The many interpretations of Nocturnal Animals ending.
-
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. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 24, 2017 06:24 PM)
I think he didn't show up because she was right and he was weak.
Before you dismiss Edward as weak, perhaps you should consider the symbolic meaning of Bobby's terminal cancer, and Tony's death in the novel. It's extremely doubtful Edward included those details for no good reason. -
Anna_Korol — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 12:58 AM)
well, symbols are not always strict. His wife was also dead in his novel and her murderers too. But in fact Susan wasn't raped or murdered - she rudely left him. In my opinion it was the death of their ralationship.
She made such a decision years ago and he must somehow live with it (seek revenge or forget, do smth), then he relieved his pain in the book and decided to end with all of this story. Smth like that
Death also means an end of anything and release.
It seems that by writing a death of the main character he wanted to say her "it was hard but now i am free" but when she started correspondence he became uncertain. He wanted to see her. But he also understood that what is ended must stay in the past and decided not to show at all. It's hard to deal with emotions sometimes and he was certainly a vulnerable man with deep feelings.
Bobby's cancer was very helpful: it made him fearless and stronger. Edward's pain also has impact on his way: it made him to write a powerful novel. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 02:57 AM)
Much of your Edward analysis is just projection - like: " . . he became uncertain . . But he also understood that what is ended must stay in the past and decided not to show at all. . . he was certainly a vulnerable man with deep feelings." The film doesn't show any of this.
Bobby's cancer was very helpful: it made him fearless and stronger.
Some people interpret Tony's death as 'death of an old self'. All very well - but Bobby is also proxy for Edward and dying, and in fact his cancer wasn't helpful at all - it rendered him weak and facilitated Ray's escape.
Bobby's identity as a second alter ego for Edward has been confirmed by the film-maker himself and the otherwise unnecessary detail of the estranged daughter. If Ford had wanted to suggest the novel's author was killing off his old self through Tony's demise,
he would have left Bobby to soldier on as his new self
. Instead, he's killing him off too - leaving death triumphant on the West Texas battlefield. Ignore all those points, and you might as well ignore the idea that events in the novel symbolize real events in Edward's life.
well, symbols are not always strict. His wife was also dead in his novel and her murderers too.
Exactly - but her abduction and death transparently symbolize a crucial event in Edward's life. Edward isn't a Texas sheriff with terminal cancer, hasn't been blinded with a crowbar and shot himself accidentally in the stomach with a gun after killing a rapist/murderer - but this stuff means something. And Edward's illness explains his absence at the restaurant far better than some farcical juvenile attempt at revenge by standing up his ex-wife for dinner - the person to whom he's dedicated his novel. This would be the meaningless act of a pathetic coward.