Susan is every Character in the story.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Nocturnal Animals
bradevans051 — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 09:23 PM)
Susan is every Character in the story.
She is that which was taken away from from Tony. (Wife and Daughter)
She is the one that took it all away by leaving him and getting an abortion. (The Gang)
She is the weak one who could not see her own strength and fight for what she loves. (Tony)
She is the one who helped Tony realize he was weak and needed revenge. (Bobby)
And they're all dead. Just like Susan is now dead to him (No show).
That's why its called Nocturnal Animal
s
. Because they all represent her.
Boom. Roasted. Movie solved. Everyone go home. We're done here. -
Oldguy69 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 04:35 AM)
Good one! While not agreeing with everything I'm pretty convinced that the relation between two layers (novel and reality) is not a straight forward 1:1 thing and that Susan is found in many of the novel's characters.
-
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 01:08 PM)
You're overthinking it, and don't understand the writing process. This theory is nonsense - all these characters are actually Edward. It's widely recognized every character in a novel is a different internal aspect of the author. They might be based on other people, but the source of these archetypes is the author himself.
-
bradevans051 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 01:17 PM)
Every character is Susan = Overthinking nonsense.
Every character is Edward = Totally reasonable.
Cool great super. Thanks for your input!
She criticized him for only writing about himself so he changed and wrote about her.
Sorry for thinking and stuff. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 01:33 PM)
Sorry for thinking and stuff.
If you don't have experience, your thinking won't be very useful - you'll just come to glib or erroneous conclusions. It's obvious you haven't done any writing or you wouldn't propose this idea. -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(January 28, 2017 03:01 PM)
Try to think this through logically.
Edward sits down at his computer - supposedly he's going to write a novel with multiple characters, all based on a woman he hasn't seen or spoken with for 20 years. When these characters open their mouths, they're going to say
his
words, fostered by
his
imagination. These characters are actually going to be
him
, far more than anybody else. After 20 years, he has no idea who she is.
In any case, Ford has said the novel describes how the divorce felt to Edward - like an abduction and murder. Tony is clearly a proxy for Edward. -
IcySpoon — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 09:08 AM)
"You're overthinking it, and don't understand the writing process. This theory is nonsense - all these characters are actually Edward. It's widely recognized every character in a novel is a different internal aspect of the author. They might be based on other people, but the source of these archetypes is the author himself."
Clearly you're the one who began the conversation by criticizing another posters opinion. Then you went to declare that unlike you, they couldn't possibly understand the writing process.
Frankly, you sound incredibly prissy.
"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it." Norman Maclean -
tigerfish50 — 9 years ago(February 08, 2017 12:36 PM)
Here's an exercise for you - try writing 5 pages of fiction with 6 characters, all of whom are based on somebody you haven't seen for 20 years. See the problem? Now try writing an entire novel in that mode - it's guaranteed to be a mess.
In any case Ford himself said the novel is based on how Edward feels about his divorce etc - so Tony clearly corresponds to Edward. It's not that complicated. -
Screen_Queen — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 07:08 PM)
Every character is Susan = Overthinking nonsense.
Every character is Edward = Totally reasonable.
Cool great super. Thanks for your input!
HAHAHAHAHA. That poster is ridiculous. I think you're spot on.
There will be bloodbut you will be loved. -
mrcantgetright — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 09:14 PM)
It's not a coincidence that the muscle car the douchebags are driving appears in the scene where Susan breaks up with Edward. Neither is the use of the red couch being used in the scene where she criticizes Edward's writing also being where the body of the wife in the story is found on. The symbolism isn't exactly the most subtle..
-
eunvin-h — 9 years ago(February 09, 2017 07:42 AM)
A good one. While the color use is very different from the book and Susan's life, Susan is associated with dark colors.
Maybe that would be the reason why the characters you depicted are animals that are
nocturnal
?