I've been observing this board and scouring through the Internet trying to gather the many interpretations of the ending
-
Oldguy69 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 06:32 AM)
Ford had something specific in mind - and it wasn't some kind of pitiful no-show insult by Edward towards his ex-wife. If that was supposed to signify the hero's emancipation and 'moving on' - what a dick-less loser!
Moving on as in processed his grief, pain and anger. Stop with the re-ven-ge & no-show thing for just 5 minutes please, it's not even what I'm talking about haha.
Bobby and Edward are fictional characters made up in Edwards mind based on himself and his experiences. At the end of the fictional layer the both "disappear" and what's left is Edward's current self which we of course never see. My reading then is that Edward is different from either of these two fictional characters today which is why they both die. It's behind him today.
Thematically the idea of splitting one person into several others based on different aspects of his/her personality is very old. I'm not aware of the rules you're referring to let alone why NA should comply with these rules?
In Mulholland drive Betty & Rita are fictional characters made up in Diane's mind based on herself and her experiences. At the end of the dream they both disappear and what's left is Diane's current self. As we learn, Diane is not really like either of the two fictional characters either which is why both of the fictional characters disappear - they each represent something that's no longer there . You may disagree with this interpretation but it's probably one of the most solid/recognized ones out there.
Off topic - taken from slahfilm (you may not like this)
"I think its to signify that Edward just does not give a damn about Susan anymore. We have no idea if Edward knows about Susans unhappy life situation (if he does, then his revenge is all the more punishing). But he does likely know that his book Nocturnal Animals is a hit, and that that talent and brilliance is something Susan will be attracted to. So he dangles in front of her the opportunity to meet again and possibly rekindle old flames, only to allow her to come to the slow realization that he never intended to show up. Elie Wiesel once said, The opposite of love is not hate, its indifference. Thus, the films ending is a much more hurtful form of revenge than anything Edward could actively do to hurt Susan."
In an interview on Jeff Goldsmiths Q&A podcast, writer/director Tom Ford affirms this interpretation
Come to think of it, that's actually on topic - all the old emotions are gone -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 07:10 AM)
At the end of the dream they both disappear and what's left is Diane's current self.
Mullholland Drive is an excellent case in point, although I don't believe Diane truly identifies with Rita's personality. She has re-made Camilla as a powerless, malleable version of Camilla.
But back to your point - Betty and Rita disappear, and Diane reappears - but Camilla never does! Why is that? Because, like Edward, she's dead.
It's somewhat similar in 'Lost Highway'. Fred Madison transforms into Pete Dayton. When Pete melts away, Fred reappears - he may be lost in delusion in his prison cell, but unlike Edward, he's still alive!
I'm very happy to dispense with the RE-VEN-GE nonsense, but the restaurant no-show is crucially important, because it informs us of Edward's fate - he is no more. -
Oldguy69 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 07:23 AM)
I'm very happy to dispense with the RE-VEN-GE nonsense, but the restaurant no-show is crucially important, because it informs us of Edward's fate - he is no more
Sorry, but please re-read my other post, I did an edit while you replied. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 08:11 AM)
Interesting - of course the quote is taken totally out of context. Where is the rest of the interview? At other times, Ford has said the opposite - that revenge has nothing to do with the no-show.
Needless to say, this idea of indifference is contradicted by Edward's actions. A writer doesn't demonstrate indifference to somebody by dedicating his first novel to that person, driving a thousand miles to hand-deliver the manuscript, dishonestly agreeing to a dinner meeting and then failing to show up. All he's demonstrating is small-minded petulance and rudeness.
If this is Ford's actual vision of his 'hero', a self-deluding milquetoast, still nursing a grudge over getting dumped 20 years previously, I'm not surprised I've always had certain reservations about the film.
PS- I listened to the entire interview, and your out-of-context quote is somewhat deceptive. Ford posed that scenario only as a possibility - it's certainly not his definitive interpretation.
-
christmastiger-16003 — 9 years ago(February 10, 2017 11:36 AM)
I agree that it makes NO sense that Edward stood Susan up because he feels indifferent towards her. If he were truly indifferent he wouldn't have wrote a whole book about her, dedicated it to her, gave it to her, and agreed to meet up in the first place, he would have just moved on.
But I disagree that he didn't meet her because he was ill, just because the cop had cancer doesn't mean Edward does, there's nothing to imply that he was sick or dead. The idea that he didn't show up for those reasons seems like a way of trying to make the ending mean something more than it actually does.
I don't think there's a truly logical reason we can find from the movie as to why Edward went through all of that trouble and didn't show up, or at least real-life logical. In movie logic you could say "Edward somehow KNEW his book would be a hit (not sure how) and he could shove it in her face!" But that is some extreme lengths to go to for someone who is trying to give the impression that he's moved on.
Personally, this felt to me like a wish-fulfillment movie where the writer wants to imagine he's the guy who wrote SUCH a great novel it made his ex fall back in love with him, only so he could be like "Screw you!" and she'd be sooo devastated. He just didn't actually think through the logic behind it, because something like that doesn't often logically happen. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 07:06 PM)
Sure - believe what you like - it's a free world.
Maybe Edward took a nap before the meal and overslept. Perhaps he got a flat in a dead spot on La Brea. Maybe he got lucky when some starlet hit him up in his hotel bar. Perhaps he smoked some weed and couldn't be bothered. Maybe he showed up after Susan left the restaurant or Tom Ford ran out of film stock.
As far as I'm concerned, he had Bobby's cancer and ODed shooting up some fentanyl. No question about it - not a shadow of doubt. It's all there in the film. Case closed. Funeral is on 02/20/2017 -
zcarface86 — 9 years ago(February 13, 2017 09:29 PM)
I found your logic to be flawed. The OP mentioned that Edward personally delivered his manuscript as we are shown in the scene after Susan's car entered her house it was followed by a Mercedes same as described vividly in Edward's book. That means Edward actually travelled cross-country from Texas to LA for his business trip. If he is using Fentanyl it will likely to induce hallucination as the drug is highly potent than morphine. It causes extreme sleepines. It will be impossible for him to make that trip to LA under influence of Fentanyl to operate a vehicle. Also it's illegal too.
Hence if he made it to LA to personally deliver the manuscript that means he can drive in long hours without incident. That means he is not taking Fentanyl. If he didn't take Fentanyl that means he didn't have cancer. Period. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 05:07 AM)
You can keep your logic. It doesn't sound like you have any personal experience of the current opiate epidemic raging across the country - I do. People drive under the influence of these drugs whether it's legal or not.
The buyers frequently don't know what they're purchasing on the street. Fentanyl often gets mixed in with heroin because it's cheap and powerful - and this leads to accidental deaths. Fentanyl is so powerful that a tiny amount can kill by being absorbed through the skin. -
zcarface86 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 09:40 AM)
You still haven't explain how he can still managed to drive all the way to LA for a trip that last 18 hours. Even if he took Fentanyl he will be hallucinating and bound to be involved in an accident or spotted by the police for driving incompetently. But he still managed to arrived to LA safe and sound, didn't he?
Let me break it down for you like an 8 year old.
If Edward has cancer + drive to LA + took Fentanyl = Accident fail to arrive to LA
Edward didn't have cancer + drive to LA + didn't take Fentanyl = safe and sound as seen in the scene after Susan entered her home. This is evident in the movie. And your version is not seen in the movie. Your theory is entirely shrouded with a cloud of doubt and not without a shadow of a doubt at alllll.
Understand? -
zcarface86 — 9 years ago(February 14, 2017 12:03 PM)
Edward drove to LA is a fact if not why would they insert that scene. What purpose does it serve than to show that Edward is fine and healthy. Why would they make Tony's car and Edward's car exactly the same. It's not just coincidental that it's the same.
Edward has cancer is speculation and until it is proven in the movie that showed Edward died from cancer and literally showed he accidentally injected himself with Fentanyl it will continue to be speculation. And my fact have dispel that speculation and obliterated it.
How's that for a fact?