So what's next

I understand that some might focus primarily on Hunter's future coming out of the ending. But i don't think the ending is supposed to be primarily about Hunter. Before proceeding I think what happens with Hunter will depend. Does Jane have any ohter options that might be a better fit for raising Hunter than working in the peepshow? I do think she loves Hunter and wil try to make it work, but whether she can is open ended. I will return to Hunter later, but in the context of what follows.

Imo the real meaning and point of the ending has to do with Travis and Jane. That in turn is a reflection of the overall attitude of Wenders and his people toward what the film's larger context is, which is America. But Sam Shepard's hand in this can also not be overlooked, him an American, Wenders German. The net result, when one also considers the mix of American and European cast members, puts the subject of America in a rather mixed, ambiguous context.

If you read enough about this great film you know it is sometimes or often compared to John Ford's The Searchers, and with good reason. Read Roger Ebert's review fo an analysis of that aspect:

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-paris-texas-1984

Ebert though also points out another great film inspired by The Searchers, that being Taxi Driver, whose lead character is also named Travis (Taxi Driver obviously was made before Paris, Texas). Along with The Searchers' lead character Ethan, played imo in the performance of his life by John Wayne, all three have several elements in common. They are on an existential search, a journey, seeking meaning, but in the context in each case involving a woman or girl, and at differing points the reveal occurs that some element of sexual bondage is involved for all three. (Not to digress but I suppose hte point can be asserted that Taxi Driver is not limited to one woman, Jodie Foster's character, being in bondage, but bondage of a different type for Cybil Shepard's? Perhaps...)

Another similarity amoung the three is that the lead character is deeply flawed, at least in some measure due to an alienation from the environment, and other people, which they find themselves dealing with. In the case of this film's Travis, this aspect of him is quite significant in understanding the ending. In all three, the protagonist ends up alone. (Ethan in that famous shot walking out the ranch house door by himself, Travis in TD driving his taxi away, Travis here also driving away, presumably on a freeway leading outside of Houston.) But of course there is much more to Paris, Texas than its similarities to those earlier two films.

One last note about them, however, is relevant here - The Searchers is also set in Texas, or mostly in Texas, but post Civil War and of even greater significance in rural settings exclusively. Taxi Driver instead is entirely set in a city, New York City. Paris, Texas, whether intentionally or not, sort of splits the difference, adding not only rural Texas, urban Houston, but also suburban Los Angeles. Well it is certainly intentional that all three types are included.

THe middle ground of surburban LA is found to contain no small measure of ambiguity. We and Travis recognize it has been the safe place where Hunter has been growing, in what appears to be the stable household of Walt and Anne Henderson, solidly middle class or even above average. In this setting Travis finds enough support and comfort to slowly move toward a more "normal" interaction with others. THis includes his humorous attempts to learn to act like a father. But in this setting he also finds reminders of Jane, and of equal importance does so while Hunter not only is also reminded of his mother, but asks questions why in effect things turned out as they had.

Travis knows much about that, but not all - Travis does not know why Jane sent Hunter to live with Walt and Anne. But he also has to wonder to what extent his own failings on their behalf contributed to the situation where Hunter was not living with his natural mother. Guilt in short becomes a motivator.

Guilt is found in the surburban LA "paradise", and we soon see how it makes it impossible for Travis to stay there himself. Hunter's questionings are interpreted by Travis to mean Hunter is also set to pursue the quest that they soon take up. Was it really Hunter's intention that his father would interpret his questions in that way? Perhaps not, but soon when the nature of the quest is made known to him, he accepts that he is on it, and off they go (or rather continue going).

Earlier of course we saw the rural environment of Southwest Texas as a place Travis escaped to, from others, from that which alienated him as we understand later in his shared monologue with Jane. As he says to Walt in looking at the picture of hte lot he supposedly owns in Paris, Texas, there's nothing there. But of course that is not literally true - there is escape. But now Travis is on his quest, and he must confront what comes, without escape. OR at least no escape until the quest is completed.

I said earlier there is an element of sexual bondage in the three films in question here, but Travis does not literally know the nature of Jane's until near the film's end. And whether realistically or not such nature is not as onerous as it might be, certainly less than that involved in The Searchers and Taxi Driver. But I think Travis at least wonders even before he sets off. Ther is the intermittent amount of money Jane sends, her lack of education combined with her physical attractiveness, her young age. Still, when the nature of her work becomes clear at first to him, he is quite disappointed and saddened.

The fleshing out of Travis's awareness of the nature of Jane's work includes the reveal that she does not take her clients home, which serves I suppose as a rather convenient if soemwhat unrealistic way of saying she is not really a prostitute. THis in turn I think is meant to indicate she is a more suitable candidate to have Hunter returned to her than otherwise.

But that Travis would return as well? I think part of the brilliance of the script is that he never hopes for that. As the narrative plays out we understand that while he loved her intensely, beyond reason, he did so in a way and to an extent that was destructive of all, eventually including (or so he apparently did conclude) the relation between Hunter and Jane. He does not trust himself, and the viewer can say with good reason.

At one point, shortly before Travis takes Hunter into Houston for the second and last time, he recounts his take on the relationship between his parents. He says his father loved more the idea of his mother than of her herself. This is a somewhat accurate description of his love for Jane, in the sense that he did love her, but without really understanding her or what she wanted. So, now about to deliver Hunter to her, does he understand that she wants that?

The meeting between Hunter and Jane is a spectacular moment in this film, very poignant, very convincing, and as far as it goes an answer to whether Travis's quest was worthwhile. But I do think Travis at least hopes that not only will they be reunited, but that such reunion will lead Jane to adopt a more wholesome lifestyle and form of employment.

Having now completed his quest, his mission, in the middle of this urban environment, Travis departs. Where does he go? Not back to Walt and Anne, almost assuredly, and clearly away from Jane. The implication in terms of settings is that the third option is where he will go, into the nothingness of the Texas desert.

In the end I don't know if it makes sense to call this an unhappy ending, although the melancholy nature of it is overwhelming. But what ending would make more sense? Hunter returns to the Hendersons? Travis stays and tries to resurrect his marriage with Jane?

But in terms of the guilt that motivated Travis, this is the best of all solutions. Whether Jane will work it out is up to her, and he will not be there to muddy up the waters. And of course there is his selfless removal of himself from the scene, an act of sacrifice.

But is this really the best result for all? For Walt and Anne? For Hunter to have his father again disappear, to watch his mother struggle to support him in a new domestic arrangement? For Jane to do taht without help?

The irony is that by following his guilt Travis is both selfless and selfish.

That in turn is in keeping with the film's overall ambiguous nature. Including its ambiguous view of America (that is a subject too big to include in this post), which of course is in keeping with its film comparators The Searchers and Taxi Driver.

I will re-post comments I made on another thread on this board.

I think maybe we're to infer that Travis came to the conclusion that he can't be around Jane again. I.e., to put himself and Jane into proximity again is opening the door to recreating the same disastrous ending they went through already. So the four of them (Travis, Jane, Anne, and Walt) raising Hunter together in some arrangement isn't going to work. At the same time, Travis believes that he had robbed his son of a relationship with Jane through the sins of his former life. And he believes that Hunter needs to be with Jane. So perhaps he is counting on Jane to do the right thing and make her way to L.A. to start over, get some support from Anne/Walt, and at least have three of them raising Hunter. OK, maybe that's a stretch. But short of kidnapping Jane and bringing her back to L.A., Travis tried to set the first domino in motion by reuniting mother and son.