The many interpretations of Nocturnal Animals ending.
-
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. -
Oldguy69 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 03:54 AM)
Some people interpret Tony's death as 'death of an old self'. All very well - but Bobby is also proxy for Edward and dying
If you assume that Edward has "moved on" it makes sense that both Bobby and Tony disappear. Tony was the broken down version of Edward while Bobby was the part of him that was fueled with anger and wanted to get even. They both represent feelings that Edward had towards it all but his broken heart is ok again and he no longer feels anger towards Susan, Hutton etc. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 05:05 AM)
If you assume that Edward has "moved on" it makes sense that both Bobby and Tony disappear.
That actually makes no sense to me. The Texas narrative closely follows the formula of a traditional myth, where a lost and impotent novice faces a dilemma, finds a mentor (tribal elder/spiritual master), is forged into a warrior, succeeds in his quest and is transformed into a person of power.
In these fables, sometimes the mentor dies, so the disciple can fully inherit his power - you'll find this idea clearly expressed even in lightweight fiction like Doctor Strange - but it's very unusual to have the disciple perish. If you can think of an example where both master and disciple die, I'd like to hear it.
People intuitively understand these storytelling rules because they're rooted in the culture. I suspect this transgression of tradition has resulted in a lot of confusion about the story's meaning - e.g. the 'revenge' theory. It also seems to have caused a lot of anger on this IMDB board - e.g. all the "what was this about?" complaints.
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! -
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.