The Ending
-
nona_pinkfinger — 18 years ago(February 03, 2008 02:29 PM)
I believe the apartment the SWAT team is at is Jan and Peter's, not Jule's. Because of the stickers on the door. I thought the same thing, that it was Jule's, but her walls didn't look that shabby, plus the door stickers.
And they were safely in a hotel room - my guess is that it is near the Mediterranean, working on their next project. -
danburton720 — 18 years ago(December 23, 2007 03:43 PM)
I didn't particularly like this ending, I think it would've been better just to see the 3 of them get arrested. I mean I agree with their causes and everything, I just would've preferred a more melon coly ending.
Something that I also wondered, yes they checked themselves into a hotel, but the maid looked as if she was spanish/italian or something and therefore meditteranean. If you recall from earlier in the film, I think it was Jan who had a photo of an island in the meditteranean that had the satellite receivers or something for all the televisions in europe and he would like to strike there and disable it. Maybe the hotel they are staying in is somewhere in that area because they plan to disable the systems on that island?
Just a thought.
Laters. -
humbertocr — 18 years ago(February 16, 2008 02:08 PM)
Of course the apartament where the police strike in is the Jan and Peter's one, just by the stickers at the door.
What exactly was written at the message that Hardenberg give to Jule? Maybe that is a letter of telling which and where his boat was.
For sure they are somewhere in Spain, so the maid speaks in Spanish.
The message on the wall intrigues me. Maybe for Hardenberg as well as he is not able to change as a capitalist.
In my opinion, the objective of the boys is a little much naive. But good film at all. -
el_flow — 18 years ago(March 12, 2008 05:55 AM)
This is wierd. It seems like some people here have watched a different ending than I did. Maybe they put an alternative ending to the international release?
I'm german and I saw the german ('original'?) version (cinema & DVD). To me, the ending was quite clear. At first he's shown all weary and tired in his perfect house, and you don't know what he's up to now, what he'll make of his experience. He obviously informed the police, which misleads you to think "some people never change". But in the very last shot in the last scene, on the boat, you see that it's actually his boat. I think he HAD to call the cops and play the game, because he got kidnapped for quite a while. People will have missed him, his family, job etc., so he just had to.
But I think he has already decided that the Edukators were right; so he warned them and even gave them his boat. In the end he DID change. I loved that ending.
your mother ate my dog! - well, not all of it.
-
mandyzuda — 18 years ago(March 14, 2008 05:12 PM)
I completely agree. I'm from Brazil, and that's the ending the DVD has here.
I hadn't thought about the theory that "Some people never change" was referring to Hardenberg's anarcho-communist side was still alive in him, and that the Edukators woke it up.
The scene where we see Hardenberg in his apartment, alone, looking very much frustrated seems to me that he is wondering if the 3 will get away with their doings in the future, or something of the king. If he himself did the right thing, even. He seemed very concerned, not angry much less like a victim.
Plus, yes, of course they were in the Mediterranean, they had made the plans previously, and it shows them talking about it over maps yes, most people here probably have seen a different ending
RIP Heath Ledger. Too young!
Simple mistakes cost lives sometimes. -
ericarien — 18 years ago(March 29, 2008 03:54 PM)
Ok, so the note Hartenberg gives to Jules when they drop him off at his house contains instructions about the boat, and maybe about the police too. That means he's in on their plans in some way.
BUT two things:
First, she needed a "real" note about the debt-money-thing to give to the insurance people - how did she get that?
Second, why did Hartenberg have to tell the police? I don't really buy the "he had to because or else he would look suspicious" explanation It seems unnecessary.
I agree that he may be in on it though, because how else could they get hold of his boat?
There Must (should) be some other explanation than Hartenberg being a bad guy after all - "Some people never change" is not a believable moral for this movie. -
bgil_1186 — 17 years ago(May 17, 2008 05:30 PM)
Wait! So there's different scenes depending on the region?! I saw it in Australia and it ended with the note: "Some people never change." I assumed that Hardenberg struggled about whether or not he should tell the police, but in the end he did. The three suspected that he wouldn't keep his word, so they escaped before they could be caught. The fact that he was in the police car, in a suit, made me assume that he was there to ID them. I figured the reason why they raided Jan and Peter's apartment was because the government knew about Jules moving out (probably a 'change of address' to receive mail). So, with all of this, I assumed that note was meant for Hardenberg. This made me think back on the movie. I recall them pointing out how good of a liar he was on several occassions. I also remember Jules and Jan commenting on what Hardenberg would do if he saw his couch in the pool. With all of this, I just assumed that Hardenberg just started lying (with a good knowledge of history) after realizing that his kidnappers were left-winged fanatics, in turn winning their trust so that they wouldn't harm him. Although he seemed sympathetic in the end, his materialism (his ruined couch, broken wine bottles, etc.) won out at the end. I thought I had this down but it turns out that perhaps I was wrong! I think I prefer the boat ending more!
-
publicz — 17 years ago(June 09, 2008 07:59 PM)
I think the note "some people don't change" is a message to Hardenberg, but the three talk about themselves, saying "we will not change and give up our ideals the way you did".
When Brhl wants to throw away the tech-stuff one scene before, his friend tells him that he wants to continue with the political work, and not surrender to the morals of the establishment. He says "the three of us are more important than that" and she says "the best ideas survive". Then they go to spain to disable the antennas.
I think Hagendberg realises at home that he lucked out, especially not knowing that the gun was fake. He might even ponder about the 70s when the RAF killed politicians and bankers. The reports about that kidnappings also describe a very similar, talkative atmosphere, just that the people were executed at the end. He probably doesn't want to be responsible for anything these young people might do in the future (even though I think they did connect) so he reports them.
Z -
Thrasymachus1964 — 17 years ago(June 10, 2008 09:44 PM)
I thought the ending (which does not involve Hardenburg's yacht in the version I saw) was clear: the trio knew Hardenburg would betray them, and he did. This is because he is too attached to his life as a rich guy, and to the system that made him a rich guy. I think Hardenburg was sincere in his discussions with the trio in the mountains, but when he got back to 'real life' he reverted to the man he really was: someone who had been willing to burden a young girl with a 100,000 debt. In dramatic terms (i.e., from the screenwriter's perspective), Hardenburg couldn't be allowed to change as easily as that the change wasn't really earned for him. His sympathy for the young radicals was merely nostalgia. Plus clearly the filmmakers didn't want to cop out with a happy-ever-after ending; they wanted to re-affirm the radical politics with which the film began.
The last shot of the film, when the credits roll, shows giant satellite dishes. The viewer is meant to realize the trio have escaped to the Mediterranean island mentioned earlier. I don't see any reason to believe they're in Barcelona. Even if the maid is speaking Spanish (Catalan?), there are surely Spanish-speaking maids in the Mediterranean.
The note 'Some people never change' means, first, Hardenburg, who remained the man he was at the beginning of the film. But second, it also refers back to the trio of young people, who also re-affirm their own radicalism. As does the film as a whole.
This movie wants to say to viewers: don't laugh at the foolishness of these youthful idealists because in the end, despite everything, they're right and Hardenburg and his kind are wrong. Join the revolution! -
nemeses88 — 12 years ago(July 06, 2013 11:26 PM)
I interpreted the last note in a whole different light
The note saying "people never change" to me meant that Hardenburg was still a revolutionary at heart. And that he let them go into his home again to 'legitimize' them as a group.
Obviously they had to 'break' into his home again to leave the note. But why would they do that or risk it a second time? unless Hardenburg let them in on purpose.
By letting them leave the note and then having Hardenburg reporting on them, the edukators would of gather more notoriety and more recognition as a revolutionary group. -
Future_Games — 11 years ago(November 05, 2014 05:57 AM)
The version I watched didn't show the three of them on Hardenberg's boat. I hate it when films have scenes cut for release in different countries. Why cut that little bit out of the ending? It's a bit pointless.
ROCK STA
RS HAVE KIDN
APPED MY SON