the opening parts seem just like the pilot episode of twilight zone "where is everybody", these are both actors you usually don't see in starring roles, i lost interest when more people came into the story. funny a recurrent opinion on this board is being disappointed in the movie as it goes along
screw that,
escape from this treatment where im at,
i opened the hatch,
sneaked off,
to a place where reality is gone,
gonna lie that youre as sweet as you look,
gonna build a sanctuary here of my own,
where the good prevail,
but you wouldn't let me as im thrown back to reality again.

To me, this film is two parts:
The first part is the "show, don't tell" Wenders part. The entire film up to the point of the peep show dialog is about that mystery of the past, but it is for those living in in the present, especially Walt and Ann, and what it means to them having Travis come back into their life. That could have been the entire story and in a way, it is, if you consider the film in two parts.
The second part starts where Travis and Hunter take off. We never see Walt and Ann again. This part is all about absolution and resolution. The dialog in the peep show room is a very important part of this, but not because the writers felt then need to explain the part 1 mystery to the film viewing audience. No, it's because these are the things Travis needs to tell Jane, those pent up things that he was given a chance to explain to her, a rare opportunity that most of us never get.
There's the shiny nugget of value in that act, and it was done so well.
There is still a mystery, the part in the middle of the past that we never see. The peep show dialog really doesn't tell how they split in real-world details, just the last fleeting emotions; and we can only piece together how Hunter got to Walt and Ann from a few snippets of spoken word. We never really find out what Travis was up to and what he did with those 4 years up to the point that Walt picked him up, except for the fact that at some point, he purchased a piece of land in Paris, Texas.
Be sure to proof your posts to see if you any words out

I had completely the opposite reaction to that segment of the film. For me, that part single handily transformed the film from a very good one, into a nigh on perfect one. I've never had such a strong emotional response to any film as I did that one, particularly during the Travis monologue. It reminded me of aspects of my own life. I felt connected to the characters and story as a result of that part so, to me, it's very important.

I think the only problem is that all the mystery behind the two of them collapsed, and the revelation was notshocking. It was real, real problems between men and woman.
Now, I loved it, it grounded the film even more. I would have hated for them to have been involved in any criminal activities like it was hinted before.
I loved it, but perhaps some people prefer what their imagination can come up with, which would have been very good too.
Strength and Wisdom are not Opposing Values

No, can't see that.
Flawless, kind of, including that scene. Without the 2 hours, it would be out of place. But it isn't, because we know parts of the story. And we have seen Travis saying nil. Maybe for 4 years? And anyway, he's of the silent sort.
And then, finally, everything he wanted to say could be said. And everything that Jane had conversed with him in his absence, it was said, too. Though in his absence.
He doesn't look at her, and that makes a lot of sense. Finally, after four years, the first, and the right person to tell that story.
And 8 minutes from 4 years is not much of length.

My issue with the monologue is likely one that automatically discredits me. I figured that it was setting up a happy ending. I guess that
really
would have ruined it eh?
I get it. Elitists need their art to be miserable or indifferent in all mediums. It would be a waste of experimental cinema and all the stuff I hear praise for otherwise.

I heavily disagree. That's one of the best scenes in the movie, probably the best. Harry Dean Stanton does a terrific job, it's well written/directed, and it's very impactful/vivid Just for you to see, I've known a couple of people who've seen the movie when it came out and remember those things (described in the scene) like they were actually visible in the movie, not as the character telling them.

This message has been deleted.

Not really. Some had issues with what he said at the beginning, but in the end, it was a fine scene.
The dust has come to stay. You may stay or pass on through or whatever.

This message has been deleted.

This message has been deleted.

I wouldn't hear it, because I'm dutch. But I remember some fine movies that were completely ruined because of an accent. It can violently wake you and take the hypnosis out of the experience.

Don't forget, though, that nobody outside Texas knows or cares what a Texas accent really sounds like.

The only way to "show" the backstory of why Travis and Jane fell apart would be to use a flashback. The film used the device of a home movie to show how much they loved each other, how Hunter was part of them, and how they were all a group with Walt and Anne. But of course no home movie would exist to show the bad times.
There are no other flashbacks in the film. No real flashbacks of any kind.
So, Wenders could have conceivably altered the script to show what happened with flashbacks. But would that have really flowed better than the telling device used?
I have my doubts.
A third possibility would have been to begin the film chronologically at the point that Jane and Travis began to break apart. That of course would have been a very different story, and even less effective, most likely.

My main problem with the ending was Kinski's part. I disagree with Camby that she's a bad actress - I've seen and enjoyed her in other films - but her Texas accent was TERRIBLE. Really - take it from a Texan. It completely took me out of the moment. I also agree a bit with the poster upthread who said that it was an unfortunate example of telling instead of showing. I do think the backstory on the two characters provided something necessary to the audience (we really want to know by that point what the hell happened to these two), but it could have been done more gracefully. Still, all in all a beautiful film.

the two monologues featured at the end are - informationally, backstory-wise - essential, as you say. they unfortunately are the props holding up a theater-style story. but the movie is not like theater at all - it is a scenic and moody indie film. so when wenders tacks on the monologues to flesh out why for the audience, he's stapling sam shepard onto wenders. sam shepard's plays are often like this, featuring 'realistic' characters and settings behaving like 'theater'. it doesn't work at the end of this film - for me, anyway.

Going back to the original question on this thread, I disagree that Travis's telling the long story detracted from the film in general or the use of image and silence in particular to tell the story.
The way Travis's monologue progresses is a guide to why he left Jane in the first place and why he felt he must do so again as the film closes. It refers back to what happened before the film began while also showing Travis's feelings about and views of the events described. I appreciate the originals poster's point that this lead to a sort of disjointed effect compared to the manner of story telling employed until that point, but I can't imagine how the film would have gone on without Travis's monologue. It was essential.

I agree with your reading of the director's intent, but I don't agree that he made this work well

maybe the awkwardness of the moment and the stale manner in which its presented is to illustrate the state in which they'd abandoned their feelings for one another: untouched, un-nurtured, withered, dulled, and just as confusing as when they both decided to turn their backs on it. don't they once again turn their backs on one another in that scene, one last time, when they both face the truth of what happened?
i think it's a pretty powerful moment, a kind of sostenuto ending that holds out on those last few notes of travis' loneliness, that shows just how disconnected they are, how genuine and forthright jane is (even when she's being deceptive) and how brooding travis is and was. they're very different people but somehow they found love together. that's really one of the fundamental themes at the core of the movie, when you think about it.
it's a beautiful ending, in my opinion.

"hey, i asked for ketchup, i'm eatin' salad here!"

I agree with the original poster. The movie had a slow, deliberate pacing that revealed everything through scenery, lighting, faces. Then, suddenly, they meet and catch up - crash!

One of the best monologues in cinema. It is beautiful.
It's the heart of the film.
I agree entirely. It's what he's been building up to the whole time.

disagree. One of the best monologues in cinema. It is beautiful.

This message has been deleted.

It took a few more viewings for me, but I can see where you guys are coming from now. And to the person who said Wenders ain't exactly Tarkovsky, well, based on his recent films he could probably do with a screening or three of
The Sacrifice
.