Alex Dead?
I think that Alex is dead at the end. What does everyone else thinK?
Blah Blah Blah
Of course he's not dead...Why doe's he say"Hello Inspector" if he's dead?!?
[deleted]
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Shallow Grave (1995) Discussion > Alex Dead?
Come on.
You really think that inspectors are going to be calmly pacing the house and *snapping photographs* of Alex while he lays there bleeding to death? None of these officials would be in a rush to get him medical attention and get an ambulance to the scene, but instead blind him with flashbulbs?
It was a stylized death, and it worked nicely.
[deleted]
My husband and I are at odds about this, also. He seems to be convinced that Alex is dead because of all the reasons posted above.
I don't think he's dead, why else would they show only David's body in the morgue? Where's Alex's body, if he is indeed dead?
It certainly would have helped if the inspector had said something back to Alex when he addressed him.
The paramedics could possibly be on there way. & they were most likely taking photographs because it was, after all, a crime scene. David WAS murdered there, right next to Alex. & they are probably required to take photographic evidence of everything in the room, even person's pinned to the floor with kitchen knives.
I don't know maybe the directors just planned it this way, to make everyone debate themselves to death over it. It certainly is bugging me.
Sorry to reply to your comment 6+ years later (lol) but...
The paramedics are already there, you can see the two of them in green with medical badges and "AMBULANCE" written on the backs of their uniforms.
I don't think he's dead. If you notice when they are putting David's body in the morgue, there are three sections for three bodies; yet, there is only David's body. One died, two lived.
shareDead.
This is taken from the script (which can be found here http://www.horrorlair.com/scripts/shallow.txt) "Eventually, just as Alex seems to be gaining the upper hand,
David reaches out, pulls a long knife from the wooden holder and
plunges it with great force through the upper part of Alex's
right lung, just beneath his shoulder, pinning Alex to the wooden
floor."
Through his LUNG. I think that would kill him, if he's left like that all night, don't you?
Another thing from the script, "INT. AN AIRPORT DEPARTURES HALL. DAY
Scraps of ripped newspaper lie scattered around the holdall. Two
of the scraps contain the headline TRIPLE CORPSE HORROR'."
Alex wouldn't survive a whole night laying there with a punctured lung. The policemen weren't talking to him or giving reassurance because he was dead. People confused by Alex talking and being alive need to learn to not take things, especially Danny Boyle films, at face value. God, in American Beauty, we hear Lester narrating the tale of how he died. Do people think because he's talking to us about it, he didn't die after all from the gunshot wound to the head?!
WoW!!!! Did you even see this film? "Triple Corpse Horror" was refering to Hugo and the 2 thugs, sheesh!! People survive with one lung all of the time, just ask lung cancer patients that have one removed...or donors, for that matter...Not to mention, as it has been stated here before, the knife would have corked the wound....perhaps you should watch this film again....
sharePart of me thinks that he might be dead just for the same reason that he is in need of medical attention, like now, and nobody is helping him or seem to be caring for that matter. But I live in denial about that! So in my little world, he lives, gets all the money and pines the whole thing on Juliet. That makes me happy, so that’s what I stick with!
"Blessed are the forgetful, for they get the better even of their blunders."
it's obvious that he is dead!
I hate it when people think he is not.
I think if it was obvious that he is dead, he would be in a body bag, wouldn’t he? So what, if not everyone interprets the ending the same way as you. There was probably a reason the film makers left it open to interpretation. Otherwise they would have shown us Alex in the same way they showed us David.
"Blessed are the forgetful, for they get the better even of their blunders."
Alex is not dead, IMO. I JUST watched the movie, and when you catch the very last glimpse of Alex, he's alive and smiling away, thinking about the money that he stashed right under the floor boards. The camera pans down and we then see the $ getting bloody directly below him. If they wanted him to die, the knife would have been closer to heart, but instead it was right next to his shoulder, and therefore not a strict medical emergency. I agree with others that we also did only see David in the morgue, so that also supports my theory.
HOWEVER, Alex will NOT go free and be able to spend the mony. He'll be going to jail.
Like I have said before, I like to think Alex is alive, but I can see how it can be interpreted differently. His wound would have been a medical emergency because even though the knife was in his shoulder, he could still bleed to death. I mean the bitch pounded on it with her shoe, he was all jackered up! Also, I do not think that Alex would go to jail. I think Juliet would be the one going to jail. There would be prints on the knife that killed David, also Alex has a knife stuck in him, and she has run off. At that point Alex could tell the cops whatever he wants, being very misunderstood!
"Blessed are the forgetful, for they get the better even of their blunders."
You guys are crazy. There was no doubt Alex was alive at the end. The ending would not make any sense otherwise.
Whatsmore after checking the script there is no indication or even slight hint of Alex being dead...quite the contrary:
INT. KITCHEN. NIGHT
Alex lies alone, with David's body beside him.
INT. KITCHEN. DAY
It is brightly lit now. Policemen's legs swarm around Alex, who
blinks as a flashlight fires. He looks out to the hall again,
where he sees McCall and Mitchell.
Alex lies back, a faint smile on his face.
I doubt he'll go to jail. There's nothing connecting him to the murders or mutilations. That was all David's handiwork. As for covering up Hugo's OD, he can easily pin it all on David and Juliet claiming he was in mortal fear of them. At work, he left the beginning of that cryptic note notifying his coworkers that he was scared of them. In the end, he's the one who's come out on top. The perfect crime.
sharePretty obvious to me too.
--------
See a list of my favourite films here: http://www.flickchart.com/slackerinc
I've seen the film several times, and it never occurred to me that Alex might not be very much alive at the end, with plans to claim his reward. My wife feels the same way. I think he's alive (and not about to die) because:
1) He speaks to the inspector, and he's smiling. 2) He's bleeding quite a bit, but not enough to make me think he's bleeding to death. 3) The blood is still dripping; when someone dies the blood coagulates. 4) The knife isn't close to his heart. 5) The use of the song "Happy Heart" reinforces the view that he's alive and happy.
It does seem odd that the investigators are standing around, photographing him, etc. If medical help is already there, I assume they're debating about how to proceed, because removing the knife could easily cause the bleeding to increase.
If he's dead or dying, that spoils the great twist of the ending, with the money hidden under the floor and the newspaper clippings in the suitcase. It makes no dramatic sense to me if he's dead.
I was curious about what lord_zeratul86 said about how it said he was dying in the script. I did some googling, and lo and behold, the script is online at http://www.horrorlair.com/scripts/shallow.txt
As far as I can see, nowhere in the script does it say Alex is dying at the end. In fact, reading it makes me even more sure he's alive.
[deleted]
Obviously he was dead, I can't believe that there are so many people who believe he lived. I first saw this flick when i was 11 or 12 and no one needed to explain to me that he was dead, it simply just goes without saying. Why was he talking? It's called symbolism, ssssssssymbolism man.
Since others have done it already, there's no reason for me to point out why he was dead. Just look at how the police reacted for gods sake...
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
i'm also shocked to see how so many people think he's alive at the end. sorry if i offend anybody but this debate shows why so many movies are misunderstood by so many people. the scene in the end is absolutely surreal which is a good indicator by itself that something is not right. why would you even wanna take a picture of an injured person? why is nobody helping him if he's alive? the medical guys are on their way - LOL! everyone is standing around not helping him. it's obviously the next morning. he's been lying there for the whole night with a knife in his body (blood is not infinite btw). i don't even now why i'm trying to explain this. it's so obvious. sorry guys, the ending is not open for interpretation. thinking that he's still alive is wishful thinking at most.
shareYou're absolutely wrong. He's alive at the end. I couldn't be more positive about this. As I said in my earlier post, the script is online at http://www.horrorlair.com/scripts/shallow.txt . Nobody could possibly read the script and think he's dead. The movie simply doesn't work if he's dead, and anyone who thinks he's dead is reading more into the scene than is actually there.
sharewow, the scene in the script is absolutely boring. i'm glad that danny boyle made the most out of it. i can see how someone would think alex is not dead by just reading the script. however, it is also indicated by the presence of policemen and the flashlight.
shareYeah, because someone blinking at a flashlight is an indicator that they are dead, somehow.
shareYou are crazy too...
Here it is staight from the script:
INT. KITCHEN. NIGHT
Alex lies alone, with David's body beside him.
INT. KITCHEN. DAY
It is brightly lit now. Policemen's legs swarm around Alex, who
blinks as a flashlight fires. He looks out to the hall again,
where he sees McCall and Mitchell.
Alex lies back, a faint smile on his face.
Yeah it is so OBVIOUS that he is dead. Danny Boyle is just an idiot. I mean, what to directors know about a movie that they have directed?
shareIn response to Jeremy 124:
I think the overarching argument against your points boil down to two things: style and irony.
1) 'He speaks the inspector, and he's smiling' - the police do not acknowledge Alex in any way and then they start taking pictures of him, which suggests a crime scene!
2) This is pretty irrelevant... there are tons of films where it could be debated whether or not the level of gore/blood loss is enough to kill someone. The main culprits are gunshots to the head, but I digress...
3) The blood is dripping, granted, but it's dripping on the money. This is the point of the whole film. Blood money. Tightly linked to death. It's a stylish and ironic twist that, given all his planning and double dealing, he got the money and is seemingly very happy about it, but he's dead.
4) 'The knife isn't close to his heart'. Tsk. So that's the only place a stab wound could kill someone? What about the liver or kidneys?
5) The use of "Happy Heart" is, again, ironic! Why does it provide a backdrop to the misery of Juliet's character when she finds the newspaper cuttings that she was duped in to beleiving? The point of it is that, dramatically, it's all gone tits up and no one has won and that is juxtaposed with the happy music. See also the Nina Simone track which highlighted their rather heartless going-about-their-day-as-usual attitude, despite the corpse in the bedroom ('my baby just cares for me'...). By the end the only person who could be perceived as having won in any kind of way is Alex because, although he is now dead, Juliet didn't get away with her betrayal, David snuffed it, and he, in death, is the only one who knows where the money is; under the floorboards, under his corpse.
Finally, the idea that Alex is 'alive at the end, with plans to claim his reward' just does not work with the drama that has preceded the final scenes. This film is about the nature of greed and it's affect on the human condition. It is also a film which depicts the self destruction of a very twisted and bitter set of individuals. They are almost like a witches' coven (see the slow motion flashback of them laughing the hapless prospective flatmate out of the door: cackling, cruel and certainly in no way deserving of a happy ending). Watch it again: the money becomes almost a character in itself and is, more so than usual, very much the root of all evil in this film. A guy gets drowned in a really quite nasty, violent, manner. Another guy gets trapped in a freezer. The guys who did it are after Money. What happens to the gangsters? They end up skinned and buried in a forest. Why? Because David went mad, disposing of the first corpse. Why? Because he was getting rid of all evidence of Hugo because the trio decided to keep the Money. It was all because of THE MONEY. Some poor bloke gets his head repeatedly rammed in to an ATM machine... there it is again, violence and money. The fact that there's even a chance that one of the characters in this film could eventually benefit from the money just does not work. Alex finally gets what he wants but is dead. Irony again. Such that is slathered on all the dialogue throughout, such that makes this one of the best film endings in recent cinematic history. Take the death out of it and you're left with nothing.
I couldn't disagree more, for the reasons I've already stated. It's an ironic twist on the usual "crime doesn't pay" kind of ending these movies almost always have.
shareI tend to agree that Alex is dead. I surely hope so. :)
"Stalingrad. . . The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There's been a cataclysm."
I have seen this movie three or four times....I think the use of color is brilliant.
But....I never understood (and it wouldn't be a movie without it) why they didn't just hide the frigging money and call the cops.
Okay, okay, I kinow....then the bad guys would find them...but they found them anyway, right?
[deleted]
It's an odd one, for sure; definitely a 'you-decide' ending. I haven't seen it in a few years, but I would go with Alex being dead, as I remember the police completely ignoring him at the end.
shareI would say hes alive in the ending. I don't see any reason why he would be dead.
They were just leaving him there because its not a good idea to pull a knife out of someone as they will bleed worse. The wound was not in a place that has any major organs or arteries and i'd say most of the blood was probably from the other guys cut neck.
I think he was still alive.
shareJust saw it again there a few days ago.
I have seen this film a few times and the thought that Alex is dead has never entered my head. The impression I get is he was unconscious through loss of blood and comes to when the police arrive mistaking him to be dead.
a "you-decide-ending" ? Comon guys, it was so OBVIOUS that Alex was dead, how can people ignore this simple fact? Look at the policemen and all the blood for Christ's sake.
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
Thank you, Sawyer. Please someone listen to us. He's dead. Its a stylistic film. It's the kind of thing Danny Boyle does. Oh and, in Trainspotting, I suppose that Renton actually climbed in a toilet and swam around for a bit did he? Yes? Because it shows it on camera?
If he were dead, then all the policemen and photographers in the room would have been breathing steam like in "The Sixth Sense" because they would have been in the presence of a dead person. Ergo, he's alive.
shareDead people don't lift their heads and smile, dumbass. He was 100% alive. A stab wound to the shoulder won't kill.
share