Just saw The Swimmer, I liked it however I couldn't understand what the ending was all about and what it had to do with the rest of the film. Does anyone out there know?
share[deleted]
You are so right ... I thought they should've shown his alcoholism a little more obviously ... like drinking a whole drink faster or something ... it just didn't quite come through on screen like it should've.
shareNed has sunk deeper and deeper into depression and madness
as the film moved from pool to pool, until finally he reaches his own
house-which is obviously un-inhabited and empty. His wife and kids have left him
and now the house and Ned are a shell of their former selves....
Seems as if he made his own bed. He couldn't escape reality the closer he got to his former home. The initial pool ... the people still saw him as he WAS in the past ... later people let him know they didn't appreciate all his ways ... until towards the end it all becomes public info in a sense at the public pool. It was like his descent into poverty played out on screen. His pride hasn't let him acknowledge all the bad he did to cause himself harm.
Very interesting idea. Read the short story a LONG time ago and didn't remember it so well.
It's also just a big symbol of the emptiness of the American Dream in many senses as well. The homes, the pools, the money, the excess all can run out at any time and don't really lead anywhere necessarily. Disillusion sets in sometimes when it's all taken aways ... drinking, adultery, etc.
shareAs far as I can tell, the movie “The Swimmer” is a fictional study of dissociative amnesia (in response to stress, one’s mind chooses to repress memories that are too painful to remember). Based on what is said at the ninth pool (that of Shirley Abbott) and the tenth pool (the public swimming pool), Ned has chosen to forget everything that has happened in his life during the last two years. All of Ned’s good memories precede that two-year period. In addition to Ned's dissociative amnesia of the last two years, from the first pool (that of the Westerhazys) to the eighth pool (that of the Biswangers), Ned’s mind seems to gradually regress in time, as seen in how he describes his daughters, Ellen and Aggie. At the first pool, Ned describes them as all grown up and beautiful. At the second pool (that of the Grahams), Ned says that it won’t be long now until his daughters get married, his driveway looking like a parking lot today, boys all over the place. At the fourth pool (that of the Lears), Ned asks Julie Ann Hooper to baby-sit his daughters. At the seventh pool (that of the Gilmartins), Ned tells little Kevin Gilmartin Jr., who looks no older than eight, that his daughters are not much bigger than he (Kevin) is, and he says that they look cute in their little red elf caps as they skate on his ice-covered tennis court in winter. At the eighth pool, Ned can’t understand what the Biswangers are doing with his hotdog wagon, in which he wheels around (present tense) his girls. The altercation that Ned has with Henry Biswanger over what used to be his hotdog wagon appears to shock Ned partially back to reality, because thereafter until the end of the story, he seems to think that it is merely two years earlier than it actually is. I agree that the condition of the Ned’s former house at the end of the story does not seem logical. Even if it had been abandoned for two years, although it could have been less time than that, I doubt that there would have been that much rust on the gate. More importantly, why was the property not handed over to a realtor? It is not logical that such a valuable property would simply be abandoned that way, regardless of whether Ned and Lucinda were divorced or merely separated. However, it is logical that Ned would not have access to it, as “everything (was) in Lucinda’s name,” and as Ned was "thrown out of (his) golden playpen," according to Shirley Abbott, Ned apparently having married into money when he married Lucinda. I think that the writer and/or director just got lazy and decided to present Ned’s former home in that dilapidated condition for affect, ignoring the questions that such an image would raise. Although the condition of the property may be illogical, I can't say that the decision to present it in that condition was wrong; the final scene is powerful, I think.
What we know from the evidence supplied by the people with whom Ned interacts during the day is that during the last two years, Ned and Lucinda split and Ned is kicked out of the house; then Ned loses his job; then Ned asks the Hallorans (the sixth pool), the nudists, who appear to be the most wealthy of his friends and acquaintances, for financial help, and they refuse; then Ned writes some bad checks, as implied by Henry Biswanger (the eighth pool), and as stated by the Hunsackers and the Finneys at the public swimming pool (the tenth pool); then Ned disappears; then Ned reappears with dissociative amnesia on the day that he decides to “swim home.” At some point during these two years, Lucinda and the girls leave, probably sooner than later, judging from the condition of the property at the end of the story. The fact that the property is neither sold nor maintained and that it falls into disrepair so quickly is unrealistic, yet it provides a setting for the climactic ending of the story that is both dramatic and symbolic (poetic license). We know from Bernie Preston’s comments at the Bunker’s party (the fifth pool), in which he says that Ned was missed this year at the race, and that everyone thought that Ned would have been with Woody on the Zanadu, that Ned participated in a yacht race the previous year. Since the story is set in early autumn, if the race was held in early summer each year, Ned would have participated in the race no more than fifteen months ago. Shirley Abbott (the ninth pool) says that Ned wasn’t around last year. Two different people tell Ned that it’s been a “dog’s age” since he’s been seen. Helen Westerhazy (the first pool), a good and old friend, tells Ned that he is “practically a new face.” So Ned must have been absent for quite a while. Yet, at the Bunker’s party, Danny tells Ned that he should have left some phone numbers around, because he’s been trying to contact him, because he’s heard of a job opening that would be perfect for Ned. If Danny just assumes that Ned hasn’t yet found another job, how long could it have been since Ned lost his Park Avenue executive position? So perhaps Ned withdrew from his social circle before losing his job … or maybe not. There simply does not appear to be enough information to reconstruct a timeframe for all of these events.
They showed this movie to us in school. Forget now if it was junior high or high school. They'd show a film in English class every now and then - for several days in a row because class was only 50 minutes or so long. We loved it - it was a great break from the usual routine and because of the setting and perhaps because of the film choices we were always riveted. This was the case with The Swimmer, but I could never understand why they were showing us this particular film. What lessons did it hold for an adolescent? assuming we could even understand such a bizarre film. They showed A Taste Of Honey one year too. Now that message was obvious - if a little depressing. The Swimmer was depressing too. Still don't get what they were trying to teach us. Be true to yourself? Be honest and hard-working? Be humble? Earn your own keep/don't marry for money? ANd whatever you do, never, ever go nuts?
Do you know that guy?
No. But he's a dick.
Funny you should mention this, because my 7th grade English class saw this movie (over two days). Thirty years later, I'm surprised our teacher thought we were mature enough to understand it, but I think we got most of it. We did have a lively discussion afterwards.
I saw "The Swimmer" again on AMC today, too, for the first time in at least 25 years. (I read the Cheever short story so long ago I have forgotten it.)
Just some random thoughts:
-- alcohol is obviously a huge part of Ned's social circle, and I believe that in the short story it was a major factor in breaking up his marriage, as someone alluded to previously
-- it seems to me that Ned's friends are nicer to him at the beginning of his journey because they are farther away, literally and figuratively. As he gets closer and closer to home, he meets up with the people he has hurt harder and more recently
--I'm sorry, I don't remember the names of all the families whose pools Ned swims. I do remember being so shocked the first time I saw the movie to hear one of his friends mention midway along the journey that Ned has lost his job, apparently a high-level job with an ad agency. This was the first serious *beep* in the armor, I think.
--there is a lot on the technical side of "The Swimmer" that screams 1968; including the schlocky Hamlisch score and all that soft-focus photography. The original "Thomas Crown Affair," (also made in '68) has dated badly for the same sorts of reasons.
--I think "The Swimmer" is best thought of as an allegory. Whether Ned is physically dead or it's just his life as he knows it that's died will always intrigue anyone who comes to the story with fresh eyes.
--Wonder how the remake with Alec Baldwin will turn out? All I know is he needs to be on South Beach and pumping some serious iron right now!
Wasn't he homeless and suffered from the early stages of dementia or Alzheimer's ?
shareDude, take the "economy of words" approach, and I think you'll get more readers of your posts. I'm sure you have something relevant in there, but it's surrounded by a great deal of marshmellow-like padding.
I found the entire post readable and interesting. No need to reduce it to a tweet.
shareAgreed, I actually hate dismissive snark, especially in response to a post that someone clearly cared enough about to "word dump" about.
It's sorta what these BBS services are for. Don't like it? Don't read it.
there is the possibility that the whole thing takes place inside his head. that while all the misery took place the actual swim is just him going over and over his mental and physical decline.
shareYes, it seems dreamlike in some respects, especially the ending. Also, he started suffering from a chill that no one else was feeling (the public pool was very crowded). "What's the matter with that sun? There's no heat in it."
shareAn interesting aspect of the swimmer is the use of the pool/swimming as the link theme. For example, why not a pool table, or a tennis court (and presumably a title change to "the pool player" etc).
Some suggestions, ranging from the obviously practical to the metaphorical:
- given the area concerned, a pool is going to be a standard accoutrement to most well-to-do houses (though note that Ned's house itself does not have a pool - this is commented on several times - in my mind reflecting Ned's neglect of his own family);
- swimming is an activity that enables movement therefore tying it into the journey home. But again swimming in a pool is an essentially nugatory excercise since in swimming lengths you always end up where you started. Notice though that at the first pool Ned refers to swimming in the sea when he was younger, perhaps drawing a parallel between the limited possibilities of a pool (and the convential social setting within which it is placed) and the boundless options of the ocean);
- the pool although pretty standard can be varied in several ways lending a further metaphorical angle to the film - full/empty of water/people, clean/dirty, large/small;
- the pool is a pretty obvious metaphor (see above) for social/family norms placing an essentially unbound natural activity (sex/swimming) within limits (and regulations - see the public pool) - clearly Ned should be swimming in his own pool with his own wife/family, but in fact prefers to swim in other people's pools (flirting and having affairs with other women).
- finally, swimming is essentially an activity which represents the free expression of the human spirit (echoed by the race with the horse). Ned has failed to find a way of reconciling his natural animal spirit (he refers to himself as "noble" later in the film) to the conventions of society.
MAybe Ned feels swimming as a sort of purification too. As Shirley offers him to drive him home, he replies somenthing like: no, that will have no sense. I think: yes, he had an amnesie because of alcoholism and shock of ruining his life, but there was a burried feeling of a guilt, and although he doesn t recognise it clearly, he needs to do this symbolic voyage
shareBravo Jim!
sharejm000, nice analysis; lots of detail.
Thanks for your insight on this very interesting film.
The problem with the movie is that, while we're definitely informed that Ned's perception of reality is distorted, WE the audience seem to be getting an undistorted view. Which is a problem. If our view were distorted also, then, yes, the house could be "abandoned and dilapidated" (because perhaps it really isn't so).
The thing is, if the full catastrophe really has hit Ned (wife/kids left him, he's locked out of his inexplicably dilapidated house), then [i]the whole upper-class community that he lives in[i] would know about this. it would be the talk of the town. you can't keep that a secret. servants talk. people observe moving vans. Ned's wife herself would talk! she presumably has friends all over the neighborhood. (and, of course, a valuable property like this would not be left to deteriorate, especially since they mention that his wife "had all the money", so it was presumably _her_ house.)
the whole premise really only makes sense if it's completely surreal (like, say, Blow up [1966]). yet, the feeling of the movie is that only Ned is deluded; the POV of the movie is not deluded.
I don't know why anyone is confused about this. Most of the neighbors evidently do know that Ned's life is in the toilet, even if they can't figure out a way to come right out and say so to a man in a fragile state of mind. The looks they give him and each other when he's happily nattering on about his girls getting married at the house someday, or that his wife and kids are at home waiting for him, clearly indicate they're aware he's way out of touch with reality. The young blonde registers that it's surreal that he's talking about hiring her for more babysitting when the girls are grown up. His friends at the first house even make sure not to let him try to take the visiting drop-ins to say hello to his long-departed wife.
(The mistress kinda knows he got kicked out, but probably knows fewer details than most because she's been trying her best to forget him after getting dumped, and not keep careful tabs.)
I think Ned, was a well-to-do user type that just went nuts after having his wife an kids leave him, he was then committed and later escaped to swim home. He was a charmer who was capable of hiding who he really was and that was of a real crack-pot nutcase who lost everything and still can't believe it, let a lone deal with, thus the fantasies. Yep, Neddie is a brick shy of load mental case in this one.
shareI just saw this film on AMC today. I appreciate all the previous posts.
Alcoholism seemed apparent to me as Ned had a drink at just about every pool he visited. I thought the encounter with the little boy was a little creepy. Ned was someone who used everyone and then had no where to go when the bottom fell out. So sad.
I thought he had escaped from a loony bin too. As the day wears on, his meds wear off and he surfaces out of the deep pool of denial he has held himself in. It seems none of his neighbors know what happened to Ned, where he's been all this time, but many of them know what happened to his wife and kids.
shareWhat was told to me by others who have seen it is that they understood that Ned is supposed to be dead already, in a limbo state, and the increasingly harsh circumstances are a means to convey what has led him to his death.
Interestingly, on the DVD cover, the tagline is "Pool by pool forms a river to his home." The River Styx, perhaps? Swimming home would be an act of surrealism all by itself; in the context of a supernatural environment it makes perfect sense though. And thus, his home being a virtual wreck (which one of the previous posters took exception to) would be justified in that he is seeing the home as a representation of himself, dead and ruined. He has arrived in Hell.
I'm surprised at the posters who felt the condition of the home after two years was overdone. Perhaps you've never had to keep up a home, it's a lot of work. It looked very realistic to me - a house deserted for two years would easily look that bad. Also factor in that it was probably neglected for awhile when it was still occupied - it was a slow descent, not a sudden event.
My life has major plot holes.
I hope South Park will have a better ending.
shareokay, so i watched 'the swimmer' again last night, first time in 20 years and it just clicked.. what if the old lady whose pool he visited who had just lost her son was actually...wait for it..... his mom? (i know she had a different name but it could have been her 'maiden' name) something stuck with me about that scene, its the way she says something like 'you can never come back here 'or 'dont ever come back here' or something at the end. hes on his way to hell... i love the river styx analogy.
shareI've seen the film more than once and also read the story by Cheever. I don't see any supernatural elements in the story. Ned was most definitely alive, not dead.
My real name is Jeff
Well, here is my interpretation of the ending. Throughout the entire movie, we learn a little of Ned's life via his interactions with his neighbors. As we get closer to his house we learn more about him, and consequently more unappealing things about him. In other words, the neighbors that knew less about him liked him more and vice versa.
What I figured out about the ending was this: he lost his job (fired, laid off) lost his family (wife and kids left him, because of Shirley?) and it looks like he lost his house (foreclosure). If you recall, near the end of the movie he was called a 'deadbeat' or something of that nature, which might explain his financial situation.
Ned was living in a fantasy world, a world he once had but lost either due to his own fault or other forces.
Here are some clues: the surprised neighbor when she was asked to babysit his girls (they were probably too old for babysitting), his friend offering him a job stating it was awful how his old job treated him, his imaginary tennis match with his daughters at his house, funny reactions from neighbors when he mentioned his wife's name (Lucinda?), how his neighbors have not seen him in a while, his obsession with his former babysitter, how he reacted when told how his daughters don't respect him, his memories (fond) of his relationship with his mistress Shirley Abbott (who remembers the truth). That is all I can remember at this point as I have not seen the movie in almost a year.
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. It is one you could watch more than once as there are many details to Ned's life which are gleaned from his various encounters with his neighbors.
Please let me know if this helped your understanding of the movie, agree or disagree with my views, etc.
It is interesting reading everyone's thoughts about the ending.
What kept nagging at me was -- how did he get to that first swimming pool if it is such a long way to swim home, and he has said he doesn't have a car there? From the very beginning, something didn't quite add up that he was going home.
The asylum must be pretty close to that first house...
I've seen this movie maybe 15 times.....sad, I know. I've always thought that it would have been helpful if they had inserted "flashbacks" into the way Ned's life used to be. The Saturday night parties at the Westerhazy's, the son of Mrs. Hammer that Ned neglected at the hospital, the little red Jaguar, the restaurant where he apparently still had a bill, the inside of Ned's house when it was at it's prime and his family life was the way he remembered, etc.
If you notice, Ned keeps getting drinks, but in the beginning, he pretends to sip, but doesn't actually drink much. Was he really an alcoholic, or did he just live grand? It seems that he certainly got desencatized to the trappings of the wealth that came with his marriage and possibly an affluent job, and needed more and more--not just alcohol, but cars, money, toys, women, etc. It sounds as though Lucenda enjoyed playing the high society game as well--understated suits, imported jams, Junior League, and more.
The comments from the Grahams in reference to the fact that the right buyer has to come along, makes me think that the house is actually offered for sale. Doesn't look like it is, looks to be in foreclosure?.?. Not quite sure. Maybe Lucenda had so much money that after kicking Ned out of his golden playpen, was able to just let the house sit. Maybe she didn't have to sell it and didn't care if it rotted.
I have no idea why this movie intrigues me. Maybe because there is so much left to try and figure out. I don't typically care for movies that leave the ending so open and I definitely could have done without Neds race with the horse and later, jumping over the hurdles. I think the ending is just as simple as realizing that he had the American Dream and didn't even appreciate it enough to treat it special. While he was living the "dream", he felt as though he were entitled. When he lost it all, he realized it was a gift that he could never get back.
It's worth noting his drinking increases as he gets closer to home.
To the point where at the hotdog cart house, he orders a straight gin on the rocks and the waiter gives him a weird look.
(Few if any people drink straight gin - unless they are in possession of a bottle of Old Raj or something of similiar caliber)
The being dead physically would be too easy a metaphor, it's more likely he escaped from somewhere or wandered there from wherever he was living drunk.
I really enjoyed your insights. I have noticed the lack of drinking at the begining too and agree there is much symbolism here.
shareDid anyone notice the beginning of his limp, the losing of his big smile, his general downturn in enthusiasm, his lack of cash, and the change of name from Neddie to the more formal Ned, all marked the down turn of our one time hero?
A stone great acting performance by one of the greats.....
did anyone
Ned was only a hero to himself, and a few others who were only casual acquaintances, and weren't affected by his flaws or financial failings. Those few others are presented early in the film. Nothing changes with Ned other than his own self-actualization of his true fate.
shareIn response to why he started his journey where he did, I seem to recall someone asking him how he liked his new "house on the hill". That would explain how he started up so high on the mountain. I would have liked to know the catalyst for bringing him to that point where he appeared in the woods at the first house.
Also, regarding the horse, he quoted early on that if you refuse to believe something, that your new reality becomes true for you. He wanted to go back home, start over again and get it right this time, be the fit and honorable hero, the guardian angel. Racing the horse was akin to a midlife crisis, when you try to prove to yourself "I've still got it." Jumping over hurdles was also an excellent metaphor, as he mentally jumped over hurdles (each pool, with accompanying conversation) trying to make sense of it all.
The question not answered for me, however, was that if he doesn't have a pool, what was he doing in the woods in a bathing suit to begin with?
Like so many other posters to this thread, I too have wondered about the beginning and end. More precisely: where did Ned come from when he showed up at the first pool, and what actually happened to cause him to lose everything--which clearly he did.
I tend toward the theory that he escaped from a mental hospital, or perhaps had been living nearby, above the "headwaters" of his "River Lucinda," and had a psychotic break. It's possible he even hitched a ride to his old suburb. Remember, it was early afternoon when he arrived at the first pool. He would have had time to travel a ways before arriving there, yet looked clean, healthy and fit when he first appeared. He couldn't have walked far or he would have been sweaty and dirty (as he became later in the film).
Several posters have mentioned the drinking. While it is possible that the whole movie is a drunken illusion for Ned, one must remember this was the sixties. Drinking on a weekend afternoon (it had to be a weekend or else the men would have been at work) was normal behavior for people within the social strata in which Ned clearly used to move.
The mention (at the first two pools) of his "house on the hill" had to refer to the house at which the movie ended. Otherwise, wouldn't his wealthy friends have commented that he was going the wrong way if he was going home? The first woman, although hungover, obviously could envision what Ned did: swimming down the "river" of pools to his home.
I think, especially from what was said at the public pool, that the son of the older woman at the third pool (who told Ned to leave and never come back) was involved in a car accident with Ned's daughters and her son was killed. The people at the public pool talk about Ned's daughters being ill-behaved. I don't think Ned's daughter's were killed--that would have come out at the public pool. But the woman at the third pool had the righteous indignation of a mother who has lost her son, saying how dare he show up at her home. Ned tells her that he is a friend of her son, and later it is mentioned that Ned was always "paling around with the kids." Also, it is mentioned that he was able to buy his daughters out of the accident, which means he still had his job and /or Lucinda at that time. The reaction Ned had at hearing the little boy jumping on the diving board of the empty pool suggests that Ned had suffered a seriously traumatic event that likely involved someone's death.
About the time of the accident, or soon after, Lucinda either found out about his affair(s) or became fed up with them and left him. The chain of events that led to his downfall would certainly have affected his work and cause him to be fired.
It's clear from the beginning that Lucinda owned the house. It's also clear that she had the money: more than enough to leave the house abandoned and give away his things to charity. Even so, Ned would have been responsible for any outstanding bills after his divorce (this movie suggest more than a seperation). With no monetary resources left to him, Ned couldn't pay those bills. The man at the first pool mentioning that Neddie should put in a pool to increase the resale value of the house only shows that they know absolutely nothing about Ned and his situation.
At the end, even as reality is setting in, Ned still can't seem to believe that he has lost everything: he keeps turning the door handle as if he expects he can still get in...which brings us full-circle to the psychotic break that brought him, after a nearly two-year absense, to the first pool.
eeyorestail3:
I think, especially from what was said at the public pool, that the son of the older woman at the third pool (who told Ned to leave and never come back) was involved in a car accident with Ned's daughters and her son was killed. The people at the public pool talk about Ned's daughters being ill-behaved. I don't think Ned's daughters were killed--that would have come out at the public pool. But the woman at the third pool had the righteous indignation of a mother who has lost her son, saying how dare he show up at her home. Ned tells her that he is a friend of her son, and later it is mentioned that Ned was always "paling around with the kids." Also, it is mentioned that he was able to buy his daughters out of the accident, which means he still had his job and /or Lucinda at that time. The reaction Ned had at hearing the little boy jumping on the diving board of the empty pool suggests that Ned had suffered a seriously traumatic event that likely involved someone's death.
Jim:
Mrs. Hammar (the third pool) said, “How dare you,” not in reference to Ned coming on her property, but in reference to Ned referring to himself as her son’s friend. She then explained that Ned never visited her son in the hospital or even so much as called him on the phone there. So her son was probably in a condition in which he could talk on the phone. It was probably cancer. Her son would have been Ned’s age, so the criticism that Ned tried to be his daughters’ pal instead of their father doesn’t seem to suggest that the one had anything to do with other. It was simply suggested that the reason that Ned’s daughters didn’t respect him was that he tried to be their pal instead of their father. Regarding the accident, it was said, “We don’t let our kids run around drunk, wrecking cars,” and, “He kept his daughters’ names out of the paper that time.” This doesn’t indicate to me that anyone was harmed in the accident, as there was no mention in the comments of anyone being harmed. It was after Ned and the boy had swum the imaginary water of the Hallorans’ pool (the sixth pool), and Ned had then said to the boy that if one believes something enough, it becomes true for that person, that Ned feared that the boy might drown when he heard the boy jumping on the diving board. This simply indicates to me that Ned was having difficulty differentiating what is real from what is imagined, in this particular instance, the water. In fact, the boy asked Ned why he would think that he might dive into the pool, when there was no water in the pool. So the boy was more in touch with reality than Ned was.
eeyorestail3:
At the end, even as reality is setting in, Ned still can't seem to believe that he has lost everything: he keeps turning the door handle as if he expects he can still get in...which brings us full-circle to the psychotic break that brought him, after a nearly two-year absence, to the first pool.
Jim:
It seems that Ned thinks (chooses to believe) that the date is two years earlier than it actually is, at least at the Westerhazys’ pool (the first pool), at Shirley Abbott’s pool (the ninth pool) and at the public pool (the tenth pool). When Ned asks Howey how the World Series was to which he had given him tickets, Howey replies, “Oh, you mean two years ago.” Also, when Ned mentions to Shirley them being in Toronto last winter, she replies that she had not been in Toronto for almost three years. So it appears to be the last two years that Ned has chosen to forget. Apparently, it was about two years before the day that Ned decided to swim home that things began to go wrong for Ned. This does not necessarily mean that Ned was absent for the last two years, only that he chose not to remember the last two years. I think that Ned’s absence was shorter than that, because one person mentions missing Ned at the yacht races that summer, which suggests that Ned had not missed the yacht races the previous summer, which would have been less than two years ago. Also, one person offered Ned a lead for a job, which suggests that it hadn’t been terribly long since Ned had lost his job; otherwise, the person offering Ned the job lead would not have had a reason to presume that Ned had not yet found a job. So even though Ned’s absence caused people to comment on how long it had been since they had seen him, his absence may not have been much longer than six months.
Earlier, I said at least the first, ninth and tenth pools, because at pools two through eight, Ned speaks of his daughters as being younger and younger at each successive pool. At the first pool (Westerhazy), they’re all grown up and beautiful; at the second pool (Graham), the driveway is like a parking lot, with boys all over the place; at the fourth pool (Lear), they’re young enough to need a baby sitter; at the seventh pool (Gilmartin), they look cute skating on the ice-covered tennis court in their little elf hats; at the eighth pool (Biswanger), Ned gives them rides in his hotdog wagon. It’s here, at the Biswangers’ pool, where Ned sees the Biswangers in possession of the hotdog wagon, that Ned is partially shocked back to reality, that is, shocked back to thinking that it is only two years earlier than it actually is instead of even earlier than that.
Ned’s family may have been very happy in the early years. However, Ned didn’t take his marriage vows and parental responsibilities seriously, and in time he paid the price for this by losing both the love of his wife and the love of his daughters as well as the comfort of the family fortune. He had it all, and he blew it, and that’s what he couldn’t face, what he chose to forget. In the end, he realizes that everything that he had had is what he needed and wanted, and he wanted to go back to it, to go back in time and to recapture what he had lost, or rather, had thrown away, but he couldn’t; all he could do was feel the despair of his loss. Such loss would drive anyone crazy. However, I can only sympathize with this guy so much, because he was the one who chose to betray his family.
[deleted]
I think, especially from what was said at the public pool, that the son of the older woman at the third pool (who told Ned to leave and never come back) was involved in a car accident with Ned's daughters and her son was killed. The people at the public pool talk about Ned's daughters being ill-behaved. I don't think Ned's daughter's were killed--that would have come out at the public pool. But the woman at the third pool had the righteous indignation of a mother who has lost her son, saying how dare he show up at her home. Ned tells her that he is a friend of her son, and later it is mentioned that Ned was always "paling around with the kids." Also, it is mentioned that he was able to buy his daughters out of the accident, which means he still had his job and /or Lucinda at that time.
Nope. The house on the hill is in reference to the house shown at the end of the film. The character asking how he likes his new house is unaware of Ned's downfall. The early characters Ned encounters were on the periphery of Ned's social circle. They weren't privy to what has happened in Ned's life. They just know they haven't seen him in awhile.
The plot is set up this way. The early characters know little of Ned, other than he's a casual acquaintance which they liked. The succeeding characters are increasingly more involved with Ned's past, and at each stop in Ned's journey, the characters have been wronged or damaged by Ned's behavior. With each having more dislike for Ned than at the previous stop.
Good to hear what other people thought about this movie. Fist saw it about 23 years ago and then about 5 years after that, and I have always wondered about it, there was something about this movie, it drew me in and the ending was wow. I think I need to see it again though and think about the things that were discussed here.
share