Was the ending really surprising back in the day?
???
shareit's not surprising today? Some things are timeless. Are you saying you saw for the 1st time and knew the twist?
shareWhen I saw it, I think I had seen the ending first on tv but I had missed the reveal part, then I saw it all of it on dvd later, and some of it was predictable.
sharewas the twist ending predictable?
sharesomewhat, yes.
shareyeah, sure
shareRead some other posts by this Letthemeatcake person. Entertaining.
shareI know what you mean
hehe
Why can we never talk about a movie without someone getting snotty? Religion, Politics, OK. I'd expect that.
I am going against what almost everyone has said on these boards. So correct me if I'm wrong (and why I'm wrong), but please try politeness. It shows intelligence.
Here's my problem with the surprise ending. Blanche has wanted to make Jane's life miserable. Why did she want to make her own life miserable? When the accident happened Blanche obviously had plenty of money. Big car, fancy gown (from what we can see) lots of nice jewelry. Get some real help into the house. You have the bucks. If the assumption is that this takes place much later than the accident, and the money has run out, then it still makes no sense. It means that Blanche didn't blame Jane until she ran out of money.
You're overthinking it. Blanche didn't necessarily want to make Jane's life miserable after she paralyzed herself, but wanted Jane to be her caretaker. I suppose taking advantage of Jane's guilt to be her caretaker was a way to punish Jane, but I'm not sure
So, you're asking why Blanche would want to tolerate Jane's abuse instead of having a nurse (help) come in, or be in a nursing home. And why would Jane stay and make herself miserable by taking care of Blanche. Even if Blanche has a nurse come in, that still would not prevent Jane from tormenting Blanche.
The reason that comes to mind, aside from ruining the film plot, is that Jane never intended to leave the house. Blanche would have to force Jane to leave, which likely would not have happened. So, they put themselves both in miserable circumstances. Whether Blanche had enough money for a caretaker indefinitely ,or Jane could afford on her own, is unknown. Both were enablers/co-dependent it seems.
I overthink a lot of things I suppose. I can't help thinking that Jane is the last person on earth who you would want for a caretaker. Blanche wants to punish (justifiably) Jane for all of the mean things Jane's done since she was a tiny kid. That's obvious from the way young Blanche talks about (and looks at) Jane. You make sure Jane gets a movie contract conditioned on your good standing with the studio because of your talent. That seems kind, but I suppose she could have rubbed Jane's face in it a lot and turned it into a mean thing.
You say that she didn't necessarily want to make Jane's life miserable. I guess I picked that idea up from the movie's ending and from some folks on this board. So for the sake of argument, I wasn't really thinking of having one nurse come in once in awhile. I was thinking of having someone who would take care of all Jane's "duties". Here's the SPOILER stuff: if you had more help then: Blanche's bird wouldn't get out of the house (inevitable when I 1st saw the bird); You wouldn't be served up rats, Blanche wouldn't be tied up with her hands over her head and a duct-taped mouth, They wouldn't be at the beach, Blanche could see friends, etc. In their very 1st seen as adults Jane comes up and abruptly turns off Blanche's TV. Blanche's life was hell.
I suppose Jane would have no choice but to stay. She was obviously penniless (and needed to use her sister's voice to order a booze delivery).
I see your argument about co-dependency and enablers and that makes the most sense to me. I've seen co-dependent people do things that seem unbelievable. So as I wrote the above I realized that I can understand and believe your explanation. Thanks.
Your welcome.
I think we're supposed to take the film at face value, rather than have 2 double-twist endings. Other posters have offered their interpretation on previous threads. If we twist the ending again, it would change the dynamics of everything that came before it.
If Blanche wants to punish, or resents, Jane for anything, it's the fact that she missed Jane while trying to run her over, and hit the gate instead. Jane's guilt is for thinking she crippled Blanche, and felt obligated to take care of her, which explains her resentment. The best scenario in real life would to live apart from each other, but we have no film then. I suppose the screenplay could have had a line about not being able to afford it, to make it more sensible.
[deleted]