Ending question (spoilers)
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The House of Yes
aviolinsreligion — 20 years ago(October 16, 2005 07:23 PM)
It's been a while since I've seen this movie, so my recollection may be a bit vage. But I've wanted to ask this question since I've seen this movie.
At the end, we see a home video recording shot by Marty of Jackie O when they were kids. Jackie O backs up to a couch, and Marty advances forward. She then tells him to stop or something to that effect, but he keeps moving towards her. Does anyone else think that this is trying to signify that the initiator behind the whole ordeal and their relationship was indeed Marty, even though it was seen from the rest of the movie that it was Jackie O (because she was so crazy nuts)?
That's what I got from it, and wanted to see what others think. Thanks for any responses. -
iyouheweshe — 20 years ago(October 20, 2005 10:41 AM)
i think that be it. the basic insanity of the mother and jackie o. was firmly enough established in the body of the film, but marty could be seen as just getting sucked into their deranged world. that final scene serves to show that marty was actually a proliferator of the weirdness along with the others, pushing him up to the same level as mom and sis, and also that he was even a contributing factor to his sister's derangement. it modified how we were to look at his death, making it more like he played the game of his own volition and his death was an assumed risk which came true. his expression as he played JFK for the last time, awaiting the bullet that would surely kill him, was less of shock and horror and more of, "i kinda thought this was gonna happen."
-
joanbrazas — 20 years ago(November 04, 2005 04:35 PM)
I think that Marty was definitely guilty of sexual abuse (bordering on rape, Jackie telling him she wants him to "stop") as the last scene with the video camera indicates. Creepy for sure! Would Jackie O still have been crazy? Probably, she had the genes. Would the mother have continued to throw them together? Maybe, maybe not. The final scene certainly raises a whole new level of questions for the audience to ponder.
-
MrBook_ — 14 years ago(June 24, 2011 11:58 AM)
I saw it as she was playing. The fact that she smiles at the end shows that she wanted him.
It's very conflicted. First of all, "Stop it" is ostensibly referring to him filming her, and it's not serious on that top level. A level down from that, she's smiling coyly as she says it, implying that she's in charge, seducing him, mischievous. But her phrasing and delivery on that last line is very telling. "Stop it." Not like an order; like a request. I think it refers to something bigger than him goofing around with the movie camera. It's like she's saying, "You can stop it." On some level she recognized that they had gotten on this destructive path (and, it can be read,
he
had gotten them on this destructive path), of sick, incestuous, death-obsessed sexual games. She was already dealing with mental problems (or at least that's implied - haven't seen it in a while), and doing what they're doing can only make it much worse. Being relatively sane and in control, he had the ability to "stop it" at any time, but instead he opted to think with his crotch and exploit his sister's mental instability. Of all of them, he is the most morally culpable, because he could have stopped it before it got as out of control as it did, but chose not to.
Get on up. -
ivatlantic — 16 years ago(May 06, 2009 04:04 AM)
I don't think it bordered on rape at all, I literally just watched the movie & the look in her eyes & the tone of her voice when telling him to stop was not the look or tone of someone who really wanted him to stop.
-
bemyzeke — 20 years ago(December 29, 2005 08:17 AM)
I tend to disagree with the conclusions being drawn in this thread in placing marty morally at the same level as others in family.
It is less important who initated the bad deed when we know both parties were mutually consenting. However what is important is that a person (marty in this case) was trying to get out of that situation. This desire in itself, and the subsequesnt actions, put marty morally up above the rest.
Who has the right to refuse repentence and redemption to those who seek it? This is a very fundamental aspect of human justice system (and moral values); allowing people to redeeem thmeselves with or without physical punishment. -
teresathebarista — 19 years ago(April 16, 2006 12:59 PM)
I always felt that "Stop it" was referring to the filming, since she tells him right beforehand to put the camera down because she's tired. Earlier in the movie when they are talking about the Ides of March party and their initial incest, Marty speaks of how he was scared and Jackie says, "So I started the game."
-
ashenphoenix — 19 years ago(June 17, 2006 06:33 PM)
Is Marty really morally superior to the other characters?
He seems care less about others needs (when compared to his brother), care less about the truth (when compared to his sister and Leslie), and care about keeping the family together (when compared to his mother).
As he points out - is he cheating if he's having sex with (someone who he thinks of as) "himself"?
Each character has moral flaws that exist in tension (commonly known as an ethical dilemma). Each character also has some moral highs.
This is not a film about black and white - but a film with shades of grey and technicolor (as evidenced in the "historical" footage). -
riboflavin — 19 years ago(April 23, 2006 03:48 PM)
I just watched the movie last night and made the same assumption. In fact, that's why I came to these boards to see if someone else considered this possibility. I think it's a common assumption because we are conditioned, as a society, to assume that the man is ALWAYS the instigator, and the woman is the quintessential victim (much like your typical Lifetime movie).
There was nothing to indicate that he was an instigator - he wasn't older, and none of the prior scenes or dialog put any more blame on him than anyone else. He was a willing participant (though this incestuous relationship began when they were children), and as one other poster here already said, he was seeking redemption in adulthood, which does indeed put him on a higher moral footing than the Jackie or the mother.
So what was the reason for this closing scene? It must have been important enough for the director to bring in Rachel Leigh Cook for 20 seconds of film. I don't think it's to lay blame on the male figure, but rather to show the precise moment when harmless child's play goes too far.
And what a way to close this movie. -
lilidoll — 19 years ago(May 09, 2006 09:09 PM)
I absolutely believe so. The first time I watched it I assumed he was the initiator and that Jackie's smile meant that she did not want him or 'it' to stop. I feel it was a very important scene because throughout the entire movie you see him as the one trying to break away, trying to hide, trying to deny. That was what made Jackie so 'crazy': that he had started something that meant the world to her then simply pulled away as though she were a blow-up doll he used to fulfill his fantasy incidental and unnecessary once the fantasy became a little too real. That is the relationship being explored here: the give and pull, the balance of power, within a fetishistic (for lack of a better word) romance and especially within a family. Also, notice how he had to get Spelling's character to help him fantasize about 'the normal life' (one so cutesy and perfect it was simply silly) in order to leave Jackie. He did not want to be normal, he wanted the fantasy of being normal. He wasn't leaving one weird relationship he was entering another. And here is my opinion(and this may sound truly idiotic to anyone who has never been caught up in an elaborate fantasy), I believe that the movie is telling us that he was wrong to leave. That he needed to come to terms with himself, accept himself and his desires once and for all. And may I say, poor Jackie!
-
akelly4863 — 19 years ago(May 26, 2006 10:29 AM)
I agree that her telling Marty to "stop it" was an indication that he was the one who instigated the relationship. I also agree that Marty was going more for the illusion of normalcy with Spelling's character. But I have to say that I think the question of Marty's morality in comparison to the other characters is irrelevent, especially if he was the one who started everything. To me, he was just as screwed up as the rest of them. And even though he was trying to get out, I think he realized at the end that he was just like the rest of them and not better, which is why he accepted his fate even though I'm sure he knew that Jackie was going to kill him.
-
jetjagua — 19 years ago(May 30, 2006 07:00 AM)
Nice ideas. I can see how it could be taken either way. One thing I don't agree with is the assumption of insanity. I think that the guest got it right "I don't think your crazy. Just spoiled".
The life they lead is the result that so many children of "old money" get when they live a life of "yes". What do I do when I grow up? It doesn't matter. Who do I love? It doesn't matter.
If you would have told "Jackie O" that the trust fund was gone and she started work Monday at the donut shop "Sink or Swim".
She would swim. -
ashenphoenix — 19 years ago(June 17, 2006 06:24 PM)
I find it interesting that Jackie O is the only one that has a coherent account of what happened to their father.
This play/film's major theme seems to have been truth, and Jackie O seems to be the only one not trying desperately to lie.
Makes an interesting statement about "insanity" - that maybe it happens when we have no lies left.
Would Jackie O survive in the donut-shop existence outside the house, however?
I doubt it - she wouldn't have had the little lies necessary to survive in the "real" world. -
juviejay — 19 years ago(August 03, 2006 12:26 AM)
To me, the final scene sort of justified (a little bit) Jackie's killing of Marty. He did, it seems, initiate the incestuous relationship. He was (initially) the aggressor. But she didn't fight him too hard. In fact, within a few seconds, she decides to play (and master) the game. The smile and gaze she flashes into the camera is both sinister and deranged. I felt a little less bad about Marty being killed, but Jackie is the true villain.
-
Violet_Loves_Iliona — 18 years ago(October 04, 2007 06:35 AM)
JetJagua
, I think you have it absolutely spot-on. Couldn't have said it better myself!
In fact, when Tori Spelling's character comments "I don't think your crazy. Just spoiled", doesn't Jackie reply "Well, it's no fun if you're going to tell the truth"? I think it was all a part of the life of privilege and indulgence that Marty, Jacky and Anthony have been lucky enough to experience.