MovieChat Forums > Raising Cain (1992) Discussion > Final scare/shot meaning? (SPOILERS)

Final scare/shot meaning? (SPOILERS)

posted 19 years ago by Cognoscenti
29 replies | jump to latest

The plot of the entire movie -- save one scene -- made perfect sense to me. I did have to watch the close-up shot of the body the police recovered from the lake several times just to make sure it wasn't his wife. One character even made a point of telling the others (us) to check out the expression on her face, but I had a feeling that meant check out which face that is. The fact that it was the first victim is also later confirmed in the dialogue.

When we see the final shot of John Lithgow dressed as Margot in the last scene, what is that supposed to represent? I thought it might mean that the daughter's personality had split, taking on one of the personalities of her father. Maybe it was the wife's personality split? I don't think he was really in the park because he just disappears into thin air. Beyond it being a great final scare I think I missed the point. Anyone know for sure?

[–] AntoNEO 19 years ago

I just got done watching the movie for the first time and I have to say that I enjoyed the movie for what it was. I took the final shot to mean that the daughter's personality had split, or it at least foreshadows a future split. The daughter was in the hands of the Norwegian father for enough time that he could have done some mental damage. Also, I don't see any reason why the mother's personality would split. Quite an effective last little bit though!

"I grew up watching TV and I turned out TV." - Homer Simpson

[–] student_dragon 19 years ago

No, it really was the Margo personality having taken control and appearing in the park. Don't think it has to mean something terrible will happen. The Margot personality was not a personality that had anything particularly against the wife or daughter. Probably showed up just to talk.

[–] Cognoscenti 19 years ago

No, it really was the Margo personality having taken control and appearing in the park.

Yes, but taking control of who? Did Lithgow's character follow them there? I didn't take it that way. Why then just have him disappear afterward, rather than just scurrying behind a tree or something? The daughter's insistence was "Daddy's here." Here in her head or here in the bushes?

I read the Margo personality as being the protector. The only act of aggresion that personality takes, against the therapist, was to escape from prison so she could go save the child from the nasty grandfather. Seeing her in the park, while startling, is reassuring for us, yet at the same time troubling because the implications are not clear. I guess that's why the scene leaves such an impression. Thanks for your thoughts.

Edit to correct an IMDB tecnical error.

[–] violet_yoshi 18 years ago

I think that the final scene meant the daughter's personality was split. What with the time she spent with Carter's father. I think also, that in itself is much more horrifying a ending than if it simply was Carter as Margo just showing up in drag.

Also you see the mom pick the girl up, and Margot just dissapears, so it doesn't seem that she was physically there.

I knew there was something about this movie that really creeped me out for a long time, and that was it. The idea that the father had no qualms about his experiements, and the daughter was just another casualty of them.

Of course, this preying upon the stereotype of all Germans are evil and sadistic cuz of WW2. Which I don't like, even being Jewish myself and growing up around people who belive that stereotype. Just thought I'd make that clear.

[–] Cognoscenti 18 years ago

Hi. Thanks for your input. I read the article link that you posted about the ending as well. We all love Germans! Seriously, it's nice to see a sensitivity to this, especially from your perspective. I find that I notice other racial communities type-cast repeatedly in certain can't-quite-overcome-my-dysfunction roles.

[–] abf214 18 years ago

Not German...Norweigan (excuse me...I'm an ignorant American...did I spell Norweigan right?)

[–] JaneBingley 18 years ago

Not quite.. It's Norwegian. My beautiful country.
BTW The song Lithgow sings to his son is a well known Norwegian lullaby.
It's not song in good Norwegian, though..

[–] nfaust1 17 years ago

DePalma plays the final moment this way to end the film with a question. Yes, the sense that whatever craziness there was will in fact continue is part of it. I also think that Carter, who has killed his Father, has become the woman and, in his mind, the little girl's Mother, possibly even her protector. Remember, it's discussed that Carter's female personality tried to protect the "babies" from the crazy, Doctor Father. In any case, the way DePalma plays that last scene deliberately opens it up for interpretation.

[–] jiggyjiggy77 18 years ago

I think the final shot was a big circle. John Lithgow's father was kidnapping kids and then disappeared and continued his experiments. John Lithgow grew up with a split personality, was kidnapping kids, and then disappeared. I think the end meant that the daughter was going to grow up with a split personality and follow in the same exact footsteps as her father and grandfather.

[–] maddchad 18 years ago

I just saw the movie for the first time, and I have to say that there were too many scenes that didn't make a lot of sense to my until I thought about it. The looks in the eyes of Jack's wife, the first victim... The dream sequences, the affair did it happe or not. In the end, I thought everyone was the same character or different personalities in the same sick mind. The father did do some experaments, and twisted lithgows character into retreating into his own mind. The dropped child scene had to many coincedences, Jack was there, the truck that kept moving for no apparent reason with the harpoon on it, the daughter is dropped there, the father falls and shoots off the tip. I can only explain that as one mind split many many ways. Any other thoughts on this are welcome

[–] sohcharlene 18 years ago

i always thought the dream sequence was part of jenny's split personality.
and i thought the lady who was found in the lake was part of jenny's split personality...
for some strange reason, i dont seem to make sense to myself.

geez. i dont even like the movie.

[–] burninblazes 18 years ago

I think Margo was Margo, one of Carter's personalities. Why would the girl imagine herself as her father in drag. "Margo" lived for a reason (when we saw her walking off), so she could pop back up again. As for her dissapearing, well, it looks kind of like she dissapeared but it looks kind of like she's just hidden behind what-her name, the wife. Or maybe Margo just ran away really quickly. I guess the daughter could have been imagining it, but it seems strange, I don't think she ever even got a real look at Margo. I think we're just supposed to wonder if Margo is there for good or evil and what's going to happen.

_ _ _

"Why spend your life making someone else's dreams come true?"

-- Ed Wood, the movie

[–] rick_giberio 18 years ago

I just watched the movie (for the first time) and I agree that the final scene implies that the child (Amy) <i>did</i> in fact, become a split personality.
Also, of course the affair happened. Jenny wasn't MPD anyway, not that I could tell, she just felt guilty about cheating and getting caught. Proof of the affair was the first conversation between Jack and Jenny, the double gift for both husband and boyfriend, The flashback to when Jack's wife died, and of course, the fact that Lithgow (Cain/Carter) also recalled the same events from a seperate point of view.

[–] monte-frenkel 18 years ago

I can't agree that the final seen indicates that the child became a split personality.

First of all, the child didn't seem to have spent nearly enough time with the father to have developed split personalities. She doesn't seem traumatized by the event any more so than a normal child in a strange situation would be. Also, the whole point of the father collecting the children was to have a "control" group, meaning a group of children that he wouldn't manipulate, so that he could watch how they grew up in a controlled environment and compare them to Cain.

Second, one of the features of multiple personalities that they establish in the film is that personalities switch over when there is a traumatic event. This rule is followed throughout the film, with Cain/Josh/Carter only showing up when something momentous or trying is about to happen, like a murder or the cheating wife. There is no such event to trigger the daughter to see one of "her" personalities, even if it is one, since before the final seen she is doing nothing more then playing in the Park. At no time in the movie have the multiples simply appeared in the background.

Third, the person actually being "Margot" makes far more sense. Margot is the personality that is there to defend the children, and it would follow that, faced with the loss of his whole life, the Carter personality might withdraw almost completely in favor of the protector personality. It also would make sense for that personality to want to surreptitiously check on the child, to make sure she was safe.

Now, I admit that the Margot Character does seem to simply wink out of existance, rather then scurrying away, but that's part and parcel of the Genre. It would also make sense that the Margot image might be an alternate personality of the kid, because the kid would have had at least some idea that it was margot that saved her and killed the kidnapper. But, I think that in light of the other facts it is more likely just meant to be Margot making a last appearance.

[–] d_woodske 17 years ago

If you can get a chance, read a first draft of the script, much different than the movie. In the script, carter gets shoot by Dr. Nix and dies, pretty lame ending...

[–] jiggyjiggy77 17 years ago

Well I thought the last scene was kind of a Sixth Sense sort of thing where only the daughter could see Margot because it beginning to be one of her multiple personalities. But I guess the multiple personality would look like her, and not John Lithgow. Who knows...maybe the writer didn't know.

[–] Nick Zbu 17 years ago

The ending was really ambigious and maybe intentionally so. I'll stick my lot in with the 'daughter just split' response because Lithgow showing up in drag just to watch over his daughter, only to vanish when the mom picks up the kid proves that he's not really there. There's no way the director would intentionally leave that big of a flaw in there unless he's telling us something about he wants us to interpret the film.

Furthermore, the grandfather could have implanted that personality in the kid easily. If he could split his own son into various personalities, who's to say that he couldn't split those personalities to a greater extent? It may be a big suspension of disbelief for the daughter to mimic her father's exact disorder down to the personalities, but considering that all of them were created by the grandfather he could be working from the same template.

Who knows? I just got this for $5 in a bargain bin and wasn't disappointed.

[–] nosnojsirhc 17 years ago

Wouldn't it add to the hilarity of the already-funny movie if De Palma did a mockumentary about the nutty Norwegian's kiddy farm?

I can't help roaring when the father argues with 'the bad son':
"They were protective infant containers."
"THEY WERE CAGES!!!"

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gdub33 17 years ago

Why would the kid have a split personality, and it would be her father? That doesn't make any sense. People with split personalities don't think they are their father or person they know, they become someone that doesn't exist in order to avoid more traumatic events. And no way the grand father could turn her into someone with split personalities in a matter of days. Impossible. It was her father dressed up as a draggy, plain and simple.

-
I'll F* you with a loaf of french bread,eventhough you're on atkins,im like tough actin tinactin

[–] nosnojsirhc 17 years ago

"Why would the kid have a split personality, and it would be her father? That doesn't make any sense."

because the reasons for having split personalities always make sense. haw haw.

[–] artistathome 16 years ago

The director made it intentionally ambiguous at the end so that we could decide for ourselves what Margot represents. It would seem he wants us to think that the baby has a split going on.

but why would Amy say Daddy was there, if she didn't see someone who looked like Daddy? She didn't say Margot was there. so it probably means the child is splitting as well, at least that is what the director wants.

Remember that Amy heard a sing song voice calling out to her...
The fact that Margot disappears means she has to be in someone's mind.
Probably the director...

Nina

[–] soapfumes 16 years ago

While I do think it was her father dressed up, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that she would have a split personality as her father. I thought one of the twists of the movie occurred at the end when you realized Carter's dad was alive and not one of his personalities? So if you could believe of it of Carter why not her? Unless I'm the only one who thought the dad wasn't real when Carter was talking to him.

Overall though, I did think it was Carter when I watched it. I only watched it once, but I didn't see the winking out of existence thing. I saw it as the Mom is standing there, Carter has snuck up behind her, but we can't see him because of the way the camera is positioned. She bends down, we see him, she stands up we don't. I'd like to see it again now though to see if I missed something.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mattster12 16 years ago

I just posted this elsewhere, but this thread seems a little more alive...

I just watched it on HBO (90 min. or so running time) and the mother walks up to Amy w/ noone really around her. She then picks her up and "Margot" (Lithgow) is standing behind her, but then vanishes again quickly. Or maybe simply vanishes behind the mother?

I took it that the daughter developed this split personality from her trauma, although I believe DePalma cut the shot so quickly at the end of the film so as to leave the possibility that Carter (Lithgow) has returned fully in his new persona, Margot (note that I think this unlikely because "she's" quite large and dressed in all red, and the audience and the wife do not see her in any of the shots that follow the wife when she's chasing down Amy).

Anyway, good film with a couple flaws (why wouldn't Lithgow had stayed and made sure that his wife didn't swim up from the car for like... 5 minutes), but great, controlled and confident directing w/ an incredibly suspenseful story w/ many memorable elements and sequences of suspense. I can't believe that it's got a 5.5/10 on this site. I know that everybody's got different tastes, but you gotta be kidding me.

[–] LeisSuit 14 years ago

I don't think it was the child developing a split personality, I think it was just Lithgow reappearing as the Margo character one last time. I mean, the kid even says it's "daddy", so wouldn't the kid see John Lithgow's normal character if it was something she made up? She never says "It's Margo", after all. If she imagined Daddy or developed him as a split personality, she would've seen him instead.

Deeeeeeep hurting!!!!!!!

OH MY GOD! YOU CAN'T KILL BECCA

[–] drxcreatures 10 years ago

How the heck could the child have a split personality? LOL

It was just a scare shot that showed Margot was still around and watching over things. Hopefully Cain doesn't come back, since the father cannot manipulate anymore.

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