extremely hard to interpret it in a way that allowed him to commit murder.
And my moral guidance advice company (MorGuide) is doing just fine. Things are a little lean right now, but we'll bounce back around Christmas.
Your Nicole Kidman standee sounds pretty sexy. I wish you hadn't killed it.
I cut the head off. She laughed at me Bill. She LAUGHED AT ME!!!
Anyway, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is indeed vague. It doesn't say "thou shalt not kill except in instances of self defence, or in war in support of your country or in protection of your family, etc. etc. etc." It says "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and gives no exceptions. So human beings start to decide what exceptions there might be. Judah's exceptions are selfish and ghastly and certainly not in line with anything his Rabbi believes. Nevertheless, I stand by the fact that these guidance's vagueness is their downfall, not because they're wrong (I agree with you, they are in many cases quite good things to live your life by) but because we human beings are all too well versed in inventing mounds of bullshit in our minds to rationalize our behavior in any set of circumstances. And I think that's what's so great about the movie is how Allen takes that observation to its extreme as we watch Judah rationalize cold blooded murder.
I like when E.T. ate the candy.
Fair enough, I suppose, but I think an intelligent adult like Judah knows full well what the exceptions to "Thou Shalt Not Kill" are, and what are not exceptions. He himself points them out to his brother, even though it's all lip service, and even his brother sees right through him.
Which makes me wonder about the scene, later, when Landau is talking to Allen and says that the character in his movie (who we know to actually be himself) felt periods of great remorse. Do you think that's actually true, and he DID feel remorse, or if what he really struggled with, and maybe interpreted as remorse, was actually a disturbance he felt by the fact that he experienced no remorse whatsoever? I vote for the latter, myself.
Arbogast, did you know that the candy was originally supposed to be M&Ms, but the M&M people wouldn't give Spielberg the rights to use their candy, so instead Reese's Pieces got a big boost in sales instead?? That's a true story!
It's true, it is true! I'd almost forgotten, having only heard the story four thousand eight hundred fifty six times!
Bill I go with the latter too. I think Landau's character is so deep in his own bullshit that he lost track of it all years ago. I think he was taken aback by how relieved he was that it was all over and kept arguing about it in his mind in an attempt to make himself feel something, which he never did.
Jonathan, you're a jerk. Salmon! SALMON SALMON SALMON SALMON!!!
NICOLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guidance doesn't have a downfall. You either take it or you don't. That's no reflection on the soundness or lack thereof of the guidance.
Judah is easily one of the worst people invented for the screen. He represents all the religious hypocrites who think their purchase on truth allows them to find more correct answers than anyone else and who also feel righteous about considering their position in society somewhat equivalent to sainthood.
G_d after all, has his hatchet man, too. Satan loved him more than any of the angels, so G_d cast him out. I interpret that to mean, "If you love me so much, do my dirty work for me."
Judah is a ruthless bastard isn't he? Especially the part you brought up earlier, about his wife. I've been thinking about that and wow, what a self centered abomination he is. He does think so highly of himself. Maybe his brother is his Lucifer.
Exactly.
Judah is easily one of the worst people invented for the screen.
We are all Judah. Just because I haven't had any of my lovers murdered doesn't mean I don't identify with the rift he represents between knowing scripture/wisdom/truth and living by it. As he fails, I fail... that I'm not religious doesn't mean I don't understand and appreciate the homily.
On the Facebook page of a friend of mine, people are leaving their favorite Gandhi quotes ("Be the change you want to see in the world") in what is growing to be quite a thread. It's really kind of sickening in a way, proving that more than half a century after his death it's easier to quote Gandhi than live like him in any way, shape or form.
It's really kind of sickening in a way, proving that more than half a century after his death it's easier to quote Gandhi than live like him in any way, shape or form.
That's why I hate bumper sticker philosophy. People fool themselves into believing quoting and believing in something is the same as acting on it. Or that even just quoting something is the same as believing it or understanding it. It's as if they think if they quote enough people that somehow a full formed set of guidelines for how to live their life will be formed.
Also, comparing Judah to religious hypocrites misses an important aspect of his character, one that I myself had forgotten about until now, which is that he's an atheist. He respects the rabbi, and knows him to be a wise and decent man, but it's because Judah disagrees with him that he's able to ignore his advice. And because Judah doesn't believe in God, he's able to feel comfortable, in the absence of any legal retribution, with his actions, because no one on any plane of existence will ever punish him.
All of which is not to say that I think immorality stems from atheism, so don't start hammering on me about that, but it's an important part of Judah's character.
I don't think Marilyn missed that in the comparison, I think that was a part of her comparison. He doesn't believe in God because in his mind, he is his own God. He's not an atheist because he has struggled with theological concepts only to conclude he cannot accept them. He is an atheist because he is too important to have anyone above him. And while I would never, ever say immorality stems from atheism, especially given all the horrors in the world that come from both believers and non-believers, I would say that Judah's immorality does stem from it. Or rather, it stems from his self adorned mono-theistic belief in his own divinity. Since he is the final judge, he can be as ammoral as he wants.
And I would agree with that totally.
And Arbo's comment about Gandhi reminds me of a quote from G. K. Chesterton (which I'm probably paraphrasing): "It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting. It's that Christianity has been found difficult, and not tried."
And he can even spell "amoral" correctly.
Just because a person has a bumper sticker doesn't mean he or she doesn't act according to those slogans. After all, Gandhi said AND did those things. Words can become deeds, and not everyone feels that simply putting a homily at the bottom of their e-mail constitutes their good deed for the month.
Arbogast, I am not Judah. It's not in me to kill for my own convenience. You'd argue that we are all animals capable of the worst humans can do. I say that if violence is properly acknowledged in our lives, as it is with rituals (see my The Quiet Man review for more on this), we need not act out dark impulses. Nor will we become Judahs without souls.
Just because a person has a bumper sticker doesn't mean he or she doesn't act according to those slogans.
Oh, no, I didn't mean that. Sorry. I was simply using the term "bumper sticker philosophy" to indicate those people who are full of aphorisms but low on actual deeds.
Actually, I hate bumper sticker philosophy, too, but for different reasons. I find a lot of it pretty presumptuous and paternal. I will admit that I put an "Impeach Bush" bumper sticker on my car more than 3 years ago, and a stop the war metallic ribbon on my car not even a year into the war in Iraq. I did those things as an affirmation that the country did not move in lockstep with the government, that we still had freedom of speech. I was appalled by the jingoism and aggression of the pro-war forces around me.
I am not Judah. It's not in me to kill for my own convenience.
Isn't that focusing in on the character a little too narrowly? Isn't the smaller sin before the greater sin - that which allows Judah to appreciate the poetry of moral precepts but not hew to them in practice - actually the more profound failing?
And I, too, have long lived by my own bumper sticker: No Fat Chicks!
In a word - no. Killing someone trumps the first tumble down the slippery slope.
In another word, Idisagree. By your calculus, killing seems almost to be a fait accompli committed by people who are your moral inferiors because killing has always been in their makeup, rather than the ugly consequence of a lifetime of convenient thinking.
In a wider sense, Marilyn, though, I stick to my interpretation because it's something of a cautionary tale for myself. I choose to stick to "the fault lies not in the stars but in ourselves" logic because it's something for me to work on and fear.
By the way, I texted Jonathan's cellphone that Marilyn and I had a huge fight here and that she's so angry she won't be coming back to Cinema Styles. And then he went into a tunnel and he has to go out to dinner and can't even come back here to check the comments section for hours.
I'm an evil bastard.
And then he sent me a pic of him holding a severed head and said he had killed Marilyn. I was alarmed at first but then he admitted it was just a cadaver he had stolen from the morgue. Yeah, we had a pretty good laugh over that one.
It was a quick dinner, by the way. But yummy.
I'd like to say something clever, but I'm too depressed that I put in a ton of work on my Only Yesterday review, and nobody is f_king reading it! I feel a slippery slope coming on...
I think there is no room for argument on Vertigo. Scottie is heading straight back to the rubber room.
Just so everyone knows, she's not annoyed with me because I read it, thought it was wonderful (as all her reviews are) and commented on it. It was made in 1933. Surely you have all learned from me that that is a glorious period for the movies. Go read it now.
And yeah, Larry, you're probably right. Like I said it could be argued but I doubt it. I think he's catatonic from that point on.
It was a quick dinner, by the way.
One of those difficult, awkward, "We have to talk about your blogging" dinners? God, I hate those.
Sorry Marilyn...you often write about movies I've never seen, and I don't know what to write.
Actually we talked about my logging. I spend an inordinate amount of time chopping down trees and throwing them in the river. It's a compulsion.
That last comment was a reply to Arbo.
I'm glad to see people mention "Saving Private Ryan." That's the first film I thought of when reading about "E.T." I haven't seen the 80s smash since I was a kid, so I can't comment on it. But given the target audience, I'm less offended by the principle of any "E.T." sin in this respect.
The "Saving Private Ryan" ending is unforgivable. So poorly acted. So overdone. By the end of it, you're not looking at the gravesite -- which, as someone said earlier, is so striking that it deserves to be filmed -- you're starting at the hooters of the daughters. If you're smart, I mean. The last thing you want to look at is the sobbing old fart.
But back to the larger topic ...
I know Cinema Styles doesn't deal as much in current films, but my favorite ending of the year goes to "JCVD" -- short, moving and bittersweet.
Another rather recent ending I enjoyed was last year's "Once," which borrows the closing crane shot from "To Kill A Mockingbird" to terrific effect.
I know, Bill. I've staked out a lonely blogging road, writing about overlooked films and personalities. It's hard being me.
Marilyn, I think you should write about The Sadist, and in roughly a week you should write about Boxing Helena.
Jason, Saving Private Ryan has a very over-sentimentalized ending due to the framing. Great Normandy visuals or not, if I watch it again, I'll just start with the landing scene.
And yes, I thought Once was absolutely charming and I loved that last shot pulling back from her at the piano at the window.
...What's "JCVD"?
Marilyn, Bill - But I like commenting on movies I haven't seen. I commented on all those stories that Bill read in October and I hadn't read them. It's a good way to ask the reviewer questions about the movie or book which is something we weren't able to do just a few years ago.
Before my questions and follow-up comments last week I never knew of the glaring plot changes from The Man With the Golden Arm from book to screen.
Now as for the technical side of things, I have had a few of my comments eaten on Movable Type. It's no big deal, I just write them again or if they were long to begin with then I copied them anyway (anytime a comment I am leaving starts to get long I make sure I quickly highlight it and copy it before publishing - takes two seconds and spares you the heartache if it gets eaten). Other times it seems to take a minute before it goes through. It's not you of course, it's Movable Type. Also I think people like to see their comments immediately and want others to see them so a dialogue can get started. Have you considered not doing comment moderation, or maybe just not doing it for the regulars?
I commented on all those stories that Bill read in October and I hadn't read them.
Hey, now...I DO appreciate your support, but there are MANY posts from that month that have a comment count of zero. ZERO!!!
Also, Jonathan, you've said before that you don't mind having the plot's of films you've never seen spoiled for you, so reading a whole post about such a film is a habit for you now. I do mind having things spoiled, though, so I tend to not read entire posts on those topics.
And regarding my previous comment, I'm not actually mad, so calm down!
Actually, Jonathan, it's not the lack of comments that was bothering me; I'm used to that. I track the traffic to my site, and I'm not getting hits from places I thought would be all over that review like a bad toupee. That's discouraging, especially since the Siren mentioned it as one of the 12 movies she needs to see. And I did put in maybe 12 hours, if you count software uploads and fiddling around with photos, to do that post.
RE comments: Yes, they're slow. Yes, there's supposed to be a way to let regulars go through right away, but it doesn't seem to work. Not much works on MT for me, and I wouldn't be using it if not for my sister site. Steve's too poor to update to a later version or get tech support. I've tried to read some books, use the help boards and whatnot, but I don't have enough time (perhaps over the holiday break, I'll be able to get some of these things solved). I'm having a meeting with Steve to see what we can do about this sad state of affairs.
And Bill, I wouldn't dream of stealing your thunder.
JCVD stands for Jean-Claude van Damme. It's a new film.
I'm so angry!!!!! Actually, I know I didn't comment on every post, just as you haven't commented on every post here, but I did comment on several because I found some aspect of the book or short story interesting and wanted to say something about it or ask a question.
And with reviews I find it's pretty easy to skip the plot if that's what you want to do. A quick skim of the first sentence of each paragraph usually alerts you as to when plot is still being discussed and when the reviewer is now giving her or his reaction.
That last comment was in response to Bill.
Jonathan - You have skipped a few reviews of mine because you didn't want the plot spoiled. You said so yourself about Tomorrow.
Speaking for myself, the more time I spend blogging and becoming part of that community, the more difficult I find it is to keep up with all the blogs I was in the habit of visiting. I'll find a new one, and spend time there, and let the old favorites languish. Then I feel bad about it. Then Marilyn comes over to Jonathan's blog and makes me feel worse.
I track the traffic to my site
So you've noticed my multiple visits daily. I do a complete run through of at least 50 blogs several times a day. Don't tell Roderick, because he's fine reviewer, but when I see he has posted instead of you I usually move on. I don't dislike him at all but I go there primarily to see what you've written.
And don't worry about the Siren. She'll get around to it eventually. I get the feeling she doesn't do much surfing outside of posting to her blog. I've noticed when she hits my site she leaves comments on a few weeks worth of posts, after everyone else has moved on from them, indicating she's does a once every couple of weeks surfing tour. She'll make her way to your review eventually.
Oh, crap, I heard about JCVD! That thing's actually good???
Oh and about the reviews - I've skipped as in read around the plot, yes, like I indicated to Bill. But, as with Tomorrow, I commented as such.
Here I mean, I commented here about that.
Speaking for myself, the more time I spend blogging and becoming part of that community, the more difficult I find it is to keep up with all the blogs I was in the habit of visiting. I'll find a new one, and spend time there, and let the old favorites languish. Then I feel bad about it. Then Marilyn comes over to Jonathan's blog and makes me feel worse.
Then the comments get intertwined and you start getting confused as to who you're talking to.
Who are you?
Arbogast.
Good morning, Arbogast.
Good morning Bill, and by the way, I feel bad too if I don't get to a blog right away and like Marilyn I think, "Why hasn't this person stopped by? Where's whatshisname?"
After a while I think we all start getting sensitive to it. These blogs are growing by leaps and bounds and there seem to be ten or twelve new movie blogs a day. Then you start getting insecure and wonder if people are leaving you for greener pastures.
It's odd. There are only about a dozen people out there who I actually look for to visit my site no matter how many hits I may have. You give yourself readership benchmarks and think once I'm getting x number of hits a day I won't worry about anything with this anymore and then find no matter how many hits you get you still think, "Why didn't Rick comment yesterday? Is Bill bored with my blog? Have I offended Marilyn?"
I am bored with your blog, and you really offended Marilyn.
Not to change the subject, but how do you track the bizarre Google searches that lead random people to your blog? I know you've commented on this, as has Stacie Ponder at "Final Girl". I doubt I'd have any interesting searches, being relatively new to the game, but I'd still like to know how to do it.
Down near the bottom of the sitemeter sidebar is "Search Words Ranked By" and then you have a choice of "page views" "visits" and something else. Just click on the "page views" one there. Today's more interesting ones for me are "Ann Baxter Nudity," a couple of classroom assignment questions "jesus camp edit analysis of sequence" and "what role did irony play in the short story 'the monkey's paw'" Actually I've gotten tons of "Monkey's Paw" hits in the last couple of days. Clearly there's an assignment out there somewhere.
Then there's "whats the name of the movie with about 4 girls that are like witches or something" - seriously.
Then the usual, "nude" "birth of a nation" and Tom Waits lyrics. I use a lot of his stuff for post titles so I come up if someone searches that particular song.
Okay, I think I've figured it out. Not much interesting so far, other than this one:
"care bears slash"
You're the first link that comes up with that.
I wonder why. Oh, wait...I did that whole post about Care Bears slashing each other. Now I remember.
Go to google images, type in "Luis Bunuel squirrel" and then click on the first pic, which is of a red squirrel. Then start again and type in "Luis Bunuel beehive" and click on the first pic there, of a blonde with a beehive.
Actually, when I search those images, the squirrel one gives me an image of, I belive, Bunuel and Dali, and the beehive one gives me an image from Virdiana...
What? I just tried again. It's been the same for months. Type in Luis Bunuel squirrel, just like that, in Google images, and the first pic is a red squirrel. Click on that pic and it takes you to Cinema Styles. How are you getting the other pics I wonder.
I don't know, but this is what I get:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=luis+bunuel+squirrel&gbv=2&safe=active
I understand now. Your safe search filter is on. Mine is off. If you set it to "don't filter my results" I'm first. Stupid Google, how dare they filter me out like that!
Like I'm a porn site or something.
That's weird, but I'm not going to turn off the filter, because I'm at work. At home, of course, that filter is NEVER on.
Remember when ET eated the candy? I liked that part.
That last comment was for ET.
He ate Reese's Pieces, but he was SUPPOSED to be eating M&Ms. Stupid Mars, Inc.!!
That's a true story!
Is it just me, or did 1969 seem like the year of the sad ending? Tracy Bond gets machine-gunned, Ben gets shot by the posse killing the living dead, the Wild Bunch all get killed while taking on the entire Mexican army and even Paul Newman and Robert Redford (as Butch and Sundance) get it from the combined forces of the Bolivian, Peruvian and Ecuadorian armies. Actually, for me, the best bleak ending may be from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, which had been a fairly lighthearted romp until Butch and Sundance decided to grab lunch at the wrong taco stand. As for tacked on happy endings that work, I love the ending of the Wild Bunch, when Deke decides to stop working for the man, and joins forces with Edmond O'Brien and some Mexican kids to make another go of it.
I have to disagree with you about Tracy Bond. I don't think the ending was tacked on at all. Rather, you could see her demise coming from the start, with her failed suicide attempt and rescue by Bond. Just as she was starting to love life, it was over for her. Sure, Ian Fleming and the Broccoli Bunch couldn't afford to have a married Bond for the franchise, but the murder of Tracy was an integral part of the story, and one which the franchise returned to in later films with subtle references.
Now onto Godfather II. I think Coppola was looking for more than just the decline and fall of Michael Corleone, which was the basic theme of the first film (his distaste for his family at the beginning during his sister's wedding is intense). Rather, he was showing the irony of the situation, how Vito did all of this crime and evil to protect his family and get them ahead so they wouldn't have to do this (referring back to the "I never wanted this for you" speech in the first film), while Michael ended up destroying his family through the crime syndicate. Where Vito died surrounded a large and loving family which he protected, Michael ends alone, with his family dead (mainly through his actions or malfeasance) or estranged.
Good points Fred. My problem with The Godfather Part II is not that anything you said is incorrect, because it isn't, but that I get all of that from the first film. It's clear that Vito is doing all of this for his family in the first film. It's clear Michael will destroy the family with it, which is why the conclusion of lying to his sister about killing her husband and the door seen closing on Kay is shown, precisely for that reason. And it makes the point beautifully. Further elaboration is not necessary. It doesn't mean you still can't do it and do it well, but the first part of the story gets everything across that the second part does, only in a much simpler, more subtle manner. Sometimes it's best to let a hint of a situation lie rather than fully detail it, as the second part does which in many ways kills the poetry of the first movie for me.
As for Tracy Bond, you're right, I probably shouldn't have classified it as tacked on. I guess my feelings are that the whole idea of him marrying her seemed like a gimmick to me. They could have fallen in love without the wedding but that's splitting hairs. I just wish had they decided to invest that kind of emotional depth into a Bond story that they would have done more with it. Instead of dealing with a situation where Bond has to deal with the conflicts that arise from protecting the country and being married they have a quick "bang bang she's dead" and roll credits. I just didn't think it was done well. Chinatown did the "woman you fell in love with and now she's dead" ending right, and On Her Majesty's.... For me at least.
And on Her Majesty's... did not. That's what the last comment should have ended with.
Marilyn: " I've staked out a lonely blogging road, writing about overlooked films and personalities. It's hard being me."
Hey Marilyn, welcome to my world. Next time you feel like you're not getting enough comments, check my site. By the way, I did read your post on "Only Yesterday".
Just to get back on topic:
Favorite happy ending: Psycho. Mom wins, and after all, she wouldn't hurt a fly.
Favorite sad ending: The Searchers. The door closes on Ethan Edwards. "Ride away . . . "
The endings of most of Charles Chaplin's features usually get to me as well.
You know, Peter, a boy's best friend is his mother. And that Ethan will be okay. I'm sure there's some hate mongering society out there that would love to have him as a member.
You're baiting me with the Bond reference, aren't you, Lapper?? (:
I don't know that the ending feels "tacked-on" to me-- I'd agree with Fred's points, and add that it's not just Tracey whose sadness is foreshadowed, but also Bond's.
One of my favorite moments in the film is the credits sequence, whose gorgeous Maurice Binder graphics and intentionally repetitive John Barry theme both suggest how trapped Bond is by the career choice he's made: we see his silhouette squeezed through an hour glass (time running out), find him running and running with no end in sight, and finally see all the images from the past films framed by two silhouettes of female soldiers-- he's caught in that sense of duty that will never allow him a moment's rest.
There's a lovely superimposition towards the end of Tracy seemingly buried by the avalanche Blofeld's started, which fades to Bond in M's office-- trapped by the bureaucracy from doing anything. The only way he can rescue Tracy is by going outside the secret service to his criminal friends (which leads to the best-paced and most exciting climax of any Bond film-- the violent ballet-like staging of the raid on Blofeld's mountain complex). And while we probably suspect something will happen (a married Bond probably not the demographic the producers want), the beautifully written and acted relationship throughout the film (which benefits from Diana Rigg's professionalism, but Lazenby isn't bad, either) makes the ending feel earned to me. If another Bond heroine was killed, it might not have meant as much, but this has real pathos.
So tacked-on, not for me, but RUSHED, sure. I think we go from the climactic raid to the wedding to the death in about six minutes. This might have been because several scenes towards the end of Blofeld following Bond and Tracy in the city had to be cut, as the film was already long over its desired running time. But even there, the suddenness is kind of effective-- it comes out of nowhere, is brutally quick, and barely gives the audience time to breathe.
If I sound critical, I don't mean to-- overall, I really agree with this excellent post. So often, we think of "unhappy endings" as being "more realistic," but it's really just another mode of storytelling, and no less an artificial choice.
Brian, as I said with Fred, I agree, I shouldn't have said "tacked on" but it felt rushed and not completely played out, which may account for the initial tacked on feel. The explanation you provide of scenes edited out near the end makes sense as to why it has that feeling.
As for the Barry score, I have it and love it. I have most of Barry's scores and am currently using one right now for a new short I am doing.
Peter - I know. I read your site, absolutely. You've definitely carved out a specialty area that most North Americans haven't got a clue about - including me. I HAVE to read your site just to get educated. Thanks for what you do.
And I'm not a comment whore - more like a traffic whore. This one just got to me because it took so long to put together. Thanks for reading it.
We've discussed this before but under-appreciated posts have a way of paying unexpected dividends, especially if they impart information and/or insight on a film that has received precious little of either. Lapper has some stories.
Arbo - I've never had that happen with a post that I can recall. I have had it happen when I made a concerted effort in person and in other online publications, specifically on The Exiles and Vera.
Sorry to be away but after dinner I was busy until beddy-bye time. Anyway, yes, I have posts that has happened to. I know for the first several months of this blog I was reading up on and watching race films (that's the name for movies done by and for black audiences in the teens, twenties and thirties). I wrote up the book A Separate Cinema by John Kisch and did a piece on Fredi Washington as well as covered racial stereotypes in the Hollywood of the twenties, thirties and forties.
And no one cared.
Kimberly was the only person who ever commented on them and Sheila commented on the Fredi Washington post. I remember because they were it. I got and get more action on nuclear bomb posts than on those which made me realize that while those two topics (race in Hollywood and nuclear arms in the Cold War) may be of interest to me they clearly weren't very interesting to my readers. But slowly I noticed something thanks to my sitemeter. Those posts, especially Fredi Washington, constantly get read. There is a steady stream of people finding those posts through Google or Yahoo while my 200 comment posts get little action beyond their immediate impact.
And I even got an e-mail from John Kisch, who wrote Separate Cinema which was great.
Cool!
The only post I have that has gotten nonstop hits is How Tasty Was My Little Frenchman, from a Russian sex discussion board.
Marilyn, those Russian boards! After I put up the pics of Veronica Lake in a corset about a week or so ago from the LIFE Magazine archives I started getting all these hits from Moscow. I thought, "boy, that's odd. 20 percent of my hits today have come from Moscow." So I hit 'referral' to see where they were coming from and it was a Russian sex discussion board.
Ah! The evils of capitalism!
Before the Russians de-sovietized themselves, it's probable that a theoretical soviet web forum would be hot on discussions about world economy, the last USA elections or the next five-year plan.
But right now... the world may go to shambles, as far as one has a cozy, warm bathroom where one can peruse the latest Playboy spread... or google "lesbian sex, minnie mouse, Amy Whinehouse"
A lot of people seem to spend somewhere between no seconds and ten seconds on my site. I guess it doesn't take that long to look at pictures of Sherilyn Fenn.
"lesbian sex, minnie mouse, Amy Whinehouse"
Gloria, how did you know I googled that?
Oh, it's a google clasic ;p
Bill, those sitemeter times are based on clicks to other posts on the blog. So if I go to your blog and spend 10 minutes reading every post on the main page, then click on my bookmark to go to CNN, it will show 0 seconds. If however, I read your blog for 10 minutes, then click on a picture or link on your blog to take me away from the main page it will register 10 minutes. I believe the technical term for that type of statistical archiving method is "Dumbshit Way of Averaging Time."
Jonathan, as usual I am back-reading after a period offline. I actually think Godfather II's ending is quite, quite perfect--it's about the hollowness of American success, a statement about the spiral of violence and also about the loneliness of kings or in this case, kingpins. The way things unwind at the end with characters all having their final moment is as operatic as the rest of the thing.
I want to come up with some examples of my own, but I am going to go read Marilyn's Only Yesterday review. :)
Campaspe, I don't disagree, but don't you get all that from the end of the first one? I see the part as an elaborate extension of the same ideas presented in the first. I like it but find it an overstatement, unnecessary but still intriguing.
I want to come up with some examples of my own, but I am going to go read Marilyn's Only Yesterday review. :)
My God! Did you actually read all these comments?! You are one dedicated visitor!
In Haneke's Funny Games a "Happy Ending" is almost impossible, in that, were he to tack on a conventional "happy ending" - where the killers get their comeuppance at the hands of a vengeful Naomi Watts (in the American remake) - the moral message of the whole film would be eradicably compromised. Instead we are treated to an ending as bleak as any that I know of yet still one that never retreats from it's moral certitude.
MRS, I'm not personally a fan of either version of Funny Games but you are right in that it certainly couldn't have a happy ending because the whole point is to work against the cliches of what would be expected with such a plot. Thus, if the wife/mother in either film succeeds in killing the invaders the movie would lose its meaning.
Well, we shall agree to disagree on the merits of Funny Games (one of Haneke's best in my estimation, and he is perhaps my favorite living filmmaker) but you nonetheless get my point precisely. It's a venus fly trap of a movie that offers no hope for conventional satisfaction in it's ending, either happy or sad.
In regards to E.T. I wondered: Does any Speilberg film have an ending that's anything less than hopeful and uplifting? Even Schindler's List goes for the emotional avalanche, much to the films detriment. Only Munich flirts with emotional ambiguity, even if it does have that ludicrous penultimate sex scene. The closing scene in "War of the Worlds" was so obscenely out-of-place in it's hopefulness that I wondered if Spielberg was commenting on the very nature of "happy endings" in general but then decided that that was far too "meta" for him.
P.S.- I just changed my profile name from MRS to SigLNY. Sorry for the confusion.
I somehow managed to read through most of these comments as well... I swear you're all experts on going off topic!
Just wanted to add that I don't think Spielberg's Empire of the Sun has a typical "happy ending." It also happens to be the director's best film in my not so humble opinion.
When Jim finally sees his parents again he's an entirely different person then the little boy they left behind. He's now a shattered adult who can't recognize his parents and they can't recognize him. It's a sad statement about lost innocence and that inevitable moment when we all realize that we're on our own in this world. Growing up is hard to do and Empire of the Sun is the only film where Spielberg actually deals with the ugly truth of it.
SigLNY and Kimberly - I'm no fan of Spielberg as Kimberly knows. I enjoy his early efforts and a few later ones, like Empire of the Sun but on the whole his reeking sentimentality makes me sick. I'm going to write about it soon but don't know if I want to endure the firestorm I'm sure will follow.
SigNLY, I agree about Schindler's List. It's not that the movie can't have a hopeful ending, it's that when Spielberg does it he always seems to overdo it! Same with Private Ryan. There is a trenchant emotional goopiness that he cannot pull himself back from and it's maddening.
Kimberly, like I said in the second comment, Empire of the Sun is definitely among his best work. I have found it's one of the few Spielberg movies that non-Spielberg fans seem to like. I wonder if he is aware of that. Perhaps he should study it more to see what he did in it.
I think that is why my favorite Spielberg films are "Jaws" and "Raiders of the Lost Ark." Since both these films are mere entertainment the director feels no pressure to cue the strings and wallow in overwrought sentiment. But both these movies showcase what IS good about Spielberg- his wit, his sense of fantasy and his knack for totally un-reflective storytelling, the films narrative washing over you like a flood. Anyway, I'll stop blabbering now.
SigLNY, that's the reason I enjoy his early works like Jaws as well. There is little opportunity for goopiness to seep in. And yes, it's true, Spielberg has some startling gifts in filmmaking that have much better showcases in films like Jaws.
I can't agree with much of your take on OHMSS. Rather than an attempt to add gravitas, it's perhaps almost a "fuck you" type of ending: "You want Bond to continue? Well this is what will have to happen." Even the jaunty resurgence of the Bond theme before the screen goes black seems like a mocking touch.
I don't think we need to deal "with a situation where Bond has to deal with the conflicts that arise from protecting the country and being married"--any viewer can imagine those, and I think the film counts on the viewer to take that into mind. And when the film shows Tracy being captured by Blofeld it foreshadows the vulnerability Bond would gain by being married.
Lastly, Lazenby did a fine job with that scene, and managed to neither over or underplay the drama. His voice is held at precisely the right sort of dazed, shellshocked tone, his face is shaken, and he even gives off a subtle, muffled sob at the very end, when he bends over Tracy's face. I fail to see how any other Bond would have improved on it or what they would have done to do so.
I.A. - Yeah, I've really got to edit out that tacked on bit. I don't know if you read all the comments here (there's a lot so I understand if you didn't) but I admitted that "tacked on" was the wrong way to put it. To me the ending felt rushed, not as in I want a long sequence afterwards of Bond dealing with it, but that they race through the wedding and drive by on their way to the credits.
Anyway, I think your description of the ending is pretty accurate. One of the things with blogging is you write something and put it up and maybe in just a few hours you're already reconsidering it. Which is what the comments are for (which is why I hate so many goddamn critics who make pronouncements in a comment free environment and never get called on it).
The only thing we disagree on at this point is Lazenby, who I just didn't feel was a very good actor for that kind of scene. And that's just an agree to disagree situation. As far as playing Bond though, I think he deserves a lot more credit than he's given.
And I think now I'll actually edit this post to say "rushed" and not "tacked on."
Thanks for stopping by.
Post a Comment