Flawless, until… *spoilers*
-
MisterBizzones — 20 years ago(April 27, 2005 01:34 PM)
I agree that some dialogue was necessary for clarity, and the silence prior to the speech certainly rendered it more striking, at least at first, but I thought that the actual dialogue was far too expository and lacking in humanity. Travis' demeanor seems inconsistent with what we've learned of him. (The
first
scene in which he sees Jane at the peelers' is handled beautifully.)
I heard that Wenders deviated from Shepard's script at this point and the two of them improvised most of the dialogue in this scene. I wouldn't be terribly surprised. -
TopFrog — 20 years ago(May 01, 2005 08:18 AM)
in the commentary on the Region 1 DVD Wim Wenders says that for the speech scene Kinski and Stanton insisted on following exactly, word for word, what Shepard had written. Wenders says that because they wanted to avoid any deviation from the script, he ended up shooting more film for that scene than in any other scene that he has shot.
In the commentary on the DVD Wenders also explains that the original script only went up to where Travis comes to L.A. The plan was to shoot that, and, having seen how it went up to that point, for Wenders and Shepard to then figure out the rest of the story. Unfortunately Shepard couldn't be present for the shooting of the first half of the movie, and so Wenders went forward, faxing ideas back and forth with Shepard. Thus the second half of the movie was partially scripted by Shepard, with Wenders collaborating with him and taking the story in some directions on his own.
TopFrog -
sexy_dancer — 20 years ago(August 07, 2005 10:04 PM)
Nah. I loved that scene. It's the movie's equlivalent of when Poirot (or whoever) explains the mystery to the other characters & the audience, and Paris, Texas is a mystery in some ways.
Wim Wenders isn't exactly Tarkovsky. -
jealous_monk — 20 years ago(October 01, 2005 04:45 AM)
I completely disagree, Travis' monologue is perfect. After all the silence, after a film of little moments he finally opens up and lets it all out, he reveals to us what has made him the way he is.
The entire film is flawless, it is the most perfect film ever made. -
pcqgod — 20 years ago(October 01, 2005 02:24 PM)
Upon watching it again, recently, I found that the monologue does kind of detract from the mystery of the movie, as Travis reveals all the unpleasant secrets of the past. Still, it provides a necessary emotional climax to the movie.
"If you've got any sense of humor or no standards at all you'll love 'em." -
felix_sidewinder — 19 years ago(September 11, 2006 11:43 PM)
Nah, I disagree. There's only so much beauty and mystery that you can take. At this monologue the emotion only increases and you apreciate the film more because you've spent an hour and a half having no idea what is going on. Even with that long monologue, it still feels sparse and free.
-
MisterBizzones — 19 years ago(February 26, 2007 10:39 AM)
It took a few more viewings for me, but I can see where you guys are coming from now. And to the person who said Wenders ain't exactly Tarkovsky, well, based on his recent films he could probably do with a screening or three of
The Sacrifice
. -
sivilcavage — 18 years ago(May 30, 2007 05:04 PM)
maybe the awkwardness of the moment and the stale manner in which its presented is to illustrate the state in which they'd abandoned their feelings for one another: untouched, un-nurtured, withered, dulled, and just as confusing as when they both decided to turn their backs on it. don't they once again turn their backs on one another in that scene, one last time, when they both face the truth of what happened?
i think it's a pretty powerful moment, a kind of sostenuto ending that holds out on those last few notes of travis' loneliness, that shows just how disconnected they are, how genuine and forthright jane is (even when she's being deceptive) and how brooding travis is and was. they're very different people but somehow they found love together. that's really one of the fundamental themes at the core of the movie, when you think about it.
it's a beautiful ending, in my opinion.
"hey, i asked for ketchup, i'm eatin' salad here!"
-
kenny-164 — 18 years ago(June 08, 2007 07:07 AM)
Going back to the original question on this thread, I disagree that Travis's telling the long story detracted from the film in general or the use of image and silence in particular to tell the story.
The way Travis's monologue progresses is a guide to why he left Jane in the first place and why he felt he must do so again as the film closes. It refers back to what happened before the film began while also showing Travis's feelings about and views of the events described. I appreciate the originals poster's point that this lead to a sort of disjointed effect compared to the manner of story telling employed until that point, but I can't imagine how the film would have gone on without Travis's monologue. It was essential. -
nosnojsirhc — 18 years ago(June 08, 2007 01:22 PM)
the two monologues featured at the end are - informationally, backstory-wise - essential, as you say. they unfortunately are the props holding up a theater-style story. but the movie is not like theater at all - it is a scenic and moody indie film. so when wenders tacks on the monologues to flesh out why for the audience, he's stapling sam shepard onto wenders. sam shepard's plays are often like this, featuring 'realistic' characters and settings behaving like 'theater'. it doesn't work at the end of this film - for me, anyway.