Flawless, until… *spoilers*
-
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.
-
k_boogs — 18 years ago(June 27, 2007 04:48 PM)
My main problem with the ending was Kinski's part. I disagree with Camby that she's a bad actress - I've seen and enjoyed her in other films - but her Texas accent was TERRIBLE. Really - take it from a Texan. It completely took me out of the moment. I also agree a bit with the poster upthread who said that it was an unfortunate example of telling instead of showing. I do think the backstory on the two characters provided something necessary to the audience (we really want to know by that point what the hell happened to these two), but it could have been done more gracefully. Still, all in all a beautiful film.
-
kenny-164 — 18 years ago(June 28, 2007 06:36 AM)
The only way to "show" the backstory of why Travis and Jane fell apart would be to use a flashback. The film used the device of a home movie to show how much they loved each other, how Hunter was part of them, and how they were all a group with Walt and Anne. But of course no home movie would exist to show the bad times.
There are no other flashbacks in the film. No real flashbacks of any kind.
So, Wenders could have conceivably altered the script to show what happened with flashbacks. But would that have really flowed better than the telling device used?
I have my doubts.
A third possibility would have been to begin the film chronologically at the point that Jane and Travis began to break apart. That of course would have been a very different story, and even less effective, most likely. -
eighties_rule — 11 years ago(October 17, 2014 11:30 AM)
I heavily disagree. That's one of the best scenes in the movie, probably the best. Harry Dean Stanton does a terrific job, it's well written/directed, and it's very impactful/vivid Just for you to see, I've known a couple of people who've seen the movie when it came out and remember those things (described in the scene) like they were actually visible in the movie, not as the character telling them.