movie ending? - The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea (1976) Discussion

[–] Mookie01 13 years ago

Did you see the earlier scene with the cat? Same thing.

reply

He was planning on missing the boat. Remember he was going to get married. Except, he got drugged up and sliced up by a bunch of nutcases.

http://www.cgonzales.net & http://www.drxcreatures.com

reply

[–] WarpedRecord 13 years ago

Indeed. The earlier scene with the cat was a foreshadowing of things to come. I think the ending is perfect for rolling the credits as the camera pans away. So I wonder if No. 5 moved up a few ranks?

This is a wonderful and weird piece of '70s cinema that is completely undeserving of its obscurity.

reply

[–] swiftyl 10 years ago

He moved up to number 2. Chief calls him this. Jim Cameron mentions that he's second lieutenant and gives him the hat.

reply

[–] Wuchak (8079) 4 years ago

Yeah, Jonathan was moved up to #2. The "chief" noted it while they were walking with Jim before the final scene.

reply

[–] mikeflw1 11 years ago

Yes,
the kids frakking killed him for not being true to his nature as a sailor, (might be some British perspective there), since he was going to stay. Even with the cat scenes, the ending still came off about as hard and shocking as the ending of THE LAST TANGO IN PARIS.

reply

[–] jinx_malone 9 years ago

It's not a British perspective at all. The film is based on a novel by Yukio Mishima. It's entirely Japanese.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] jmillerdp 10 years ago

There are issues with the ending, even with events transpiring as they do.

You can read the synopsis of the original novel. And, there must be problems in translating Japanese culture to England. The author was really into the traditions of pre-war Japan. So, the ideas in the novel must come from that culture.

The idea seems to be that the sailor is supposed to be part of the sea, and that is where he belongs. By leaving that, he is breaking some sort of covenant in the minds of the children. They then believe he deserves the fate they have planned for him.

To even try to pull that off, though, we would have had to have the novel's portrayal of the sailor as feeling his destiny is at sea. Or, we would have to been made to feel the lyricism of the bond of sailor and sea. In the movie, the sailor is very dissatisfied with his life on the ocean, and his job is portrayed as just a job.

Also to pull it off, we would have to somehow understand what was with the children. The best I could tell was that they were in search of the meaning of life, even if it meant drugging and dissecting a cat.

But, how that somehow translates to their believing that the sailor must be destroyed because he left his destiny escapes me. I guess I will have to watch it again.

"I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP!" - Daniel Plainview - "There Will Be Blood"

reply

[–] CaptainTerrific 9 years ago

Good post.

I think it's explained fairly well, when Chief is talking about the "pure and perfect" nature of the world, then extends that to a philosophy of a combination of survival of the fittest/never deny your true nature.

I think by seeing the sailor dissatisfied, that really drove it home, because his feelings (and that of the woman) existed outside the reality that Chief (and his followers) chose to embrace. Seeing what looks like a major, but completely understandable, decision (to leave the sea and marry) completely perverted into this idea of rejecting one's own nature and deserving of terrible punishment. To any reasonable person, the decision is really rather mundane, but it was wicked to these kids.

What was a bit harder (but by no means impossible) to fathom was the other kids' blind devotion to Chief. I know when I was a kid, there were cliques in school and some kids followed others out of a fear of being on the outside, but this really went to the extreme. The couple of times that Jonathan challenged Chief, I thought he was going to break from the group, but he didn't. From the outside looking in, though, Chief appeared to be a disturbed child on his way to becoming a psychopathic adult, and the other kids were too weak to go it without him. That little dynamic reminded me a bit of "Lord of the Flies."

reply

[–] chechrissie 9 years ago

I think you have to consider the feelings of a postwar intelligent child who has lost his father, and his belonging to a group who have seen their country fail but still grasp to some notions of feudal Japan as many Japanese still sadly do. The film obviously does not translate many things well. Especially as you mentioned the sailor not being in love with the sea or feeling that he belongs there. His decision to leave the sea is a betrayal as the boy sees it.

reply

[–] ministerwithoutportfolio 9 years ago

as many Japanese still sadly do.

why do you say sadly?

reply

[–] jinx_malone 9 years ago

This is pretty much necro'ing what's a very old post, and I'm only doing this to be assy, but:

Are you kidding me? You seriously have no clue? I can say with all honesty that you should turn in your 'A+ movie watcher's club' card right now dude, because it's pretty effing obvious what happened to him. Remember how they were putting on the latex gloves? Remember how they were a bunch of screwed up little sadists who did some nasty business to the cat?

I know what I think happened to him, but I'll ask you your own question, just for kicks: what do YOU think happened to him? Think hard for a second. Or two.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply