At the very very end of the movie, after he says "oh my god", and she responds with "yes that's right", it cuts to a shot of the university facade. Two students are playing football, one student throws the football, the shot switches to a zoomed in view of the football being caught in the arm of the second student then switches back to the first camera showing the facade of the university. Why?
shareIt's supposed to show that even though John's life is essentially over--he's going to lose his job and his house and everything--life still goes on, and other people couldn't care less.
"But why is the rum gone?"
Some times a football is just a football.
I don't even think that was in the stage play.
Probably a bit of light relief. The play ended on a bit of a downer, with the student taking over the prof's life (even telling him what he could call his wife!).
It's supposed to show that even though John's life is essentially over--he's going to lose his job and his house and everything--life still goes on, and other people couldn't care less.
that was my feeling too
I came here to ask this same question: what does the football scene mean? I don't think the previous two answers are correct, Mamet is too focused on symbolism and intent to end the story with an insignificant "lightening" moment, and too serious to end such a powerful piece with a trite "life goes on" suggestion.
Unfortunately I don't have any strong ideas myself. I'd guess Mamet was making some sort of comment on the gamesmanship we just watched and the back and forth shifting of control. But really the first thought that came to me was the brutal, testosterone-fueled nature of the game of football, and that maybe Mamet was making a comparison between those qualities and the movie's themes of paternalism and sexual power. But I'd be the first to agree both of these are weak ideas, too.
I sure as hell do not know what Mamet thought and added this scene,i however can share how it made me feel:..Right after all the "insanity" and the rage taking place inside the institution ended,almost alike a firing squad ceizing fire,the scene of the students playing ball carelessly (i dont think the way it was shot implied something "testosteronious"),jolted me even more...Sure he intended to use a "comparative " directing tool..What i mean is,he DID intend to make us notice the "difference" in the dynamics of both scenes...And maybe tht was what it was all about:just a directing technique.
shareIt's showing a parallel with the aggressiveness of football with the agressiveness of what happened in that last scene.
shareI saw it as a really evil joke by Mamet, showing how easy it can be to "connect" - ie, if you take the whole play/movie to be about the mis-use of language and the degradation of communicative action, then the scene at the end shows how simple it is to throw & receive a pass if both are done properly. If either the thrower or the catcher was mis-using football for their own ends, instead of joining together in inter-subjective cooperation, the pass would either be thrown badly or caught badly, and thus not work. It only works because both players are in the same game, together, cooperatively - and when they are, it is as easy as a toss & a catch.
shareOf all the interpretations shown here, I'd say vramesh is correct.
Mamet's work is filled with metaphors, satire, analogies, etc..
The end seems to be a throw-away scene of football pass and catch by two [evidently] non-athletes on campus, and nothing more.
We had just been blindsided by the ratcheting-up knock-down/full-out brawl we've just watched between full-scale "professionals at what they do" (John and Carol). Mamet then instantly gives us innocuous cooperation between 2 people having nothing to do with the one-upmanship "game" we've just endured.
E pluribus unum
The football means a penis. We continue to procreate. We create new families. More students are created. More professors are created. In newer generations we will be forgotten. They will be the students, professors, situations, families and nicer houses of the future. Life goes on. Papa Larry H
shareIt's just a closing shot of the school. Look. People outside, unaware of the drama that just took place inside.
It is not a penis, it is not a metaphore. It is and end shot. If it shows anything, it shows that the students outside will just carry on.
Everyone,
Out of all of the previous comments, and some of them were very thought-provoking as well as it is obvious to me that some folks put a strong amount of thought and consideration behind their comments and in forming their opinions, HOWEVER... I am very surprised that no one else got what I took away from this Mamet jewel of a play / movie about gender and power as relates to the football toss scenes.
1) Football is not a female sport and there are definitive differences between the sexes: a) men are physically stronger; b) women are softer and tend to be more nurturing. And those two items were argued throughout the story. Mamet showed the opposite in both of the characters, which I found to be intriguing!
2) Who plays football? Who does not play football? Who sits on the sidelines and watches the game, never playing in a game or taking part in the process of football? And contrarywise, who is it that DOES participate, or could participate, in every facet of this game we call football - OR - has always had a starting advantage over women and been allowed entry into Universities.
3) Who, historically, has been in charge (tenured or not) at ALL major Universities, Colleges, and schools across the U.S. and all other civilized nations of the world? And who has, over the past decades, been given a place in Universities and other schools of higher learning - so that they also might be enlightened, educated, and otherwise expanded in the mind?
4) Who was the apparent underdog at the beginning of the story? The one with NO power, NO understanding (her words), and NO viable means wherewith she could remedy her situation? Without the Professor's input, assistance, opinion, and part played - she could gain NOTHING.
5) Who was the underdog and showed less power at the end? In my description of this story / movie to my youngest daughter, it was a character on top of the other character and it flip-flops throughout the entire story; one over the other in power.
6) The throwing and catching a pass and the cooperation that exists amongst ballplayers did exhibit absolute TEAMWORK, such teamwork only occurred between the Professor and the student at the end - after the act of violence finally happened and the two agreed that his behavior did manifest.
7) I believe that the student suspected this anger and violence was always in the Professor and she used his own words (although somewhat twisted) to manipulate this act / attitude out of him.
8) The brutal behavior inside the building as compared with the light-hearted passing a ball outside is absolutely contradictory in nature and very shocking.
Anyone agree about the gender item (football) at the top of my list? It would be great to hear feedback on what I thought and wrote about this story!
Elle
"Speak softly, and carry a big stick." Teddy Roosevelt
The football was symbolic on a couple of levels. One was a display of parallel universes. (while a terror scene happens inside between two people of the opposite sex two guys are having fun outside doing something totally unrelated)On another level, no matter what happens to you both good and bad, others could really care less and continue on with their agendas.
share[deleted]