MovieChat Forums > La luna (1979) Discussion > The ending--warning: spoilers

The ending--warning: spoilers

posted 17 years ago by sunsetsncarcrashes
9 replies | jump to latest

I don't understand the ending.

What's with bringing that Italian girl from the start back. How did she get there? Is the smiling meant to signify that they're going to be a family again? Or that they both love Caterina? And why was Joe smiling after he clapped and Caterina told Joe's father that Joe wasn't dead. I have SOME thoughts, but they're all very simple and I'm sure they're not right. I feel there must be some deeper meaning to all those things.

And one more question: that time he was disco dancing in the cafe. Why did that Italian man watching him hug him? Possibly because Joe reminded him of his youth? Or that he thought Joe was amusing? It sucks that I don't understand Italian ...

[–] etphonehomeyo 16 years ago

i got the feeling the italian guy wanted his bod.

go go go

[–] abcpc 16 years ago

Dude...don't worry...I think you could understand, Italian, Japanese, Chinese, Russian and Hebrew PIG LATIN BACKWARDS and STILL not understand this flick...I couldn't!

[–] feverchant 16 years ago

I was a bit confused with the locales as well and just assumed that
ended up back where they started or not far since two of the other characters
were at the rehearsal as well?

The Italian man I assumed was a pederast...
I got the feeling Joe did not understand much Italian.

[–] IForgotMyMantra 16 years ago

The ending seemed to me an endorsement of family life. Look at what happened to them after her husband died -- they went nuts. With the father around, there seems some optimism that they won't be so crazy. I believe Bertolucci denies this interpretation, probably because it's so old fashioned, but I don't see how the ending can really indicate anything else.

And just on a basic level -- the ending with the singing, the photography, acting - everything is just an amazing example of pure cinema.

[–] ofumalow 14 years ago

As crazily over-the-top and symbolic as the ending is, it's still pretty clearly a "happy ending" in that the point is that the original family unit is reunited. Whether they actually live together again or whatever doesn't really matter, it's that some kind of order has been restored in their personal universe.

As for the bar scene, the guy is trying to pick up Joe. Bertolucci apparently shot a next scene in which Joe woke up at the guy's apartment (presumably after they'd had sex). They see the news on TV that Pasolini (the gay Italian director/cultural icon) has been murdered, and the guy breaks down in tears. But Bertolucci said that as much as he wanted the scene in there as a tribute to Pasolini, it just didn't work dramatically, so he cut it. Maybe it'll be a DVD extra some day.

[–] mediterrae 14 years ago

hey,thanks for the information about the deleted scene,i've seen this movie long time ago,and i loved it.
The actor wich appeared at the bar is franco citti,who worked on several pasolini s movies,and also it was told on those days,he was his boyfriend too.anyways,the idea of the tribute to pasolini worked perfectly with what we see in the movie,at least i got some of that impression right away.(and yes no doubt the guy's trying to pick up joe)
anyways it'll be great for me to see the movie again someday,because it was shown here with some fewer minutes and never came up on dvd......

[–] djestic03 14 years ago

Thank you all for trying to help me understand the ending. Lfumalow's makes sense, but that would SO glorify those 'horrible' Christian/traditional/conservative values are SO out of favor that I can't believe that's it.
Joe's father booting him out of the house, slapping him hard at the rehearsal, then shooting him a warm smile makes me want to tear my hair out figuring motivations for these abrupt changes. Joe holds his slapped cheek, but I can't figure out if he's showing us madness (having reached a breaking point) or simply crying. There IS a language problem here--but so much is in English...what could justify that? And even the death of Fred Gwynne's character is confusing. This movie is so rich in pathos, SO well acted, so beautifully filmed (locales and cinematography), so bold in subject matter, that I'm bitter about the imprecision of plot elements. BOO on that.

[–] ofumalow 13 years ago

I'm not sure an ending that brings the biological mother, father and son back in simple contact--one very much doubts mother or son are going to drop everything and move back to Italy to be with "dad" permanently--automatically "glorifites those horrible Christian/tradition/conservative values that are SO out of favor." The father's action's--throwing his son out, slapping him later--are completely understandable, since in the first case the son (posing as someone else) has told him his only child killed himself after spending years looking for him, so of course he's too upset to speak further. And in the first case, he's just found out that bearer of bad news was actually his son, who lied to him in the most painful possible way. Once he lets his anger out, it's possible for him to feel some happiness at being reunited with the son--however reluctantly and tentatively. It's like they all needed to go through separate catharses before they could start burying the past and deal with one another again. But anyway, you shouldn't need to understand everyone's actions here so literally. After all, Bertolucci admitted the genesis of this movie was a dream that he had.

[–] djestic03 13 years ago

Thank you so much! This makes sense now! Appreciate it!

"you need a bigger boat..."