I didn't get it...


*Spoiler Alert*

Was this a happy or sad ending?

Why didn't he strangle the mom from Seventh Heaven after she killed his fiance?

Can living with Llamas really make you so serene as to not get upset over something like that?

reply

and I quote:

Larry - you just don't get it, do you?

Isabelle - no, I don't.


The ending is both. It's very sad, because Sophie died, and in a most terrible way. Larry is alone. But it's sort of happy, I guess, because Larry reacts to Isabelle's treachery in a way that shows himself that he has truly learned what he set out to. Now he can return to Chicago. But more than "happy" or "sad" the ending just sort of meanders, kinda like life.

Why didn't he strangle her? He knew that wouldn't have brought his fiancee back, so why do it? He was searching for the meaning of life, not for ways of destroying it.

About the llamas, I don't know. I'm from the midwest. But Larry did get upset, just not at Isabelle in particular.

Larry sums up his feelings by saying something like "I thought Sophie was my reward for leading a good life. But you know what? There is no reward for leading a good life."

reply

I know this probably going to sound very obscure: but when Larry tells Isabel, "You just don't get it," he's realizing that he could never really be happily married to someone like her. Isabel shows an incredible selfishness in destroying Sophie--although you could argue that she did it out of her lifelong love for Larry.
The spiritual life is pretty much a process of redemption, a choice Larry made after seeing the devastation of WWI. Isabel never saw anything wrong with the world, she just did "whatever they told us to do." Sophie definitely shared a redemption with Larry but her demons got the best of her (with an assist by Isabel).
I admire the film for reaching for the kind of conclusion that comes naturally in a novel...but can be a little tricky visually in a film.


reply

Isabel pushed Sophie over the edge, because she could,---Yeah she loved Larry more than her husband, BUT Larry made her make a choice, leave her life and live in his. She always had money, Larry was the nephew of a rich aunt, (who lost it all and her life in the crash), Larry was poor. Her husband was poor, But they had dear Uncle Elliot. She resented Larry and Sophie thier happiness, because they didn't have money, and he made her choose.

I hope this came thru.

I'd rather go hunting with Dick Cheney, than driving with Ted Kennedy





reply

I think he was implying that when Piedmont died saving Larry's life, he felt he needed to repay that debt by saving someone else. Sophie was that reward, but he was wrong. There's no debt to repay.


At least that's what I took out of it.

reply

**Spoiler Alert**

It's neither a happy ending nor a sad one; the ending's an affirmation of the notion that a given incident is emotionally neutral. Larry's line "There is no reward" sums it up. The events of life do not happen for a reason (in Larry's opinion,) but the reason is applied by the individual. Fate is not out to reward or destroy the individual; it is the individual that rewards or destroys himself depending upon their reactions to events that they cannot control.

It's very "Fate vs. Free Will" oriented.

reply

The movie was made from a book written about the author's experience with a now famous (and real-life) Indian sadhu (guru) named Ramana Maharishi. The author's (W. Somerset Maugham) experience with Ramana was the most profound experience of his entire life (the author passed out upon meeting Ramana). If you are a follower of Ramana or try to live by his teaching the end of the movie is an affirmation of what Ramana taught throughout his life--that there is no reward for life, the purpose of life is self-realization. Only through meditation, selfless service and a renunciation of desires and expectations (i.e., rewards) for one's actions--that actions and renunciation are both the same thing (in other words, one acts and works selflessly without any expectation of reward for one's work)--can one attain the realization.

Larry was attached to the physical world through Sophie. He cared for and desired her. She died the way she did because of her own karma. Her death and his realization that there is no reward in life dispelled the last myth he had about the physical world. He could then focus on what his karma had set up for him--the path that will lead him to realization.

This sounds strange and mystical, but this is what the whole book was about. This is what Ramana taught and is the foundation of the Bhagavad Gita.

"The awakened sages call a person wise when all his undertakings are free from the anxiety about results; all his selfish desires have been consumed in the fire of knowledge...Free from expectations and all sense of possession, with mind and body firmly controlled by the Self, they do not incur sin by the performance of physical action."
--The Bahgavad Gita

reply

Your explanation here is far too complicated for posters here who only watch movies. Movies are literature, yes, but a book still has more depth -- it is the nature of the medium. And this is a destrcution of the original Maugham novel.

reply

True. But that's why he woe the book he said.

reply

Please feel free to speak only for yourself Phil-it was a thoughtful & well thought out post and I'm sure I'm far from the only poster who appreciated it.

"Gentlemen you can't fight in here!" "This is the war room!" Dr. Strangelove

reply

Momohund,

Its been more than three years sense you left this response and I have no idea if you will ever see this post so far after the fact, but I have to say that I found it very deep and probably the best explanation for this film's ending that I have ever read.

It manages to take what can be interpreted as a very sad and emotionless ending and transforms it into a excellent and thought provoking and even enlightening analysis of Larry's experiences.

This is not intended in any way as an attack on your religion, but I too have come to see Larry's views on life (and you seem to have similar faith as well) but found not a leap of faith into the realization of God but an affirmation as to the complete lack of any such being.

I guess we each decide the conclusions of faith in different ways.

But I'm curious, does the "common man" in Eastern religions typically guide themselves to these conclusions (assisted, I assume, by a teacher or guide) or, like in the West, is that the realm of the unusually gifted with the "common man" following mindless dogma with little real thought or understanding to the ideologies they practice and/or preach?



----------
There are 10 kinds of people in the world, those who get binary and those who don't.

reply

After reading all this Maharishi garbage, I have a question, a little off topic.
Why do so many wonderful people suffer and die young, while the worst of the worst beat death for decades?

reply

Why do so many wonderful people suffer and die young, while the worst of the worst beat death for decades?


Life is random, there's no supernatural being pulling the strings, choosing who lives and dies. You get lucky - you live - you aren't lucky - you die. Being a good or bad person has nothing to do with it.

reply

Well, that clears that up! Was kind of annoying pondering whether or not God exists all the time. Now we can move forward asking real questions like, what was Kim Kardashian thinking with that dress? FFS.

reply

Why do so many wonderful people suffer and die young, while the worst of the worst beat death for decades?


Because it's an ex post facto fallacy by the observer.
With a dash of confirmation bias and cherry-picking.


On one hand you never get to see all those "good who die young" turn bad - cause they died young.
Statistically, there have to be psychopaths and thieves and murderers and even Republicans among all those dead babies in the world.
But as you don't get to see them turn bad even though they have a preference for it - you write them off as good.


Because your confirmation bias dictates that only the bad make it to the old age, why all the good die young - ignoring all the good people who live a long and fruitful life and all the *beep* who die young.



Were those upper class twits in a bright shiny ambulance good when they got themselves killed along with all those wounded they were transporting, all due to their own stupidity?
Were Larry or uncle Templeton bad? They both made it to an older age.

reply

Why not?

reply

JackSmak11,

Been years since your wrote your post, but this is not the only case of multi-year replies...

I used to ask questions like this. Why is the supposedly all-good and almighty God so sadistic, etc.
Most Hindus think Karma is based on right vs wrong ways of living your life, and your rewards both in present and future life will be based on your credit score if you will.
Most Christians think entrance to Heaven/Hell is based on right vs wrong ways of living your life, and your rewards in the afterlife will be based on whether or not you meet a certain threshold based on some combination of belief, morality, and a few other factors.

This movie suggests..."it just doesn't matter." Whether you're one beautiful and worthy character who goes to a very black place thinking she deserves it, or another living the life of a basket case barely holding it together, another who is struggling with life but trying to do the right things and be responsible, or a man who experiences things in war that start him off asking questions about purpose of life, and he follows through with it.

One person inherits a whole lot of money, another person meets a tragic fate, and yet another returns home supposedly with nothing. Is this just? Again, "it just doesn't matter." And if you can get that...Maharshi garbage is not about justice. When the desire for personal freedom is greater than the desire for justice, Bill Murray's final realizations in the movie will make sense.

reply

Maughm states at the end of the book that the story is that of a success story, this is to say the movie follows the book, as I have not had the opportunity to see the movie.

reply

Its sad you didn't but I was in it when it was made, I played a German officer in the WW1 stage, It was filmed on Salisbury Plain in England. Bill Murray great guy but always deep in thought... getting into the part I expect.

reply

dalebrunt1,
Wow, you were there for the filming?
Any other memories from your time with the production?
Thanks for sharing!

reply

You want someone to tell you how to feel?

reply

[deleted]

Don't feel bothered by not gettign the ending. You should read Maugham's novel to really understand. Darrell returns to American and lives in NY driving a taxi and he's happy doing it. The endign is what one might call bittersweet...both happy and sad.

You second question is such an interesting ane. People search their lives for meaning and many find it in religion or spirituality. Others find meaning in science and knowledge. When I was in my 20s, I;d get into a fight if someone looked at me the wrong way. I had a quick temper. I never quite understood why until I reached 50 and then I came to understand that I was incredible angry within myself and that's why I exhibited such anger. I still get angry but I rarely show that emotion any longer: It's hard to explain why. I never lived with Llamas and I'm not especially religious or spiritual. But neither amd I angry inside. The best way i can explain this is that when I reached 50 I cam to understand myself and what made me so angry. My advice to anyone is to first learn to like yourself. If you don't like youtself, it's very hard to be a good friend to someone else. Learning to like oneself is difficult and I suspect most people spend their entire lives not liking themselves, which is why we see so much anger. Things that can help control anger...learn not to take anything personal, learn to accept that everyone operates in a perpetual state of self interest and that this is alright, learn to give everyone benefit of doubt because most people don't have it in for you *beep* happens'). Very few things bother me any more but it took me more than half a life time to figure it out.

OH...and yes, I do believe that if one adopts the Buddhist way, it would likely eliminate anger as an emotion but it would take years of training to reach this point. Darrell was in India for many years and that wasn't obvious from the movie (Maugham explaisn this in some detail). The novel is unforgettable. Wonderful and I'm not a big fan offiction.

reply

IMHO, although he didn't think living a religious life on a mountain was his true calling he did learn things about himself and the world while there.

As for not strangling Isabel, he had learned that hate only rebounds on the hater. He would harm his own life as much or more than hers by harming her. Trading harm for harm would not make him happy.

It took what she did to Sophie for him to finally be able to release her. He and not just Isabel had kept that link open.

At the end we are led to believe that he feels a freedom from all the things that at the first of the flim, he was expected to do. The entire film is his rebellion against becoming part of the machine and at the end he realized all he has to do is declare himself free of it to be free. So he walks away. To look for life affirming things and not hold onto to destructive things. That's why he is smiley and happy at the end. And he realizes he could never explain that to Isabel or her his friend, her husband (can't remember Keach's character's name). Just like Larry they would have to learn it for themselves.

reply