question on the end of the movie - Lone Star (1996) Discussion

[–] originaltbyrd 16 years ago

i just watched it last night and i thought they agreed to keep on keeping on, myself.

as for the "good man" part, it's laid out in such a way as you decide for yourself.

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 16 years ago

The question I have is do Cooper's and Pena's characters end up as lovers even after they find out they have the same father?

I felt the dialogue indicated that, yes. Sam says, "if I met you for the first time today, I would still want to be with you." Pilar says, "Forget the Alamo." They both are saying they will start over, and that past events, that they were fathered by the same man (which they never knew about until now anyway) will not affect this decision they are making in the present.

Also does anyone else in town besides Pena's mother know the truth?

Well, it sounds like it was hardly a secret that Buddy had an affair, though how many people knew who the woman was, is not clear.

One more thing. Is it safe to say that Sam's father was a good man?

This is a great study of perceptions. To the town, Buddy was an awesome man and sheriff, so beloved that he is now a legend, complete with statue at the courthouse. Sam's perceptions could not have been more opposite. By the end, we learn the truth is somewhere in between.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] Redwood-George 16 years ago

(**** of course there be spoilers here ****)

I've probably seen this movie a half dozen times (it's one of my favorites) and my interpretation of the ending was completely different...

Pilar seems to be bargaining with Sam to continue the relationship ("I can't have kids") but he seems unmoved by the argument. His statement that he'd always find her attractive didn't seem to be an invitation to romance but a reassurance that she'd always be in his heart.

Oddly, I've always thought "let's forget the past" meant "let's forget the romance and start new as brother and sister." The theme of the movie has all been about family and connection and that seemed to complete the theme perfectly.

What's really wonderful is that John Sayles has made a movie that's nuanced enough to work on many levels rather than thump you over the head with something simple - in many ways paralleling the life of Buddy Deeds: there's two sides to every story. Every time I see this movie I find more forward and backward references, more connections and more great acting. Either this is is a skillfully cast movie or John Sayles knows how to get the right timbre out of his actors (or both).

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 16 years ago

His statement that he'd always find her attractive didn't seem to be an invitation to romance but a reassurance that she'd always be in his heart.

But he didn't put it in terms of finding her attractive: he said "If I met you for the first time today, I'd still want to be with you." That sounds like romantic interest to me. But I am not arguing with you. I think what we have in common is that with both our interpretations, they understand the past and so can move beyond it and are stronger for it, which is one of the main themes of the movie. The Colonel's story arc is even more moving for me in this respect.

It's interesting that you see Pilar as wanting the romance and Sam not. I've seen others who think they both want it now, but speculate that in the future, it will be Pilar who backs out. Reason being is that they can't stay in that town; too many people know the truth. It would require a lot more sacrifices on Pilar's part to move somewhere else to start over. She has ties to the town while Sam really doesn't.

Either this is is a skillfully cast movie or John Sayles knows how to get the right timbre out of his actors (or both).

Totally agree with you. I think Sayles has a huge gift in that area. Many prominent actors who have worked with him were unknowns at the time -- he gave Cooper and David Strathairn their starts. Another is Chandra Wilson as the private who fails the drug test, now hugely successful and an award-winner for "Grey's Anatomy".

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] aynhaled 15 years ago

Wow. I had no idea anyone thought any different than that Sam & Pilar continued their relationship. That's what "forget the Alamo" meant. We are not bound to the past of racial difference or societal prejudice against inconsequential incest (she can no longer bear children). Sam says if he met her for the first time today, he would feel the same. That says, despite the past & what he has recently learned, he still wants her...as he always has.

For some very insightful reading into this movie, I suggest the following link:

http://bad.eserver.org/issues/1996/28/sandoval.html

reply

[–] jmhow 8 years ago

I enjoyed that link to Sandoval's article so much I decided to make it clickable

http://bad.eserver.org/issues/1996/28/sandoval.html

I especially liked his ending

Lone Star teaches that there is no separation between the past and the present. The "border" which exists between them is only in our minds, for the past only exists in the present. Furthermore, there is no "border" between the objective and interpretive facts of the past. Both only have power in the present insofar as we choose to utilize them for our own historical imaginations. History is something that can and should unite people. The citizens of Frontera, Texas are united by their common histories, on their common landscape. Even though they may understand it differently, they are bound together through their present situation — a fragment of the past living and breathing in the present.

Our criteria for wading through the "truths" of the past should be based on our hopes for the future. The final scene of Lone Star finds Pilar and Sam sitting in front of a blank screen. With their decision made, they have accepted the past and yet chosen to live beyond it. The life they will try to create with each other is providence not of the known, but the unknown. They are at home in the wide, unexplored, and undetermined future.

Now I'm not saying that we should all go out and have sex with our siblings. But we should remember that history is not a prison. Even the truths of the past can be overcome by creating in the present a new and future-oriented reality. We should always utilize the past as we look toward the future. But if we always choose to live by the past, then we will never progress beyond its limitations.

A link to the article also appears on the wikipedia page for the movie.

www.freerice.com
Over one million grains earned.

reply

[–] Thomasina 7 years ago

Wow. I had no idea anyone thought any different than that Sam & Pilar continued their relationship. That's what "forget the Alamo" meant.

Except that the whole movie has been one long exercise in proving that nobody has come close to "forgetting the Alamo," either figuratively or literally.

We are not bound to the past of racial difference or societal prejudice against inconsequential incest (she can no longer bear children). Sam says if he met her for the first time today, he would feel the same. That says, despite the past & what he has recently learned, he still wants her...as he always has.

To me, it has always been clear to me that Sam (at least, if not Pilar) knows better--that we still very much bound to the past of racial difference or societal prejudice. Have you ever BEEN to Texas? They're not even remotely close to "forgetting the Alamo."

Everyone in town (except for Sam and Pilar) knew that they were half-siblings for their whole lives. How could they possibly now conduct a relationship? What would they tell her kids--"Here's your new stepdad, Sam. Don't worry about it when the kids at school start telling you that he's also your uncle!" Sam says that "if I met you for the first time today, I would still want to be with you." To me, the key words there are "if" and "would"--he's trying to tell her they CAN'T be together, not that they can.

reply

[–] scottrevision 15 years ago

Pilar seems to be bargaining with Sam to continue the relationship ("I can't have kids") but he seems unmoved by the argument.

I think Sam is letting Pilar decide whether they will be siblings or lovers (which means he's already decided that he would like to be her lover, if she still wants him). He's just giving that possibility an opportunity to breathe.

Before he meets her at the drive-in, he's had time to think. And he could meet her tomorrow instead of today, if he needs more time. But she isn't skeeved out by their shared parentage, and doesn't worry about the neighbors or convention. She asks him whether this means they're done--she's implicitly offering to pursue their romance. He's had time to decide the answer to that question; if he doesn't want to be her lover, he'd clearly say so when she asks him.

reply

[–] lubin-freddy 16 years ago

The ending is symbolic as well, in the way the film deals with history, personal and communal. How does history, or more correctly, how we chose to REMEMBER history, affect our options and possibilities for our future? Do we sometimes draw boundaries around ourselves, as individuals and as communities, which keep us from making the choices we might otherwise make?

This is true, especially, when you view the film as a modern western, and consider the role of the genre in shaping America's image of itself. In that way, these are, I believe, questions that the film asks, and perhaps answers as well, in that great closing line: "Forget the Alamo".

reply

[–] meebly 16 years ago

For the sake of people who haven't yet seen this, one of the truly great dramas of the 1990s and a compelling mystery at that, could you PLEASE mark your opening comment with a spoiler alert?

meebly

blog: athousandlaxatives.blogspot.com

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 16 years ago

I really hate the people who say, "if you don't want the movie spoiled, don't come on the imdb boards" and in general I agree that the word "spoiler" should be in the title of threads that contain a spoiler. But gee, when the title specifically refers to the end of the movie, isn't it a given that someone who hasn't seen the movie will have things spoiled for them if they read it?

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] andrewsk8s 15 years ago

LOL...

Please refer to my IMDb General Reply #5

reply

[–] kctme 15 years ago

To meebly how could a question about the end of the movie not contain a spoiler?
To the question of Buddy being a good man; in context of his place and time Buddy was a good man. The blacks and Mexicans got as good a deal as they could hope to get with him as sheriff.

Stupidity should be painful.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kbasden2850 15 years ago

Wow that seems a tad harsh

reply

[–] PhoenixPhuck 15 years ago

back to the subject...

Sam and Pilar are definitely calling it quits at the end. Well, Pilar definitely seems open to continuing but Sam is not down...obviously they'll always love each other, but they will be going their seperate ways from that point forward. I don't think its ambiguous or even debatable to be honest.

Even the most primitive society has an innate respect for the insane.

reply

[–] ejr-4 15 years ago

"Was Buddy Deeds a good man?" That's a great question. The minorities felt he was a good man because he treated them fairly. But Sam discovers that Buddy's behavior was partially motivated by greed. I guess in the end, Buddy was neither a great man nor a bad man -- just human, with virtues and faults.

reply

[–] dwheatl_99 15 years ago

"Much to Be Grateful For" posted this link to an interview with Sayles. I think you might be surprised by what he said, Phoenix.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/sayles.html

I always thought they would stay together, because that's the choice I would make. If I found out at this point in my life that my husband is my half-brother, I would not leave him. After the last 15 years of Sam's life being more or less a waste (bad marriage, bad job, etc) because of his love and desire for Pilar, I just can't see him saying, "The heck with it."

reply

[–] canuckteach 14 years ago

dwheatl: that berkeley .. sayles.html link has been re-located to a restricted site.. if anyone knows of an alternate link, or can copy/paste the 'gist' of Sayles' words here, that would be shiny.. (spoken like a true 'Firefly' buff!)

I think the ending is just ambiguous enough to allow the viewer to draw his own conclusions.. certainly, Pilar is more tied to the community than Sam - there will be 'practical' obstacles to be overcome (even if they ignore the 'ethical' ones) if they marry - and choose to stay...

also: TVO, a non-commercial 'arts & documentary' station up here in Ontario, runs this film about every 2 years, featuring interviews with Sayles, and film critics.. I caught most of it last night..

Sayles is a great cinematographer--I loved his work in Eight Men Out, the story of the 1919 Chicago White Sox. He was Director and played the role of a prominent sports journalist of the day (due to his uncanny resemblance!).. the film featured a terrific ensemble cast, fine character development, and great insight into a historical event...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095082/

:-) canuckteach (--:

reply

[–] johnf_sf 7 years ago

Imdb needs safe spaces for people like this so they don't get triggered

reply

[–] polsixe 14 years ago

***Spoilers***

1 - I'd say yes they continue, they're both too lonely and need and want each other. The kinkiness is just part of Texas.

2 - Cooper's Sam seems to be the one who went to the trouble matching the dates, everyone else probably thinks the Cruz guy is Pena/Pilar's father, as she did. The mother would have to suck it up.

3 - Sam's father was a real hardass when Sam was a teen fooling around with Pilar, Sam misunderstood the reasons why. Buddy also helped cover up the Wade incident for the good of all, it seems overall he was a white hat and only Sam had doubts. I guess a son/family would always see another side of a person outside of their workaday lives.

reply

[–] aj1111 14 years ago

Spoilers - I have seen this movie perhaps a dozen times. IMHO it is one of the best movies ever made and in my all time top 10 to 20. I'm amazed anyone would have any question about them continuing the relationship. Its clear they intend to continue. Sam offers Pilar the option to stop but the passion between them, which may be incestuous, is powerfully intense and obviously has already lasted most of their lives. Was Buddy a good man? Its often said no man is a hero to his butler. Now Sam has a fuller understanding of the reasons why Buddy blocked his relationship with Pilar. Buddy wasn't perfect, but he was probably as good as most, if not better.

reply

[–] CDizzle1975 13 years ago

Great movie. My DVR crapped out right as he whips out the picture, so I went searching for the script. I found this, if it helps:

A silence, both of them wondering what the next move should
be--

PILAR
So that's it? You're not going
to want to be with me anymore?

Sam knows what he feels but doesn't have the words--

PILAR
I'm not having any more children.
After Amado, I had some
complications--I can't get pregnant
again, if that's what the rule is
about--

SAM
If I met you for the first time
today, I'd still want to be with
you.

It is what Pilar needed to hear--

You know: fish, chips, cup 'o tea, bad food, worse weather, Mary fu*king Poppins... LONDON.

reply

[–] swangdb 13 years ago

I saw Lone Star for the first time in HD last night. I saw it several times years ago. I wondered if I'd still like it and I did, it remains one of my favorites.

I took it for granted Sam and Pilar were going to stay together as lovers, then I discovered this thread today. After reading through it, I haven't changed my mind. In fact, I never considered that they wouldn't stay together (which may say more about me than the film). I'm curious if Sayles meant for this to be ambiguous.

FWIW, my wife saw the film last night with me, it was her first time to see it. She also thought they were going to continue as lovers (I didn't tell her any secrets before or during the movie).

reply

[–] patdavidson 13 years ago

I remember this movie very well! This version did not end correctly. I remember
Chris Cooper, amazed and broken-hearted, when he realized that "The Love Of His Life" was his SISTER! Wonder why this end is not there any more! Is it "political correctness"? Why are some of these great old movies changed at the end?

I agree with stewart!

reply