The Ending
-
babi_803 — 21 years ago(January 08, 2005 03:23 PM)
Hi people from Brasil:
Efexor
rodrigodl
pbarreirarj
abanhara
I also watched Edukators in Estao Botafogo, Rio de Janeiro and there was NO boat at all!!
Is there a chance that the director,editor or person from the crew tell us from the south part of the planet if there are different versions for this movie (what really seams to be)and why, thanks anyway!!
A luta continua -
vietnamviking — 21 years ago(February 17, 2005 01:08 AM)
I just watched the movie in Sweden yesterday, 16/2/05, and I didn't see a boat either. In a way I could see how having the boat would make the ending more exciting because it becomes more ambigious, but at the same time I get the feeling that just seeing them in the hotel makes them seem more humble than if they were dressed nicely and riding along in a yacht, which is nice.
Also, concerning Hardenberg, I like interpreting the ending in the way where he goes back to being the selfish yuppie because then the ending isn't perfectly happy and more realistic (according to my opinion). -
retardedgirls — 21 years ago(March 24, 2005 03:34 PM)
I saw the movie in Sweden too and at first I thought there was no boat in it, but then I remembered that in the ending when the three of them were lying in the bed, there was a sequence where you saw them taking off in a boat. They looked very happy and I assumed at first that this was some kind of a dream Jule had. It looked like a dream because the light was different and maybe in some kind of slow motion?, but now I realize it was just Jule thinking of them in the boat travelling to the island.
I don't know, maybe you also just have forgotten that piece from the film like I did at first? Or there is two versions of the movie.
Strange. But it's a great movie! -
timokl-1 — 20 years ago(April 14, 2005 11:47 PM)
Check out the Alternate Versions at IMDB.
http://www.imdb.com/board/10408777/alternateversions
The international version misses the scene with the boat. -
bruce-129 — 20 years ago(August 07, 2005 09:47 AM)
yeah that was the american version too i think.
so, my thought is, how are thay paying for all of this?
did they move and get jobs, are they stealing,
but the radar or radio towers at the end make it
clear that the kids are going to try to knock out
tv whoopee, big deal, so what.
maybe it is the kids that have to change, and
not hardenberger. -
brothermongoose — 20 years ago(April 30, 2005 03:12 AM)
i saw the movie yesterday in an independant cinema in Bath in England. it did not have a boat scene in, there was the old guy in his car pretty obviously looking discomforted and had probably called the police guys in to sort it out. the message "some people never change" i thought was however many times he said he was some wild lefty in his youth, he was now a capitalist for life. that would not change like he said earlier in tyhe film where he is washing his clothes talking about how political beliefs change with age. what they did show at the credits was the silloutte of the tv satellite transmitters. this was obviously for you to interperet.
-
jwatts83 — 20 years ago(July 27, 2005 11:45 PM)
I saw a version without a boat too, I saw it tonight, in Los Angeles, CA. The boat seems like it could be crucial in understanding the movie, it sheds a different light on it. Since I thought that Hardenberg called the cops, but that Jan, Peter and Jule fled to Spain. I didn't think about where they got the cash for the hotel though.
-
noralee — 20 years ago(July 28, 2005 05:56 AM)
I just saw the film in NYC - -no boat scene at all. The yacht version, however, does seem to make more sense. I'm not sure the director's excuse makes any sense, about the distribution issue.
In this version, I just assumed that the hotel where the maid was speaking Spanish was somewhere in the Mediterranean as they prepared to do the satellite attack (as they had gone on quite a bit about television's pernicious anti-revolutinary influence). I didn't see anything in the subtitles about Nicaragua as an option.
The note in the apartment was NOT signed The Edukators as all the previous notes were (nice point of a poster above about the Wenders' reference). And I don't think it was done by press-on letters like Jan's had been. So maybe it was written by H the capitalist. Though I do think he was the '68 idealist (or as a poster pointed out, at least for the pot and sex he's nostalgic for) he lied to them about his salary and Jan compliments him on being a good liar and manipulating them, especially with the free love line. (I assume that a character is named Jule as a reference to that other famous three-some Jules et Jim.)
So it's confusing! I shudder to think how a Hollywood version would resolve it. -
childofxautumnx — 18 years ago(October 20, 2007 10:12 AM)
That was a good movie. It threw me off in the end. I thought the businessman would be sympathetic to let them go.
I like the ending how the julie, jan and peter got themselves into a hotel room instead because they KNEW the business man was going to call the cops on them. -
silver_fly — 18 years ago(October 21, 2007 06:45 AM)
i totally agree. it was also kind of sad, especially with the sign saying "some people never change". what i don't really like is the fact that this movie apparently has another ending showing them to be materialistic (according to other posters).
and yeh i was also majorly disappointed with the rich man. bastard. -
vonGoethe — 18 years ago(October 31, 2007 08:45 PM)
Since Hardenberg started out as an anarcho-communist in his youth, wouldn't "some people never change" mean he was still sympathetic to the cause?
That does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor you must acquit! -
PaOwen — 18 years ago(November 12, 2007 10:44 AM)
If I was kidnapped by anyone, I'd be pretty angry about it. He started to identify with his captors, and on some level he was almost taking a vacation, but once he got home the gravity of the situation kind of hit him. It wasn't really that unrealistic in my opinion. I'd probably have done the same thing.
The "Some people never change" line really has a lot of meanings too though. Maybe it was FOR the businessman, suggesting that even though they knew he would go to the cops, he hasn't changed completely from his liberal, young self. -
smart7-1 — 18 years ago(November 19, 2007 10:41 AM)
I was surprised at the ending. I had began to like Hardenbergs character, and didnt think he would turn Jan, Jules and Peter for the one main reason that it seemed he had enjoyed the escape of his own life by being kidnapped and not being withheld by the constructs of living in high society for those few days.
When we see Hardenberg for the first time outside his house on the cell phone we notice how hyighly strung he is, in his sweater, and stressed expression on his face, which is ni strong contrast to the relaxed person we see standing in the mountains. For this reason alone, i expected him to be grateful to the youngsters. Although kidnapping is a serious crime, it seemed like this was a small part of the story.
When we see Hardenberg sitting depressed and restless on his couch I think it does show that he may have found come conscious, within himself, for reporting the trio.
All in the all, i think a great film. -
bdc147 — 18 years ago(November 29, 2007 08:37 AM)
I saw Handenberg sitting in the police car at the end, so he was arrested too. So maybe he joined the group or something, and they kept breaking in houses. That's why the letter in the house says: some people never change. Because inside he was still the guy he used to be when he was young.
I don't know, that's how I saw it -
ar_gyrion — 18 years ago(January 28, 2008 04:27 PM)
That is what I assumed too. The 3 are in that hotel/apartment somewhere in the Mediterranean like Jan talked about for taking out the TV signals for all of Europe. On the boat they get on there are the ID papers for Hardenberg so I assumed it was his boat and he was allowing them to use it for that purpose.