Forced Hollywood Ending?
-
gnolti — 19 years ago(August 05, 2006 04:59 AM)
Nobody can top Crealist's summary, but I'd add one point: The story is a satisfying fulfillment of the philosophy (or thesis, or credo, or what have you) that Chayefsky put forward in Network (1976), which is that the individual in modern society is too self-absorbed and self-interested to be capable of love. (In Network he pitted William Holden against Faye Dunaway and the way corporate media made a mockery of human experience. Holden lost.) I don't know how Chayefsky's original novel of Altered States ended, but it makes sense that he would try to show that humans are still capable of reaching out to each other from within the womb/tomb of the self.
"Follow those who seek the truth. Beware of those who find it." -
Patrick-27 — 19 years ago(August 08, 2006 11:33 AM)
Actually, the novel (which I just finished reading for the 2nd time
since I first read it in 1986) ended the same way as the movie, except that
they didn't disappear and re-appear as they did in the movie.
The novel of course was also PACKED with theoretical speculations of
what was happening to Jessup. I found it both fascinating and hard
to understand.
In that last scene where Jessup is explaining to Emily what happened, he
tells her that at one point all of his matter was returning to pure engergy,
pure nothingness. And it doesn't stop there. It never stops. From nothingness,
it goes on to something more horrible! Whatever that means. That has had me
stumped ever since I first read the book, but it sounds alot like Emily did
more that just save Jessup's life, or save him from spending the rest of
it looking like an extra from 1,000,000 B.C.. She did nothing less than
save him from what might be called Hell. And she did so at the risk of
joining him there. I just wish that I could more clearly understand the
exact nature of what she saved him from. Basically, the book seemed more
like a metaphore for human kind's search for the meaning of life than it
did a science fiction.
I was not overly impressed with the DVD. It did have a number of trailers,
and scene access. It also had a page about the scientific theory that went
into the movie. When I first saw that page, my eyes bugged out because I
didn't look very carefully and I thought that each sentence was a link to
a different documentary about the science of altered states, but instead,
the text simply posed the question of wheter or not it was possible to
retrieve such ancient memories? Some scientists think that the answer
might lie it the unexplored two thirds of the human brain. That's the
best of it that I can remember.
Now, if you want to rent a movie with a fascinating "Science Of" documentary,
check out the DVD for "Suspect Zero" and see what it has to say about remote
viewing.
In any case, I really did like altered states (which I saw in the theatre)or I
wouldn't have rented the DVD, or book from the library. But what I wouldn't
give to talk to the late Paddy Chayefsky, or some of the scientists that
he spoke to, whose names are mentioned in the acknowledgements
By the way Gnolti, I noticed that quote at the end of your post.
"Follow those who seek the truth. Beware of those who find it."
When I first heard it, I heard it phrased as "May god deliver us
to those who seek the truth, and deliver us from those who've found
it". I've been looking for the author of that quote for years. Do you
know who it is?
-Patrick- -
gnolti — 19 years ago(August 09, 2006 04:22 AM)
Ironic you should notice, Patrick, since I only just changed my tag yesterday, as I do periodically. But I got the quote from Truffaut's Le Peau Douce, where it was attributed to Andre Gide.
"I never had a latency period." -
tbyrd8 — 19 years ago(August 24, 2006 04:13 PM)
I never could figure out why Chayevsky disowned the film. Not only was the ending virtually the same, huge chunks of dialogue came straight from the book to the screen, though often with the characters (very naturally, in my opinion) saying their lines at the same time, interrupting each other. I liked this movie from the first viewing in the theater, and along the way got a VHS and now a DVD of it. But then I like almost all of "crazy" Ken Russell's films.
-
Nick_Jones — 17 years ago(December 14, 2008 09:57 PM)
Chayevsky disowned the film (sight unseen, according to the Trivia section), and substituted the name "Sidney Aaron" for the screenplay credit, because he didn't like Ken Russell's direction and tried to undermine what he was doing. When Russell caught Chayevsky telling the actors they "shouldn't act so drunk" in the restaurant scene, Russell had him thrown off the set. In other words, Chayevsky (well-known for his overblown ego) was being a d*ck, got caught, and acted like a spiteful little child.
-
rainbird131162 — 18 years ago(November 18, 2007 07:36 AM)
It just doesn't look like it was intended to end that way.
Yes it does & it's the perfect ending. The whole dynamic of Jessup & Emily's relationship is that she loves him & would do anything, whereas he just cares about his work. She proves how she feels by saving his life in the tankroom, plunging into that cosmic whirlpool and bringing him back from the void. When Jessup tells her that his experience has made him realise how empty the universe is and how important Emily's love for him is, it's the first sign that his priorities have changed. In the final scene he overcomes the transformation to save her life, proving by his actions that he loves her. It's a fine ending and makes perfect sense given the themes the movie examines.
It looks like the ending should have been more like Jessup and possibly his wife disintegrating into that great vortex of a higher (lower) level of being.
Since the whole experiment was about regression why on earth would they sudddenly be turned into a
higher
level of being (besides, didn't we see that trotted out in
Star Trek: The Slow Motion Picture
)? And what would be the point of showing them disintegrating into a lower level of being other than to provide a pointlessly downer ending? Moreover how would such an ending square with the earlier scene of Emily being able to save Jessup from the whirlpool?
I sensed that Chayefsky was pressured by Hollywood sensibilities of the time to concoct a happy ending perpetuating the old "love conquers all" axiom and that's why the end of the movie seems so abrupt.
'Hollywood sensibilities of the time'? What, in 1980?
. 'Love conquers all' may be an old axiom but that doesn't make it any the less true. The great thing about the film is that it finds a fresh way to deliver this message.
Whether this was due to unfavorable audience repsonses in pre-screenings or pressure from the cinematic illuminati, it just looks a bit contrite at the end when compared to the deliberate pacing of the rest of the movie.
Well I didn't find the movie 'deliberately paced' (by which I take it you mean slow). In fact I was surprised just how quickly it seemed to zip along. At a tight 99 mins I thought
Altered States
was a rather good example of a movie that knew what it wanted to say and got the hell out once it had said it. -
LeonardPine — 18 years ago(March 03, 2008 11:39 AM)
It was always meant to end like it does, but they had a lot of problems of how to film it. The prosthetic suits looked to 'rubbery' so it was decided to put visual effects over the top of the shots. Very complicated way back then.
I like the ending, and thats the ending that was always intended.
"I felt my pecker flutter once, like a pigeon havin' a heart attack" -
mojojobob — 18 years ago(March 04, 2008 04:30 PM)
I agree with most of the assumptions made in this thread pertaining to way the film ends, thematically it makes sense. The pacing that is implemented in the way the story is told and filmed is not on the other hand. The previous three scenes are a long build ups to the truth in Eddie's experiments, and it is tackled that he finds this ultimate truth to existence. The scene of his backlash upon knowing this great nothingness and the paralleled physical regression are both extremely brief, not fully fleshing out such an important epiphany. The film shows Eddie running around in this ape-man state for over ten minutes, which was relatively unimportant when compared with what happens at the very end. Thats why it seems tacked on, its too abrupt given its context to the rest of the picture.
http://whatsnewinspace.blogspot.com -
c0y0te — 18 years ago(March 08, 2008 09:21 AM)
I don't remember wich one it is, but there is an episode of South Park (yeah) where Cartman do the ''Jessup wall thumping thingie'' while changing colors! I thought it was pretty hilarious and weird at the same time I mean, who watches South Park and know about Altered States?!? Just me, maybe
-
agentalbert — 9 years ago(July 05, 2016 01:01 AM)
I agree with most of the assumptions made in this thread pertaining to way the film ends, thematically it makes sense. The pacing that is implemented in the way the story is told and filmed is not on the other hand. The previous three scenes are a long build ups to the truth in Eddie's experiments, and it is tackled that he finds this ultimate truth to existence.
The scene of his backlash upon knowing this great nothingness and the paralleled physical regression are both extremely brief, not fully fleshing out such an important epiphany.
The film shows Eddie running around in this ape-man state for over ten minutes, which was relatively unimportant when compared with what happens at the very end. Thats why it seems tacked on, its too abrupt given its context to the rest of the picture.
I think you've nailed it here. The ending seems so abrupt and rushed and I don't think the importance of Jessup's epiphany comes across well. Too little time spent there, and too much on him attacking security guards and visiting the zoo. -
Stay_away_from_the_Metropol — 18 years ago(March 10, 2008 10:39 AM)
I completely disagree with that statement.
Without the "love conquers all" ending, the movie would hardly be worth as much as it is.
No movie has ever effected me like this movie has, and I mean that because I was lacking a certain grasp and understanding on love itself - this movie made it clear for me.
Not many other movies touch base dealing with insanity and being so close to the edge, to losing it, and how LOVE could possibly be the only medicine.
Jessup is a good man in the film, just way too far inhe almost loses it, and he almost takes his wife with himfortunately, love saves them both just in the knick of time.
I don't know manall I know is, I watched this movie on mushrooms, during the most horrible phase of my life, and it completely changed my life for the better. Without that ending, I might still be lost and depressed.
That's my story. -
cocopoloco — 15 years ago(March 08, 2011 08:59 PM)
I couldn't disagree more. Jessup had spent his entire life searching for truth, only to discover that it exists only as we create it. A 2001-esque ending with the characters merging with the god concept would have contradicted the existentialist theme of the entire film.
-
pninson — 13 years ago(July 12, 2012 05:15 PM)
I read the novel before the movie was made, so I had a good idea of what to expect when I went to the theater.
Whatever Chayefsky's complaints about the film, it does follow the book, very closely. In fact the book is written much like a film treatment, in much the same way that Michael Crichton's and Ira Levin's novels typically do. (Both Chayefsky and Levin were playwrights.)
In any case, Chayefsky is responsible for the ending, no matter how you slice it.
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report. -
Herreken — 12 years ago(September 12, 2013 11:00 AM)
pninson
I read the novel before the movie was made, so I had a good idea of what to expect when I went to the theater.
Whatever Chayefsky's complaints about the film, it does follow the book, very closely. In fact the book is written much like a film treatment, in much the same way that Michael Crichton's and Ira Levin's novels typically do. (Both Chayefsky and Levin were playwrights.)
In any case, Chayefsky is responsible for the ending, no matter how you slice it.
I saw the movie first then decided to read the book. I was surprised at how closely the movie followed the book. I was also surprised to hear that the writer disowned the movie. It was a good adaptation of the book.
I didn't think that the film ending was tacked on or intended to end a different way.
DISPLAY thy breasts, my Julia! -
bgordon1234 — 11 years ago(June 30, 2014 10:04 PM)
The ending wasn't forced at all! If any of you were to actually read the freaking book you would find that the ending int he book is EXACTLY the same! The screenplay was written by Paddy even though he later disowned it because he wasn't happy with the direction of the film by Ken Russell.
The ending might seem contrite but it's taken directly from the book. Go read it and educate yourself!