MovieChat Forums > Le locataire (1976) Discussion > The ending SPOILERS

The ending SPOILERS

posted 18 years ago by mv_mc
51 replies | jump to latest

I just watched it for the first time and there seems to be a lot of discussion on this list about other mysteries in the movie, but the one i really cant get my head around is the ending...

when he ends up in hospital covered in bandages and the scene where stella meets topolsky repeats itself ....why? what does it mean? is this supposed to be some neverending cycle that he only figures out while he is lying on his deathbed?

I am just haunted by the end and i cant get it out of my head.

Please help me!

[–] Something2die4 18 years ago

Maybe a way of showing him being pushed into the role of Simone Choule. He saw himself in her shoes and realized he had faced the exact same destiny as her.

[–] dep1353 18 years ago

..Maybe it's just part of Topor's dream logic, so when Simone "recognizes"
Trelkovsky from her hospital bed, is that really Trelkovsky she's "seeing" that
causes her to scream?

[–] StaunchWoman 12 years ago

I really like that.

We've met before, haven't we?

[–] bjhack_7 18 years ago

My take on the film is this..and it makes the most sense.....

Trelkovski is a very perverted and violent man..he either threw Simone out the window or drove her to suicide..HE KNEW HER BEFORE THE FILM BEGINS. Also, he either punched her, knocking out her tooth or she did it herself.
After she jumps, he completely forgets what he's done..it's his defense mechanism. His personality changes to a meek, shy, afraid of everything person.
That's how he knew the apartment was vacant, and that's why Simone screams when she sees him at the hospital, the guy who tried to kill me is here with my friend!! This explains why, when he goes to her memorial service, he imagines the priest calling him perverted and evil. He is Suppressing guilt. All the other things he sees and feels is IN HIS MIND. When his guilt becomes too much,
that's when he begins taking on Simone's personality, dressing up like her, talking in her voice (even at one point saying I AM PREGNANT) That could indicate also, he got Simone Pregnant, and did not want the child, therefore he killed her. Finally he goes completely nuts, as the guilt gets to him, he himself jumps out the window twice. As he lays in the hospital, it all comes back to him, he knows who he is and what he's done to Simone, and therefore
screams in terror as he finally accepts what he's done.

This is all my opinion, it makes the most sense to me, Polanski's films take
a lot of thought, and the more I see this great film, the more it makes sense, and the more it is his best film and a classic.

[–] Something2die4 18 years ago

That's the craziest theory iv'e ever read in my life. Before, when i saw all those stupid theories people made up, i became angry. But now, if a movie gives people several impressions it's okay know what i mean. But i still disagree with you, becouse in The Tenant there is no hidden message or plot twist or whatever you wanna call it. But the movie is full of details.

[–] colabottle 18 years ago

Seems a water-tight theory in a lot of respects. Mind you, if Trevkowsky was dating Simone prior to the film's beginning, then surely the neighbours would've known his face (unless they'd always conducted their relationship at Trevkowsky's previous apartment). One big guilt trip.

[–] ereichard 18 years ago

Simone never would have brought him to her apartment. If her neighbors wouldn't tolerate her wearing shoes after 10 pm, just imagine how they'd react to a noisy roll-in-the-hay. And it does explain how he knew the apartment was vacant.

[–] StaunchWoman 12 years ago

I wondered the same thing but it seems like the little disabled girl (who later wears the Trelkovsky mask) seems to recognize him.

We've met before, haven't we?

[–] my1999 18 years ago

Hi!bjhack_7, well said!

The ending is great, it likes is a fable, a samsara.

The movie is astonishing! Filled has been surreptitious and the imagination breath.

I like this movie extremely!

[–] Sponiatowski 18 years ago

You left out one piece of evidence that completely contradicts your theory.

Stella says to Trelkovsky after he says the suicide may be because of "some man", Stella says: "You know she wasn't interested in "men"?"

That line always made me assume that Simone was a lesbian. How could she be in a relationship with Trelkovsky if she were a lesbian? The guy at the museum who Trelkovsky meets later wasn't able to score with her either.

Other than that bit of evidence, your theory does hold up fairly well, but you have to overcome this tidbit to convince me.

Do you think there is any comparison to what happened to Simone in "The Tenant" to what happened to Terry Ginofrio in "Rosemary's Baby"? I see some very dark threads and comparisons to the poor girl who jumped and hit the Volkswagen with a hunk of Tanis Root around her neck.

[–] bowery_boy 15 years ago

bjhack may be onto something. In the opening credits you see Simone peering out the apartment window in the black dress Trelkovsky will later wear. Shortly thereafter you see Trelkovsky peering out the window. Very loose evidence that Trelkovsky probably pushed her out the window.

Simone could have been bi-sexual two timing it with Stella AND Trelkovsky. When Trelkovsky visits Simone in the hospital he lies to Stella telling her he was a friend and maybe Simone tried to commit suicide because of a man (Trelkovsky). Stella, assuming Simone is lesbian and her lover, states "You know she wasn't interested in men" but Stella doesn't know that Simone was interested in men, was two-timing with Trelkovsky and that she screams because she not only sees her two lovers together but also because one of them pushed her out of the window.

[–] Asphyxiod 15 years ago

Its good to see all of you discussing the Film so intensely.

I also like bjhack's thoery. There is one strong backing to his theory :-

Although, Stella exclaimed that Simone was not interested in Men, but by his argument Trelkovsky immediately mentions that such kind of woman can have some secret / mysterious relationships with someone but unknown even to the closed ones (I don't remember the exact dialogue). So this insists that Trelkovsky indeed was in conformity that Simone was in relationship with some man (may be himself).

But My Main Point is :-

The Platform of the Plot is "Mysterious Neighbors' driving a Tenant Suicidal"

The entire focus of the Movie indeed is that the Apartment dwellers drove Simone to commit suicide. We can't forget this which makes the Basis of the Movie.

It is also true that the Neighbors' act was not convincing to us that it can drive someone to commit suicide. If a Tenant is upset with Noise-Reluctant & Police-Complaining Neighbor, he/she ain't going to commit suicide.

Secondly, what was the Egyptian Symbols in the Toilet all about and various references of Ancient Egyptian Culture, The Mummy, the Book etc.? We also see that Simone's friend suggested that Simone was reading a Book that was on the Ancient Egyptian Civilization.

This Film has a Definite outlay on Hallucination. In the second half its all about that.

So at which point does the Hallucination begin precisely ? You can see that although Trelkovsly was infatuated with the Belongings of Simone i.e. Applying the nail polish etc. But it was purely out of curiosity.

Once he applies it, he then goes to the Toilet where he sees himself from the Window with Binoculars. Its here the Hallucination begins. The Toilet was covered with Egyptian Symbols & writings. Trevolsky's journey of madness begins from here.

Somehow I cannot Link this Egyptian Thing, the Hallucination & the Neighbors.

[–] Angel_of_Isis 14 years ago

Secondly, what was the Egyptian Symbols in the Toilet all about and various references of Ancient Egyptian Culture, The Mummy, the Book etc.? We also see that Simone's friend suggested that Simone was reading a Book that was on the Ancient Egyptian Civilization.

Can it be because the ancient Egyptians believed in an afterlife?

Some create happiness wherever they go - some whenever they go.

[–] Tchoutoye 14 years ago

In the opening credits you see Simone peering out the apartment window in the black dress Trelkovsky will later wear. Shortly thereafter you see Trelkovsky peering out the window. Very loose evidence that Trelkovsky probably pushed her out the window.

First we see Trelkovsky looking out of the window. Then the camera pans down and to show the glass that Simone and Trelkovsky fell through. (A patch is clearly visible. Is it an indication that the glass has been repaired? In the story the glass is only repaired after Trelkovsky has moved in.) The camera pans back up to the window and Simone is looking out of the window in her black dress. Then the camera pans across the courtyard to an opposite window where we see Simone again, looking out. Her image dissolves into that of Trelkovsky. Then the camera pans further, onto the roof and down to the main hall where Trelkovsky enters the front door to ask about the apartment.

[–] ekedin 14 years ago

What I don't get is that in the beginning when Trelkovsky goes to see her, he says he is a friend, but then at the end, he says, "To tell you the truth I don't know her" didn't he?

[–] LoveExposure 7 years ago

Well, maybe he was obsessed with her and frustrated that she was not into him? And maybe that "I would have to be a woman to be with her" also triggered his transformations into a women? I don't know...

[–] Scottie_Burnham 18 years ago

I like you're theory bjhack 7, a lot. I never thought about that, and it makes a whole lot of sense, except for the other tenants recognizing him thing.

My take on it was that the main character was actually Simone...she saw Trelkovsky while laying in the hospital bed and then either had a dream or fantasized about him as a person who took up in her old apartment. I think it's possible that she imagined Trelkovsky's whole thing as a way to justify her own suicide attempt, convincing herself that it wasn't her fault, that the neighbors drove her to it.

Both my theory and yours have a few flaws, of course, but you know its an amazing movie when one can see so many weird different takes on it.

[–] rivethead666 18 years ago

nice theory, but why make things so complicated?

when i saw the movie, i just thought he was schizophrenic and the finall scene was just his hallucination, fullfiling his conversion into Simone - he screams, cause he thinks, that he finally IS her.
this hospital situation (when he saw simone) was important to him, it caused his fascination of her - it, with help of second most impornat scene in the movie (when he have a party with his co-workers and the neightbour comes) released the illness - and from this time he is drowing in his paranoia.
he hallucinated the hospital scene, cause it was the beginning of his fascination, of illness, simply everything, and the final proof that he finally IS Simone.
the end :D

(and we'll never know why SHE were screaming. i'm wondering if we have to know. guess it's just meaningless. )

i hope that i write understandable :)

[–] NuYorkie 18 years ago

(and we'll never know why SHE were screaming. i'm wondering if we have to know. guess it's just meaningless. )

The nurse told Stella not to talk to Simone because she just woke up from coma. Stella ignored it, called her name and triggered the scream. Later Stella cried that she didn't even recognize her so the woman's mind was pretty much damaged and gone. I remember visiting a neurosurgery ward once and they had a patient there with a severe head trauma who was screaming uncontrollably and getting everyone upset with his constant loud moans.

Trelkovsky somehow subconsciously hoped she'd die so he could have her apartment. In the cafe scene he even said: "she was.." and then corrected himself "she is". So maybe deep down he was haunted by guilt and the sight of dying Simone and that plus living in her apartment full of her belongings triggered his illness. He might have been already suffering from schizophrenia anyway and, as you said, this whole situation with Simone and the neighbours made his condition worse.

[–] Pearl_Jade 16 years ago

posted by bjhack_7:

My take on the film is this...

Trelkovski is a very perverted and violent man..he either threw Simone out the window or drove her to suicide..HE KNEW HER BEFORE THE FILM BEGINS. Also, he either punched her, knocking out her tooth or she did it herself.
After she jumps, he completely forgets what he's done..it's his defense mechanism. His personality changes to a meek, shy, afraid of everything person.
That's how he knew the apartment was vacant, and that's why Simone screams when she sees him at the hospital, the guy who tried to kill me is here with my friend!! This explains why, when he goes to her memorial service, he imagines the priest calling him perverted and evil. He is Suppressing guilt. All the other things he sees and feels is IN HIS MIND. When his guilt becomes too much,
that's when he begins taking on Simone's personality, dressing up like her, talking in her voice (even at one point saying I AM PREGNANT) That could indicate also, he got Simone Pregnant, and did not want the child, therefore he killed her. Finally he goes completely nuts, as the guilt gets to him, he himself jumps out the window twice. As he lays in the hospital, it all comes back to him, he knows who he is and what he's done to Simone, and therefore
screams in terror as he finally accepts what he's done.

That's a very plausible and original theory. Trelkovsky is a mystery. We know nothing about his past. He could have had a relationship with Simone and only he knows what he did to her. As in Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart," his guilt and the enormity of what he's done is driving him to a precarious mental state. To his mind, the other tenants have become emissaries of Simone's whose purpose is to avenge her death.

Or we could also say that Trelkovsky didn't know Simone, but he feels as if he killed her because he subconsciously wished for her death so that he could get her apartment. And not only that, but he also instigated a physical relationship with her best friend. The guilt over this transgression leads to his torment.

The book kind of discounts this when it reveals that Trelkovsky is convinced that the tenants have a personal animosity toward him simply because he is Trelkovsky. They are dead set on eliminating him, so they will drive him to the same fate as Simone Choule. However, the film is its own entity, so it makes other interpretations possible.

Another good theory I read on these boards is that the apartment is a tomb and the tenants there are the dead. In order for them to accept Trelkovsky, he must die also. The tomb theory explains the insistence on quiet (as head "caretaker of the dead" Monsieur Zy must ensure that the dead are not disturbed), the discouragement of visitors (so the dead don't consort with the living), and the avoidance of the police (so concerns of the living don't infiltrate the world of the dead).

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lievernentrio 13 years ago

I just saw this movie for the very first time and I'm sure it needs several viewings in order to be understood properly, but I think one - very important - aspect of the story is being overlooked in most explanations I've been reading: just like Roland Topor (who wrote the book the movie was based on) and Polanski himself, Trelkovsky has Polish roots. Considering the fact that both Topor and Polanski are of Jewish ancestry, I think it's safe to say Trelkovsky has Jewish roots too. Now, let's think about the implications of such a biographical 'detail': Trelkovsky is played by Polanski himself, so they're more or less the same age, meaning they both lived WWII back in Poland as a kid. Polanski lived through some very traumatising *beep* there (check wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Polanski#World_War_II) and Topor also had to hide from the Nazi's, so the Holocaust was definitely a life-defining event for them. That's why I think the Holocaust is at least one of the factors triggering Trelkovsky's mental breakdown. I mean, imagine being a seven year old and seeing people being hunted down, imprisoned and even killed (which was the case of Polanski's mom) just for being what they are, without having done anything wrong (cf. Trelkovsky is basically being cautioned by his neighbours just for living there and moving around in his apartment from time to time). I think that's enough to make you grow up to be the shy person Trelkovsky is, constantly unsure about who he really is (cf. his theory about what 'me' is) and definitely a hell of a precedent for paranoia.

I know this interpretation doesn't explain everything (e.g. the ending, which this thread was about to start with :)), but I think it might shed a little light on the hows and why's of Trelkovsky's schizophrenia.

[–] StaunchWoman 12 years ago

I like your theory and found something that supports it, in my opinion. When he first arrives and the concierge is going to show him Simone's apartment, she's having trouble openning the door, as if the lock jams or has some unique way about it. Well, it does and Trelkovsky tries to correct her way right before she opens the door. He knew exactly how to go about unlocking this door.

We've met before, haven't we?

[–] horrorinpureform 10 years ago

I just rewatched the film and I'm more convinced than ever than Simone is a FTM transgendered person, living in a society that wants him to conform and be a woman instead of the man he feels he is inside.

Clues:

1. During the visit to the hospital, Simone's friend says "she doesn't like men". That's cause Simone is Trelkovski, who likes women (him being Simone is implied by the last scene of course)

2. He sees himself in his apartment from the bathroom as a man, and then when he goes back to the apartment and looks into the bathroom, there is him with the bandages on as woman revealing himself by unwrapping the bandages.

3. His oppressive, conservative neighbours are trying to make him into a woman. He says that repeatedly, as well as saying "I am me, Trelkovski" in the end, asserting that he is a man despite the act that they want him to put on (as even though he's a biological woman, acting like his gender is female would be an act). That's why the end is so theatrical with him playing as a woman, all an act as "requested by the people", which drives him to suicide because he can't be his true self.

4. My biggest clue is that he has a conversation like "if they cut off your arm, it's you and your arm, if they cut your stomach open, it's you and your intestines, but what if they cut off your head? Is it you and your body or you and your head? What right does the head have to call itself you" or something like that. I think this is the duality that exist in transgender people, between a body of one gender and a mind(head) of another. Trelkovski is musing about whether his mind or his body has precedence in determining his gender.

[–] Ace_Spade 9 years ago

Trelkovski's interactions with his co-workers belie that theory. They don't treat him like a man who was once brash and overpowering. So, his personality couldn't have shifted to a meek individual. I would point primarily to the scene where one of his work friends is giving him "rudeness lessons".

[–] jscmedia 18 years ago

I think Polanski was doing just that, creating the "ultimate ending" in some way. It never ends...god, god make it stop!@ Ok, so maybe it's juvinile, but for me, when I first saw the Tenant, in theatres in 1976, it blew my mind and also scared the hell out of me. Needed to be outdoors for a while, if you know what I mean. So, Roman, what ever you had in mind, you succeded brilliantly.

[–] doroti 18 years ago

I don`t think Simone and Trelkovsky ever knew each other. At the begining of a movie, you see Trelkovsky as a common youg man with a job and friends to hang around. I think that a fact that he is living in a apartment where one woman of his age has just killed herself has drive him mad. His neighbours were realy annoying people and by the time he gets the idea that they drove her into death. We don`t see it at the begining of a movie, but he clearly is one unstable person. And so, he became totaly freaked out and immposible to handle with. He sees ~conspiracy~ wherever he goes and he is in total mess. This movie is just showing a state of mind of one unstable youg person who had a near contact with death. There`s a no doubt something weird was going on in that building (that segment with the tooth in wall and mr Zee`s reaction on the robbery), but the main plot was his mental changes during the time he spent in that apartment.

[–] Something2die4 18 years ago

The book by Roland Topor tells the tale of an ordinary man with ordinary desires. He was not unstable. Maybe you can say he was a little weak, becouse i don't think every man on this earth would have turned crazy if they went through the things Trelkvosky did. But we are different.

[–] doroti 18 years ago

I agree with you that not everybody would act like he did, but in my opinion, he acted like this because he was weak and unstable person. But as I said, at the begining of the movie he was that ordinary man. Anyway, people`s characters are often much better described in books than in adaptions. I`ll try to get the book and read it.

[–] bloodofmyenemies 18 years ago

Didnt he say he heard about the apartment from a friend that he has relations with or something along the lines of that?

Your wife died from cyanide in the scotch

[–] gnolti 18 years ago

Yes, he did. I would be interested to know more about that, given that his only social life seems to revolve around those bizarre co-workers of his.

"Sorry. I wasn't listening, or thinking, whichever one applies."

[–] roorybacky 16 years ago

I'm interpreting the ending this way:

He's bandaged lying on the bed and he halucinates and imagine the same situation with him standing above the dying person. But he's now in the position of Simone which he so desperately tried to not turn into but he failed at that, so he adapts in her role - he screams. The reason why original Simone screamed is unable to find out logically.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roorybacky 16 years ago

Thanks a lot for this, it's really cool explanation, not easily able to find out on your own.

What you said means that the staying above the bed of those two is the thing which happened actually LAST in the movie and the rest is the hallucination of her? I'm still confused a lot.

[–] Pearl_Jade 16 years ago

In the book, the conclusion highly suggests that Trelkovsky's entire story was a dying nightmare of Simone's. There was no Trelkovsky in reality. As Simone dreamed of her situation, she dreamt of herself as a young man named Trelkovsky. What we the audience is seeing (or reading) is Simone's dream in Simone's head about her experiences that in that apartment. And in her experiences, she was a young man named Trelkovsky who the other tenants were trying to change.

At the end of the book, when Simone momentarily wakes from her coma, she is puzzled about why the nurses are refering to her as "she" ("She's awake now... They said she lost a lot of blood...") Balanced on the edge of dream and reality, between the conscious and the unconscious (or perhaps more accurately, between the conscious and the subconscious), Simone still thinks she's a young man named Trelkovsky.

I was pretty certain that this was what the book was saying; hence, my earlier post (helpfully provided by passetemps-1). However, certain people might not see it as conclusively, and lately I've wondered myself (e.g., maybe Trelkovsky is the reality and Simone is the dream?) But nevertheless, the movie is not the book, so maybe the movie is open to other interpretations. I find the many theories about the film so intriguing that I can't help but engage in some theorizing of my own. It seems a shame to let all those interesting interpretations go without being discussed, even if the book points in a different direction.

[–] Pearl_Jade 16 years ago

For interest's sake, here's a summary of the ending of the book. Direct quotes from the book are in quotation marks.

***** BOOK SPOILER WARNING: If you haven't read the book and you plan to, read no further *****

"It was broad daylight when Trelkovsky's body see-sawed across the sill of his window. It crashed through the new glass roof, shattering it into a million tiny shards, and struck the stones of the courtyard in a grotesque position, arms outflung. He was completely disguised as a woman..."

The neighbours gathered quickly, and someone called the police and ambulance. To everyone's shock, including the doctor's and the policemen's, Trelkovsky's body moved and then he spoke: "... it was murder... I was pushed... I am not Simone Choule." As Trelkovsky shakily rose, "the hypnotised spectators dared not intervene." As Trelkovsky staggers to his feet, the doctor tries to convince him to be taken to the hospital. Instead, Trelkovsky screams accusations: "You thought everything would happen just the way you wanted it to. You thought my death would be neat and clean. Well, you were wrong. It's going to be filthy, it's going to be horrible!... It was a... hideous murder Look here, there's the blood! That's blood, and I'm dirtying your courtyard with it."

Stumbling through the courtyard and up the stairs, screaming "Murderers! Assassins!" and smearing blood on floors 1 to 3 of the building, Trelkovsky is intent on causing a scandal. The police and doctor follow, wondering if they should subdue him as a madman, while the neighbours, also following, begin to let out a threatening rumble of voices; one tries to pull him back by the foot to stop him from leaving a trail of blood. On the third floor, the neighbours were muttering angrily, showing their teeth. They surrounded Trelkovsky. "Gleaming instruments shone in their hands. Instruments with razor-edged blades, like those in an operating room... The instruments glistened in the hands of the neighbours. A streamer of blood raced across his abdomen... For the second time, Trelkovsky's body see-sawed across the window sill, and crashed through the debris of the glass roof into the courtyard."

In the epilogue, Trelkovsky slowly recovers consciousness and gingerly opens one eye. He hears snippets of conversation: "She has come out of the coma... She may still have a chance." He gathers that they are talking about him, but is at a loss to determine why they are speaking of him as if he were a woman. He has two visitors. One, a man, is his exact double, another Trelkovsky. "He wondered whether there really was a man sitting there, transformed by his fever into a living replica of himself, or whether the whole apparition was simply an invention of his tortured brain."

The second head enters his frame of vision. "He recognized that face at once; it was Stella. Her mouth was pulled back in a smile that revealed two canine teeth of abnormal size, and she was speaking slowly, as though she had trouble understanding the language she used. 'Simone, Simone,' she was saying, 'you recognize me, don't you? It's Stella; your friend, Stella. Don't you recognize me?'

"A moaning sound came from Trelkovsky's mouth, stifled at first, then swelling to an unbearable scream."
________________________

Although I interpreted the book's ending to mean that Trelkovsky existed in Simone's dying dream/hallucination, the movie seems to be more open-ended. Either way, this doesn't preclude us from digging under the layers of the story and asking other interesting questions, such as...

1. Was Simone/Trelkovsky truly insane? Or was she/he mildly mentally ill and the other tenants drove her/him insane?

2. Did the apartment of weird tenants really exist or was it a metaphor for a cruel world?

3. Was the apartment full of malevolent beings who preyed on vulnerable people? Was it a tomb of people already dead? Was it a cult?

4. Was Stella Simone/Trelkovsky's guide to the underworld (death)? Was Stella an angel of death?

5. Is Trelkovsky the reincarnation of Simone? (That is, did he metamorphose into Simone after she died?)

[–] forbes500-1 15 years ago

Pearl Jade you have hit the nail right on the head, when you described the apartment as a "tomb" in an earlier post. And the truth of this entire movie and all the questions it ponders are revealed quite earlier in the story, at stella's house. It is then that we realize what has really occurred, but for a first time watcher/reader, Stella & Trelkovsky's conversation seems nothing more than drunken rambling.

It begins by drawing attention to the most important item in the movie.. the tooth Trelkovsky found in the wall.
Stella tries to explain away the anomaly..
"whenever one of my teeth fell out I used to hide it, my mother said it would turn into a coin"
to which Trelkovsky ponders
"tooth is a part of ourselves, like a bit of our personality"
and relates to a story he read in a newspaper..
"a man lost his arm in an accident and wanted to have it buried."
At this point Stella attempts to halt the conversation
"Haven't you got anything more cheerful to talk about?"
Trelkovsky continues to consider the tooth..
"at what precise moment does an individual stop being who he thinks he is"
Again Stella tries to put a stop to the conversation..
"I don't like complications"
Yet Trelkovsky continues his line of thought..
"cut off my arm, I'd say me and my arm, take off my other arm, I'd say me and my two arms"
"take out my stomach, my kidneys, assuming that were possible, would I say me and my intestines. If you cut of my head, what would I say, me and my head or me and my body?"
"What right has my head to call itself me?"
At this point Stella has completed undressing Trelkovsky and instigates a sexual encounter bringing an end to his line of thought.

What has happened here is obvious, first the author indicates the tooth to be the subject of the entire conversation, he then insinuates that all parts of the body must be buried properly in order to pass from this world to the next upon death, by the man in the newspaper story desire to have his arm buried in a cemetery. Trelkovsky confirms this theory with his questioning of a completeness of a person should a particular part of them be missing. What makes any one part of the body any different from another, a missing tooth is no different from a missing head.

Since a part of Simone (the tooth)is stuck in the wall in the apartment, so she is also stuck in the apartment, forever doomed to repeat the events for all eternity. Even Trelkovsky's descent into madness very much begins when he finds the tooth. Stella's attempts to prevent Trelkovsky from realizing the truth of things when he begins to realize this, indeed confirm her true identity as the grim reaper, the angel of death. The important thing to remember about this movie, is that it is not set in the real living world, it takes place in a world trapped in time, halfway between life and death. This is illustrated by the observation of 2 realities, the reality of Trelkovsky's perception, and the reality of our perception.

Even in todays' news, this belief is very widespread. I have recently read a news story about a soldier in Afghanistan was killed by a roadside bomb. Parts of his remains are still missing, and were never returned to the family. This family has made plans to go to Afghanistan personally, despite the danger, to find the missing parts of his body and see to it everything is properly buried.

[–] Pearl_Jade 15 years ago

forbes500-1, that is absolutely fascinating. It's remarkable that a someone can still re-view a segment of this movie and capture revelations that others have bypassed. It makes that scene -- and the themes in the movie -- all the more chilling.

I've read reviews of the film wherein Stella is described as an "innocent victim" of Trelkovsky's paranoia. The book actually plants doubts in this regard, depicting Stella at the end as showing two abnormally large canine teeth as she hovers over Trelkovsky's hospital bed. Her plaintive question, "Don't you recognize me?" illicits a terrified scream from Trelkovsky (or Trelkovsky/Simone, if you want to look at it that way) because she is really asking, "Don't you recognize me? I'm death. I'm here to guide you to the next world."

I wondered why Polanski didn't leave the "Stella's teeth" scene in the movie, allowing us to see this scary transformation of her. But I now think this was a master stroke because he wanted to leave the movie more open to interpretation. (Besides, it's more haunting when you figure it out -- or read about it -- afterward.) If any one point is overtly obvious, it would discourage the audience from mulling over the other equally intriguing possibilities.

For instance, we can go in another direction and say that Trelkovsky is completely paranoid and that Stella and his fellow tenants are relatively benign. Trelkovsky takes one complaint about noise and exaggerates it in his mind so that he can convince himself that the other tenants are controlling and hostile, making him dress like a woman, making him spy on the common bathroom, making him mutilate himself. Because if they're the ones forcibly making him do these things, then he never has to admit to himself that he is the one wanting to do these things. Yet he does want to do them, and in fact he DOES do them. But he represses all memories of his actions because of shame. He has convinced himself that the neighbours are the catalysts for all that happens to him, when actually the true catalyst is his own repressed desires.

So you can watch the movie with that interpretation, viewing Stella as a kind soul. Or you can watch it with the other interpretation, that Stella is an angel of death and that the apartment is a tomb. Or you can watch it with any number of other interpretations (Trelkovsky is a guilt-ridden murderer, Trelkovsky is Simone, Simone is Trelkovsky re-incarnated, etc.), and the movie still works. That's what makes it so rich, even after multiple viewings.

P.S. And I can't take credit for theorizing that the apartment is a tomb. Another poster had written that idea in another thread, and I was reiterating it because it's one of several great theories I've seen on this board. I just can't recall the person's I.D. to give him/her proper credit.

[–] Pearl_Jade 15 years ago

The cult theory is another one I like: Trelkovsky is a quiet, ordinary man who happened to encounter true evil when he moved into this apartment building. The motif of reincarnation, or at least the transmutation of the body, might be construed as the focus of the cult.

Like any cult, it seeks control of new recruits in body and mind; hence, the reason behind many of the things Trelkovsky witnesses and experiences: (1) the constant spying on him from a conveniently placed window (the common bathroom), (2) the pounding on the walls and door whenever he tries to just "live" and "be himself" (in an attempt to erase his identity and to make him "one" with the cult), (3) the forfeit of his savings as a deposit on the apartment and the robbery of his possessions (similar to the way cults take the material goods of members in order to cement their dependence on the cult), (4) the discouragement of going to the police, and (5) the theatrics in the courtyard as a means of making him distrust his own mind (perhaps the result of hallucinatory drugs being administered without his knowledge?)

No one is allowed to voluntarily leave a cult, so when Trelkovsky resists its pull, murder disguised as suicide becomes the modus operandi. In his desperation to escape the clutches of these twisted people, Trelkovsky jumps from his third floor window.

[–] ilia_davidovich 15 years ago

Pearl_Jade, thanks for refreshing my memory. I've read the book but I don't remember the ending, and somehow didn't pay too much attention to Stella description in the end. I agree that Stella is a grim reaper. When Trelkovsky comes to a church, he sees Stella, and is hallucinating priests rant. I love how Polanski created the scene, in the book it was less scary. That is in my view the beginning of Trelkovsky's demise.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] woscafrench 15 years ago

Is it possible that there is no ultimate explanation? The impression I got was that it was things put together not because they would make any sense, but just because they would be creepy and unsettling (and isn't things happening for no known reason half of the creepiness?).

[–] JesseNY 15 years ago

I just watched this film for the first time and loved it.

My take on the last scene may be fairly simple, and not sure if this has been said on these boards before, but here it goes:

I think when Trelkovsky is in the hospital at the end, it's not himself he's seeing with Stella, but really the next tenant of the apartment after him. As with the scene in the beginning when Trelkovsky visits Simone in the hospital it was Trelkovsky that Simone was looking at, not Stella (as she mentions to him later in the film). And at the end when Stella is saying "it's me, your friend...don't you recognize me?", it's the image of himself he is looking at, not Stella.

This goes along with an overall theory about this movie -- that there was something supernatural going on in that apartment. Again, not sure if this has been mentioned on these boards before, but maybe there was some prevailing spirit in that apartment that was causing anyone who lived there to go insane and commit suicide? Not sure I believe that theory myself, but it definitely goes along with Polanski's film style (especially Rosemary's Baby) -- is something Supernatural happening, or is just a series of coincidences?

This would suggest that the end scene shows that the whole thing is cyclical, and that after Trelkovsky dies in the hospital, someone else will move in to the apartment and face the same demise as Trelkovsky and Simone.

Just my interpretation, of course. But in a film as open-ended as this I think the ending is open to many different interpretations.

[–] horrorinpureform 14 years ago

The way I see this movie, is that, as mentioned by several people here, Trelkovski was an alter ego Simone saw herself as, and Simone was either a lesbian or even transgendered... The other tenants did not like that because they are conservative. So, they torment her by filing complaints against her to try to get her out, by repeatedly saying she is not allowed to bring her women friends to the apartment, spying in on her from the bathrooms. Basically, the way the neighbours acted represents the way the relatively conservative society of the time would treat a transgendered woman. So, she commits suicide because she finds it too hard to live among such "neightbours" (aka in such a society).

[–] Caractacus23 14 years ago

If your supernatural angle is correct, perhaps Simone brought the demonic presence into the apartment herself, through some occult practice related to her interest in Egyptology?

Been making IMDB board posts since the 90s, yet can't bring up any from before December of 2004.

[–] kissthepink 14 years ago

Here's the best explanation I came up with:

- Simone was interested in ancien Egypt, went to the Louvre's egyptian wing and fell under an egyptian curse who drove her crazy, causing her to die in the hospital all bandaged up like a mummy. She had made the hyeroglyphs in the bathroom as a sign of her insanity.
- Trelkovsky took her flat, but fell under the same curse as soon as he took the egyptian book from Simone's friend and received the postcard with the sarcophagus from the Louvre. He then relived the hallucinated mental trip of Simone and ended like her.

[–] udippel 8 years ago

Okay, that could be another interpretation, though I consider the previous one more logic: the hallucinations were all and only his.

It would be a strange plot if there was something in the flat to drive everyone crazy; and a coordinated effort to drive a tenant mad, by all other inhabitants, including the landlord, make little to no sense. Think all the strange people ringing at his door, telling weird stories, from the handicapped to the one who s*** in front of all doors.
Mostly, however, the priest at the funeral. That wasn't even in the house, and yet the priest sad all kind of bad stuff about Simone, including a crazy mimic. So, was the priest part of the conspiracy? Sure not.
Worse, Stella's pictures. What child did he see to go crazy and tear the photo, and rampage through her flat, shouting that they were all involved?

A clear indication of him knowing the place, was shifting the wardrobe to the side to take out the tooth. So, do we additionally have to assume he was clairvoyant?

It doesn't matter if he drove her to jump, if he pushed her, or if she really fell without direct intervention: he feels the guilt complex. And gradually he's driven crazy, imagining things.

To me she didn't make any hieroglyph on the restroom wall. He saw them there because of him losing the sanity; like watching himself watching him, and the fantasy was evoked, as you rightly assume, by the book.

Lastly, why would he see the same scene in two different perspectives, after his accident? Once with everyone trying to get at him, and then by everyone being helpful.

[–] snoblingoblin 14 years ago

*Quick note* Love this thread cause i've been trying to figure this movie out since I've watched it years ago and watched it a few times since.

* My quick thought on the egyptian theory of the film is that Trelkovsky wears makeup (eyeliner, lipstick, etc.) is similar to pharoh or king tut or whoever would to signify royalty (even a man) in the ancient egyptian days :/

"I know it was you Fredo"