MovieChat Forums > The Rain People (1969) Discussion > It Had Me Until the Ending (Spoilers)

It Had Me Until the Ending (Spoilers)

posted 15 years ago by zurichpoet
18 replies | jump to latest

Not sure about the acidic lemon twist garnish on the narrative which came across as ironic for the sake of irony to really stick it to the characters.
And it washed away the human element which had been established up until that point with each human being shown as being a human and not just a role and with extreme skill and sincerity of both thought and emotion by everyone involved in the production.

When irony nailed the story closed it removed the level eye to eye look of the film which never looked down at its characters or even askance at who they are, or what they are doing: almost never found in American cinema.

This pulling back irony at the end and from above brings in a judgment of “this kind of person” is doing something to “that kind of person” and isn’t it all very tragic? Not needed. Almost felt like sarcasm. Disappointing.

Maybe the point of the movie: Archetypes can only be rebelled against, not improved, or changed. If this is the case: it could and should have been noted in a different way when the rest of the film was sublime to the max.

The acting was sterling across the board. Especially Duvall, stunning; his finest naturalistic performance of this era this side of his wonderful performance in Tomorrow.

[–] rikkelk-1 15 years ago

Why does a movie have to have a point? I like American cinema because they're usually NOT trying to make a point, just telling a good story.

[–] zurichpoet 15 years ago

Everything has a point; and the point will exist even if people are unwilling or unable to synthesize what they have seen.

[–] ratebait 15 years ago

An excellent analysis, zurichpoint. The film's genuineness "... almost never found in American cinema." Very true. And it was interesting how you tied in the ending, so out of character with the movie's flavor (albeit, it was almost a given someone was going to buy the farm; this is the easy way to make a screenplay "meaningful") with a positive bent, that perhaps there was a point regarding archetypes. I don't think so -- the movie simply needed a dramatic ending -- but how open-minded of you to give this out-of-joint ending a break.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bohemianne-1 15 years ago

I completely agree with you. A captivating film with a deeply disappointing and implausible ending.

[–] Franz_Walsh 15 years ago

The ending certainly falls short when compared to the understated brilliance of the rest of the picture, but Coppola at least concludes his thoughts on Natalie's inability to look after others even if his brush strokes become too thick. The film mainly suffers by haulting its momentum as a road movie with an unconvincing and over-the-top turn of events (fthe characters played by Knight and Duvall would have NEVER hooked up regardless of how bored she became). However, I can't disregard the fact that Coppola's gifts as director of actors and mood (the film has the aura of an Antonioni film) are as strong in "The Rain People" as they were in the 1970's.

[–] zurichpoet 15 years ago

You brought up momentum and mood! Thank you. I can't think of another movie that captures both immutable forces in its character's lives; somehow Coppola makes both of them fluid: a liquidly visual kind of emotional poetry for the viewer.
Another great thing about this movie.

[–] Franz_Walsh 14 years ago

One thing that Coppola structurally does fluidly with this story is his graceful and poetic use of flashbacks, which erupt in hand-held shot bursts and plug us right into emotional wavelength of the characters. This contrast of styles can sound jarring in print, but the sensitivity of its presentation works well, and engages us more deeply into the the haunting past of each person with elegiac verite beauty. It's details like this in "The Rain People" that will remind me of how much fun it will be rewatching in the future.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mguevarra61-1 13 years ago

Saw this on TCM last night. I have to agree about the flashbacks. They occur with such abrupt urgency that they can be quite disarming. I do not know if it was Coppola's decision not to have the flashbacks be accompanied with sound but I thought it was a brilliant counterpoint to what was unfolding in the present tense. It saved the film's more melodramatic moments from becoming too maudlin. Ms. Knight's scenes with Mr. Caan are so heartbreakingly portrayed and this makes the ending all the more bittersweet, poignant and ultimately tragic. Terrific film.

[–] zurichpoet 12 years ago

Some great points in that post!

[–] the sphynx 11 years ago

Have you seen Duvall in the rare hour-long original "Twilight Zone" episode called "Miniature", zurichpoet? If not, you really should.

[–] zurichpoet 10 years ago

Thanks the sphynx! I will look for it.

[–] the sphynx 10 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CZ_8pQaFt4

[–] bon22 10 years ago

If the ending was "implausible", one could easily argue that the entire plot was "implausible".
Archetype, schmarchetype: this film is not a college or masters thesis. Humans are not simply archetypes. In additional to possessing archetypal qualities, humans are unpredictable, irrational & act out of character. I thought the ending was very fitting and realistic: bad sh*t happens. Great ending.

[–] doughazelrigg 9 years ago

I think the ending is evidence of a gifted, intelligent young filmmaker who still had some growing to do. The problem was not that it was implausible -- the motivations of each character's choices were consistent and logical, if irrational. I think the OP's issue -- which I don't contest -- might have been mitigated with an additional scene (or two)... or if Natalie's last bits of dialogue had been toned down a bit. I want to point out that "ironic death in the last scene" was a common trait of New Hollywood in the late 60's and early 70's: "Thunderbolt and Lightfoot," McCabe & Mrs. Miller," "Midnight Cowboy" -- the list is quite long, actually

[–] urgeking 9 years ago

Maybe I'm just thick, but what exactly is so "ironic" about the ending? (Maybe this is an example of what someone said to me recently-- that a lot of people now seem to be misusing/overusing the term "irony" when they actually mean something else.)

And just what makes the ending so unfaithful to the spirit of the rest of the movie? I didn't see it that way. I saw it like this: If those four characters happened to end up together in that particular place at that particular time in their lives, what we saw happening would be the unfortunate result of their collision. They would be fated to end up badly, just as a result of those four incompatible personalities colliding at oblique angles-- like a chemical reaction between four elements that cannot mix without causing some sort of combustion. And, sure, maybe it was a bit of an abrupt attempt to tie up the strands of the plot too neatly, too quickly... but what would have been a much better way to end this film? (Seriously. I'm looking for suggestions.)

[–] Underdog_73 8 years ago

If you're thick in this instance, then I'm afraid I am as well (though I don't think we are). There was nothing ironic about the death. At least nothing coinciding with my understanding of the definition of irony.