The many interpretations of Nocturnal Animals ending.
-
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 07:54 AM)
I believe you have overstepped with cancer. There are way too many different kinds of cancer and their effects to assume how a person is feeling and how long they might live or possibly survive. Edward was still pretty young, so there is a possibility he could beat it in many different ways.
Of course that is if Edward has cancer. -
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 08:14 AM)
Well while I believe there are parallels between Edward's novel and the main story I'm not sure if they are that direct. Edward might have cancer or he may not and if he does it doesn't mean it's the exact same cancer as Bobby's, does it?
Edward wrote Andes had stage 4 cancer because it works well in his novel, but the question of how that compares to his real life is still up for discussion. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 08:31 AM)
Don't let old FartyKat talk you out of Edward being afflicted with cancer. It conflicts with his absurd Tony=Susan theory, so he tries to throw cold water on the idea, but he used to believe it himself. Of course Edward has cancer - it's a no-brainer.
As for the disease itself - there can be very sudden downturns - from reasonable health and mobility to death in a matter of days. -
RoloTomassi777 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 08:51 AM)
After much contemplation no.1 is quite reasonable, no.2 kinda far fetched it took him 19 years to exact his revenge, no.3 possible but why bother setting up a date, no.4, tony=Susan so who represents Edward in the book? No.5 why bother contacting her at all, no.6 wishful thinking as Ford pointed out the ending was correct for him. No7. Why does it took him 19 years to kill himself? No.8 bipolar disorder. No evidence of that. No. 9 he was there until Wednesday. She misread him. He came on Tuesday she came on Wednesday. Possible. That's why Jake gyllanhaal said the ending was upbeat. There's hope.
-
Farshnoshket — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 07:04 AM)
Your 'absolute' nature is your biggest fault.
#1 States Edward died from cancer before he could show up, which while a possibility there is no reason to make it an absolute. He could have cancer, still be alive and not show up simply because it really is the only way to show Susan was the weak one. I certainly believe it possible that Edward could have cancer or he had cancer and it was bad enough that he decided to end his life, but to think that Edward died of cancer sometime between answering Susan's email and not showing up at the restaurant? I would believe Susan told him Edward to meet pretty soon, like the next night, so to think he died from cancer over a 24 hour period seems a little far fetched.
As far as the dedication goes, it only shows Edward possibly died of a broken heart. To believe that no one dedicates a book to someone they despise, well I'm pretty sure many people are inspired to create work based on people they despised. I wonder how many songs never would have been written if it weren't for broken hearts?
You really need to stop being so absolute. This is certainly the wrong board for that. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 24, 2017 06:20 PM)
. . . so to think he died from cancer over a 24 hour period seems a little far fetched.
Apparently you know as little about cancer as you do about reading an allegory for symbolic meaning. It's not at all far-fetched for a cancer which has metastasized to the brain to have very sudden incapacitating effects.
As for suicide - I don't know why you bring it up when Tony's demise has no suicidal aspect. Ford makes strenuous efforts to prevent anybody getting that idea.
As far as the dedication goes, it only shows Edward possibly died of a broken heart . . . many people are inspired to create work based on people they despised
This is gobblede****. An author's dedication is a entirely different matter from the subject of his fiction.
You really need to stop being so absolute.
And you need to stop being so absolute about your farcical teen-fiction revenge theory when several intelligent posters here have described the idea as absurd. If Edward deliberately arranges a meeting with the intent not to show up, he's dishonest, pathetic and a coward. -
Tarkovsky — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 08:46 AM)
Apparently you know as little about cancer as you do about reading an allegory for symbolic meaning. It's not at all far-fetched for a cancer which has metastasized to the brain to have very sudden incapacitating effects.
As for suicide - I don't know why you bring it up when Tony's demise has no suicidal aspect. Ford makes strenuous efforts to prevent anybody getting that idea.
Apparently if someone disagrees with you, just tell them they know very little about the topic and that's done?
I guess you may just be a troll or someone very narrowminded, by looking at your posts here on NA. But let's try to analyze a few things here.
So you say that he died of cancer
in a day or so
and yet he somehow managed to wait for her to read the manuscript which took her (at least) several days.
Are you saying that he is able to control when he dies?
In that case sure looks more logical that it's a suicide and not cancer.
Because probability says that it's not the case unless you don't like to involve probability and reason here.
Or are you saying it's just a coincidence he died of cancer just then (between e-mail and dinner)?
That would be pathetic, stupid and meaningless storytelling. Totally out of the movie theme. So obvious that's not the case.
There's always a slight chance that's the way it happened but it's just such a long shot that I can't see any logical and reasonable clue why ayone would insist so much on this theory. If you could answer my questions above and tell me what backs up the theory so much that you defnd it so harshly, I'd be so happy to see that.
So if we use logic and probability theory, than no, he didn't die of cancer. Either he lived (with or without cancer) or he killed himself, which I also don't think is the case, because after all these years he has become a very strong man through time, he's definitely not a coward but on the contrary, he's a hero for facing things in this manner.
What about the reason he didn't show up?
Because it's done, there's no turning back after all that suffering and 20 years of hell. It's all about closure.
So then is he a liar only set out to revenge? No, I think that he needed to show her one more thing because he knew the story alone won't be enough.
Two years ago he didn't return her calls. He knew something was off in her marriage when she contacted him after XY years.
So
he did know
she was unhappy.
She was obviously thinking that something may happen between them, so he sees that she doesn't really understand the consequences of her actions.
Maybe that's what trigerred him to write a book.
But this is just a speculation, it's just something I didn't see anyone writing about and wanted to point out as a possible motive for the book and the things we see happened 2 years after.
After reading the manuscript she understood what she put him through. And she still loved him (as the director said it was the idea - she fell in love with him again). But that is just not enough for her to see the entire picture, and he knew that, he is so huge that he understands that she needs a final message to be able to cope and accept the reality.
In the end his action was just the way to tell her without actually writing (which is such a
great storytelling
in the end) that she was foolish to think that after all that, there is a chance for anything. But that it's OK.
The point is to understand, he needed closure, so did she.
And I think she gets it in the end, she screwed up three lives, irreversibly.
Partially he did too, in his book he showed himself as a weak man, he didn't do anything to protect them two. So he also blames himself.
After 20 god damn years, there no fixing that, in any way!
She finally understands everything and that's her look on her face, disappointment but she still accepts that.
And that's the point of the ending which is definitely not a "non ending" as some call it. It's so brilliant. It's a closure for both of them, different but exactly what they both needed their whole lives but they couldn't get, it took them 20 years and a lot of pain to be able to find it.
Realistic too, because people often don't get it at all, except one of them is involved which is so strong and persistent like he was.
Beautiful movie in any case, not saying my theory is the only possible, but I think is the most probable and most realistic. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 09:52 AM)
Are you saying that he is able to control when he dies?
No, I've never said or suggested anything of the kind. None of us know when death will take us. OTOH I've known cancer patients who have gone from walking patients to dead in a couple of days - and as a pertinent example, Bobby looks like he's sinking fast. He also didn't show up - why?
So he did know she was unhappy.
Not at all. I once called an ex-GF 20 years after we'd last spoken. Unhappiness had nothing to do with it.
What about the reason he didn't show up?
That's the big conundrum, isn't it? He sends his ex-wife the manuscript, says he's in LA on business
and that he'd like to get together
. What changes his mind? There's nothing in the emails, is there?
It's a closure for both of them . . .
This term 'closure' is glib, overused - and meaningless in most cases.
. . he has become a very strong man through time, he's definitely not a coward . .
IMO a man who deliberately stands up another person is a pathetic, cowardly individual. Obviously you think this kind of conduct denotes strength, and that's where we part. It could even be closure. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 03:25 PM)
The idea that someone would throw a dead bird at a window is preposterous.
Ummm - what would be the motive for throwing a bird at the window? I doubt the OP has thought this through. Perhaps he believes Edward wants Susan to drop dead from fear? -
RoloTomassi777 — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 03:35 PM)
That was meant as a sarcasm lol. People are taking this movie way too seriously. I just wanna make light of how many people here are grasping at straws to thoroughly explain the overused of tropes in this movie. I can't believe it took so long for someone to call me out on that. Obviously it was a trope just like Ray jumpscare. And the revenge red herring.
-
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 04:34 PM)
When there are so many silly unfounded theories floating around, it becomes hard to identify sarcasm.
You're right - like the RE-VEN-GE painting and the call to the daughter, it was a red herring designed to lead the foolish up a garden path into the maze of revenge. Some of them are still lost in that labyrinth. -
RoloTomassi777 — 9 years ago(January 13, 2017 07:15 AM)
Another theory is there was a miscommunication during their correspondence. When Edward said he will be in LA until Wednesday that means he won't be there on Wednesday. Until means in the most literal sense that a true condition will become false upon the occurrence of the target event. Susan messaged Edward that she'd love to meet him on Tuesday night. Then Edward replied Tuesday night tell me where and when and I'll be there. But she came on Wednesday night. Classic love stories blunder.
-
ivannano — 9 years ago(January 14, 2017 06:30 AM)
I think Susan was reflected in several characters in the book:
- the wife
- as she was pregnant, also the daughter
- Ray, as she was the one who killed the daughter and Edwards image of her
- Lou as he took Tony to the middle of nowhere and left him - as Susan did to Edward
Finally, when Tony took control, it didn't bring any satisfaction as it was too late to save his family. He was broken and alone.
That's why Edward didn't show up at the restaurant. He wanted to teach Susan one last lesson that you can't go back and have to live, as she said, in the real world.
-
bellapeligrosa — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 01:09 PM)
Edward doesn't know what her life is like now, that she's broke, her husband is cheating, and that she's going through a mid-life crisis. There is no way he could know any of that. He only knows the Susan from 20 years before, the one that became everything she hated about her mother, cheated, aborted his child and broke his heart.
I agree with other people on this board that Susan is a number of different characters. He's a writer, and he would carry his demons for a long time - the pain and hurt - but he doesn't strike me as someone who couldn't forgive. He's more likely to be wounded, than angry.
This is about her, and her own reactions to the book. It forces her to realise the ugliness inside herself, reflect back on past mistakes, and deal with the pain of being cheated on. As she sits in that restaurant, it's not the embarrassment of being stood up by Edward that makes her sad, it's the self-loathing that has been building up inside her. Edward has succeeded in finally writing something beautiful and living up to his potential. She feels like she's wasted hers. In that moment in the restaurant, their roles are reversed and he is the stronger one. She's a desperately unhappy woman, living in a fake world, regretful of past mistakes, and for a moment there was a glimmer of hope. Now she sits there lonely, with a full retrospective of her life running through her head, thinking 'how did I come to this?' The reason Edward doesn't turn up is irrelevant.
What I can't buy into is if we are to believe that Edward sent her the novel, and then stood her up for revenge. That seems petulant and immature (for a man in his forties), and out of character from what we saw in the flashbacks. He'd driven the point home by sending her the manuscript in the first place, a not so subtle dig and by dedicating the book to her he's made it personal. Standing her up too is pointless, unnecessary insult to injury. And if he had cancer that far advanced (another theory), why would he be flying across the country - he'd be in a hospice. The fact is we know nothing about current day Edward for a reason - all we CAN do is speculate - and it makes it a richer film for being so open to interpretation because everyone can have their favourite theory. Likelihood is he was stuck in LA traffic and his phone died.
It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film! -
exit00-1 — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 04:06 PM)
Totally agree with what your wrote here. I had basically the same ideas after seeing the film. The story is all about Susan and how her life has evolved. I also think that it's laughable that the ending is about some big revenge plot from Edward.
-
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 22, 2017 10:57 AM)
I also think that it's laughable that the ending is about some big revenge plot from Edward.
The credulous swallow the RE-VEN-GE bait, and can't spit it out. For some reason - probably misogyny - they like to imagine Susan is a '
crushed, destroyed woman
' as she drinks whiskey alone at the restaurant. Edward's no-show does have to be explained, but revenge has absolutely
nothing
to do with it.