The many interpretations of Nocturnal Animals ending.
-
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. -
omarcruz86 — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 10:15 PM)
Good post.
I don't agree with your claim that Edward's no-show is petty, per se. As a singular action, yes, it is petty. but when you also take into account that he wrote an entire book dedicated to her where all the characters are arguably a facet of Susan, claimed in his letter that Susan was the inspiration for this work, and then the scene of the painting with a singular word:
Revenge
(because of the abortion, as alluded by a baby being written into the scene), then it's pretty clear that both the fictional book and the screenplay of Nocturnal Animals is really a story about revenge. The last image we see of Edward is outside the abortion clinic and the last time they spoke he hung up on her. To me, there's no way he didn't stand her up purposely. Her look of absolute devastation cannot be the sole work of coincidence, but rather it becomes more meaningful when caused by Edward's direct actions: his writing and his absence. -
bellapeligrosa — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 01:20 AM)
My point was that it wasn't petty. I don't believe the character capable of that level of bitterness. If anything, maybe he had the intention to go and then couldn't go through with it last minute. Perhaps Susan sees it as a revenge move though, as most of this film we've seen through her eyes. In her head she wouldn't be able to interpret it any other way, because she's so self-focussed and neurotic, and in the end it's only her response to the series of events that matters.
It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film! -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 06:20 AM)
Edward doesn't know what her life is like now, that she's broke
I'm not sure that's true. On 2nd viewing of the film I watched out for references to Susan being in financial trouble. I heard only this: As Hutton sets off for NYC to seal a business deal, he says: "We need this." Susan relies: "
You
need this."
I doubt she's broke. Any self-respecting wealthy Republican family puts some of a daughter's assets in trusts, in order to protect them from fortune-hunting husbands. -
marcc-15131 — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 04:27 PM)
I thought she said "you need this" as a brief moment where she regained her former self about not caring about money, only happiness. The reason she married Edward because he wasn't succesfull then and she claimed not to be materialistic like her parents. She wanted to go away with Hutton for the weekend just after the audience realises she is unhappy and just before she said that phrase.
Maybe it's my interpretation but I thought materialism and can't buy happiness is the theme there. It's not like they had debts or anything and after all it was an excuse for Hutton to go see his mistress. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 06:01 PM)
You may be right - the line has a certain ambiguity.
There have been a lot of posters on this board loudly proclaiming Hutton and Susan were broke, but I didn't see anything to suggest or confirm that.
It's clear Susan was already disenchanted with both contemporary art and materialism at the beginning of the film. She assesses herself quite harshly in the conversation with her gallery assistant. Many of these noisy posters seem to think she's borderline evil for the decisions she made in her 20s, but I find her quite a sympathetic character - and it's clear Ford does so as well.
If dumping a spouse and getting an abortion qualifies as evil, the term has been devalued to meaninglessness. -
kamma-mason — 9 years ago(February 10, 2017 11:35 AM)
Hutton comments that it pisses him off that they need to sell the paintings, Susan replies:
"Don't worry, I can fill the walls with some new LA Artists and people will think we're ahead of the curve instead of going broke" -
Anna_Korol — 9 years ago(January 24, 2017 05:25 PM)
I think he didn't show up because she was right and he was weak.
The hero of his book couldn't deal with his revenge alone. Yes, he saw himself as a strong and stubborn man who is ready for struggle, but we can see that He actually needed a help from someone stronger (ill Bobby, i don't think that Bobby was "another Edward" because when they met Bobby suspected Edward at first. We usually know if we did smth or not, so if Bobby would be Edward's alter ego he would choose Edward's side from the start), Edward needed someone supporting (his wife never supported him during their short marriage). First of his enemies was already dead when the main character knew who he was. The second was killed by Bobby. The last was shot, but how? It was an accident because the hero didn't know how to use his weapon and he also got injured: first of all he is blind. Then he is dead. This blindness gives us a clue about Edward's state: he made his way till the final but he doesn't know what to do with it. And he can't see what's next. But his "weapon" - a book, made it's way to his ex-wifes heart, that's why she came there. He is dead in the same way as Susan "died" in his novel: he just went away leaving it all. He doesn't exist for her anymore.
i also liked 4, 5 and 8 theories)
as a revenge it would be very childish, i suppose. And i think that he already relieved his pain by writing this book and needs smth new in his life and writing. And if he was dying from cancer he could simply say it in a letter. I thought about suicide note but if it really was so he wouldn't wait untill she'll (if she will) decide to meet with him.