MovieChat Forums > Le violon rouge (1999) Discussion > Ending was enraging

Ending was enraging

posted 18 years ago by Rommel52744
88 replies | jump to latest

Don't get me wrong, this movie was good for the most part. But that ending was ridiculous. (Spoilers) I heard it mentioned in another post that Sam Jackson's character was "saving" the violin from people who only view it from a historical standpoint, but that is quite clearly not the case. All of the bidders seemed soley interested in its historical value, true. All except for one, the chinese dude with the thick glasses, who is obviously a reference to the chinese kid with thick glasses in the chinese segment.

Here was a guy who's mother's last act towards him was to play to him the violin, in an effort to show him its beauty. Then he is forced to give her up as a result, and she is executed (which we know not only from the ferocious methods of the Cultural Revolution, but because the fortune teller said that she would be judged guilty). I don't know about you... but i'd say that if I was that kid, the instrument that my mom last showed me before she got slaughtered would contain juuuuust a smidgen of sentimental value. I mean, common, seriously, I know Sam would like his daughter to have a nice gift for christmas, but I think the Chinese guy deserves it more. If it wasn't for that, I probably would have liked the movie as a whole. Can anyone show me where I've gone wrong?

[–] ethicks00 13 years ago

The "chinese guy" as you have so bluntly put it also sold his mother out. He also did not understand how to play an instrument. What sam did was give it to his daughter who would learn how to play it and truly let it be heard once again. Not to mention even had that violin been sold it would have been sold to the fat buffoon who bought the copy for 2.1 million (who consequentially played the REAL violin and thought that it was nothing special). In other words he while being a revered violinist is truly an idiot who does not understand the music. The director was clearly saying that. I would compare him to lang lang.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LightbyGrace 13 years ago

That's a good point...I didn't make the connection of the Chinese gentleman who wanted the violin. It should have gone to him since he had the personal connection.

The only thing that I'm not sure of is that I don't think that the fortune-teller's prediction was about the Chinese boy's mother...All of the predictions were for Anna - whose soul was with the violin. So the reference to 'being judged guilty' was that the violin would be judged guilty. Which it was and then burned in the fire (thankfully it was an imposter that was burned, and not THE violin).

[–] mlc2005 12 years ago

Just to add to the discussion, I understand the original poster's frustration re: the Chinese man not ending up with the violin, but here's my take:

It was clear from the auction that the overweight, white guy who didn't like the violin until he found out it was worth a lot of money was going to win the auction; he had the most money and Samuel J's character knew that the jerk would be the one to win the bid. So even if he had not stolen the violin, it would not have gone to the Chinese man, who obviously had a tremendous connection to it.

Also, remember that the violin was created, in the first place, for a child (the one who died at birth). It was then played by the orphan prodigy who also died (such a devastating scene). I really appreciated the fact that the violin, in the end, was given to a child, as it had originally intended to be. And I disagree with your interpretation that the violin was "a nice Christmas present." It was obvious that Samuel J's character fully understood the magnitude of the violin's importance, and when he called his daughter, he said he had "something very special for you."

I actually found that scene in the taxi, when he told his daughter he had a gift for her to be incredibly moving and emotional. It brought me to tears.

[–] changarromaster 12 years ago

To Rommel52744:

If you don't know where you've gone wrong you should watch it again. The Chinese guy with a sentimental attachment to the violin wasn't going to get the violin... It was the greedy, ignorant Ruselsky who was going to put his hands on it at the end, the one person without any historical or sentimental attachment to the violin whatsoever. Morritz didn't want this to happen.

[–] lonevision 12 years ago

Was Rommel52744 trolling? I think they were trolling, but I'll answer anyway, even though it's been 6 years since this post was made.

"Nice gift for Christmas"?? Did we watch the same movie?

Jackson's character loved the violin. He saved her from the hands of that old fat guy, the master violinist who was so full of himself he didn't even realize he held the most perfect violin ever created. Jackson's character knew that guy was going to outbid everybody and the thought of his fat old hands stroking the red violin forever was just repulsive, so he saved her from that terrible fate. The old guy wont realize he has the replica anyway, and will probably keep it under a glass cabinet, show it off so friends and visitors can stroke his ego, and grope it when no one's watching.

Now, the real red violin will be played by a little girl who will love her. And in the course of time, the Violin's fate will go on, free to land in the hands of another worthy person who will play it again and again, and receive real joy from it, because they'll believe it's just a perfect copy, or just a beautiful-sounding violin.

Nicolo Bussotti wanted his wife to live on in the violin, and she's going to, thanks to Jackson's character.

[–] aphrodisiaciix 12 years ago

Theft is theft. It's illegal and it's a crime. It's especially despicable when the act is carried out by an educated person who uses his expertise and inside information while being in the position of trust to totally abuse that privilege and purposely steal a precious antiquities.

Some people on here rationalized this felony act with the fact that the violin has been changing hands in rather unconventional ways thru out centuries. Well, that doesn't mean it's okay to rob it again. Isn't it an obtuse reasoning? Just like, they stole it before, so it's okay for me to steal it now.

Others had justified the crime by saying that the bidders were only recognized the violin for its historical and monetary values, therefore, they don't deserve to own it, and it should go to Morritz. Well, how can we be sure that is the case with all the bidders? The Chinese characters played by Sandra Oh and her bespectacled male companion did not seem to fit this assumption. But then, regardless of their intentions, these bidders had the right to bid and took possession of the successful bidding items... unless, the auction was limited to bidders with specified intentions. I don't see Morritz's intention is any more noble, since he's going to give it to his child as a Christmas present. Seems like a very selfish act to me.

Deceiving people into buying something that is not as advertised is wrong. Does anyone in here (or even Morritz) think it's okay to spend close to two million dollars for a 17th century violin, only it turns out to be a copy? Those who supported the movie's ending are exactly those that think it's okay to be deceived in that way! Don't go cry wolf when it really happens to you.

The movie was great, until the deceitful criminal act of Morritz at the end really ruined it for me.

[–] lonevision 11 years ago

I was reading your post and all the while thinking this is a very lawful neutral approach on the ending. D&D on the brain, heh!

Anyway, to answer your question... No, of course committing a crime is not right, but in your distaste for the ending, you're losing something important about the story, and the violin itself, as it gets to the ending.

Did Bussotti sell the violin after he finished it? No! It was his masterpiece and he DONATED it to an orphanage, where it would be played by children and loved, again and again, as he meant it to. The violin was handed to a sickly little boy who considered it like a mother to him. Then it was "unearthed" by the Gypsies who played it for over hundred years. It passed to a talented musician who was also a prolific philanderer. It went to China and into the hands of a little girl whose mother was a concert violinist... the grown-up little girl played it one final time for her son, before she saved it from destruction by giving it to the old man and had to face prosecution from the communist party.

The point of reiterating the movie, is that the Violin has had all this history, all of this experience, as it was meant to. Busotti wanted it to be loved, as he loved his wife. Again, he specifically donated this incredibly precious object to an orphanage to be held in the hands of children and played and loved.

The violin was more than just a violin. More than just impressive property to own. Not only was it Busotti's final masterpiece, it was the embodiment of a heartbroken man's love for his wife and the lost life of their little baby. The spirit of Anna was literally connected to that violin by blood, and Morritz realized it.

If it had been just another violin, no matter how old or impressive it was, Morritz wouldn't have stolen it. To risk his career, his freedom by going to jail? He was not that stupid. But this violin was more than Busotti's masterpiece. It was the spirit of Anna and it wasn't meant to be locked away. Busotti meant her to live and be loved in the only way he could make it so.

Morritz knew that Ruselsky was going to win the auction. He was the man with all the money. Would it have been a bad thing for Ruselsky to end up with the Violin? Not entirely. But he didn't love the violin, not like the others who'd owned it before. He loved the prestige it would give him for owning it. It was going to be kept in a glass case for the rest of its existence.... shown to wealthy friends at parties. Fondled occasionally, maybe.

For Morritz, this wouldn't do. He understood (or at least believed) that The Red Violin was somehow connected to the spirit of Anna. "She" was meant to live on, and not be kept in a display case. So, Morritz stole it and gave it to his daughter who would play it and love it and cherish it until it was passed on to the next person. For even Morritz knew the violin couldn't be his/wasn't meant to be his, either. He fulfilled Busotti's wish.

The ending is just beautiful.

Now, you did rant off-kilter a bit when you said, "Those who supported the movie's ending are exactly those that think it's okay to be deceived in that way! Don't go cry wolf when it really happens to you." Except now I'm wondering if I do think it's okay. And, based on my opinion of the violin and Busotti's final wish for it, I hope it happens all over the world. For a masterpiece of love and devotion to turn hands and be loved in turn instead of being coveted and locked away... If I knew I had such an object, and didn't love it as it needed to be, I would donate it immediately, hoping someone else would.

For example, it's kind of like all those Picassos and Rembrandts just sitting in rich people's houses, being shown to their rich friends and receiving praise and validation for all their importance in having ownership of those works of art. I read once that Jack Nicholson stuck a Picasso in his bathroom because he didn't have the space for it anywhere else, heh. He apparently owns quite the collection... hopefully one day he'll donate them all to a museum.

Anyway, yes: crime is wrong. But this is just a movie. It's not like Morritz busted into the old man's house and shot the guy. He did it without committing violence. The only "harm" he did was let the (fictitious) world think a selfish old man, now owned the most famous violin in history; the same man who couldn't tell he was playing the most magnificently created violin in history.

You know the movie is based on Elizabeth Pitcairn's violin, right? Her grandfather purchased it for her for 1.7 million. But it didn't sit on her shelf and be praised. Or worse, in the back of her closet because it wasn't a diamond tiara or something. She plays it. She performs professionally with it and she loves it. :) In fact, she's playing in in the movie's soundtrack.

Anyway, this post is way too long. Hope I made sense to you and I hope I helped you understand a little bit better why some people appreciate the ending the way it turned out.

[–] cableaddict 9 years ago

quote: "You know the movie is based on Elizabeth Pitcairn's violin, right? Her grandfather purchased it for her for 1.7 million. But it didn't sit on her shelf and be praised. Or worse, in the back of her closet because it wasn't a diamond tiara or something. She plays it. She performs professionally with it and she loves it. :) In fact, she's playing in in the movie's soundtrack. "

Pitcairn doesn't play on the movie soundtrack, nor is that the (red) Mendhelson Strad. That's Joshua Bell, playing his old "Tom Taylor" Strad.

Oddly enough, Pitcairn's Strad isn't even (IMO) a particularly good sounding one. Too thin & strident. - But it sure does draw audiences, which is the main reason to use a Strad. These days, there are quite a number modern violins which are superior to the AVERAGE Strad or Del Gesu. This has been proven several times in very carefully controlled tests, despite what some snooty purists will tell you.

Even more odd, or fitting, I guess: Joshua Bell's current violin is the Gibson Strad, (an amazing instrument) which he bought for 4 million dollars. When he purchased it, that Gibson Strad was about to be sold to some collector, who intended to put it in his museum, forever behind glass. Bell raised about half of the 4 mil price tag by selling the (somewhat) inferior Taylor Strad which he had used on the "The Red Violin" soundtrack.

[–] savvysearch 11 years ago

The ending was terrible. He stole the violin, not to sell for millions, or to keep for himself (which would make more real life sense and make for a morea reasonable ending), but to give to his daughter (!) who is neither dying nor ill nor impoverished. This makes absolutely no sense. Especially being a violinist who knows the vast majority of kids who are learning to play an instrument give it up when they reach high school. Most kids probably can't tell the difference between a chinese knockoff and a stradavarius. If the director is going to end the film sentimentally, it needs to make sense.

If I want to give my kid a present, I buy her a doll or an easy bake oven. Not a priceless instrument after forging the originally, switching it out with an auction house, and risking decades of imprisonment. I love my kid too. My kid loves art. She uses her crayons all the time. But no way in hell am I going to go to the Louvre and steal the Mona Lisa for her!!

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 10 years ago

First off, the word "enraging" in the OP thread title is hyperbolic and way over the top ….

Secondly, to the poster above, wow, totally missed the point of the film. This film is not to be taken so "literally", especially the ending. This film is a metaphorical piece where the tarot card reader at the beginning is in fact telling the story of the violin as it is painted with her blood and she continues to live through it. When Morritz steals it at the end to give to his daughter for her birthday, it is the rebirth, the last card of death upside down, and the journey now over. . It's not about a teenager getting a present.

As to the sanctimonious judgement of theft …. the film production code died a long time ago and the judgement of right/wrong is completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the story ….

[–] Rowan222 10 years ago

So nice to see someone who understood what they were doing with that ending! I loved this movie and while I didn't quite get it the first time, I did get the rebirth part in Morritzs giving it to his daughter. The violin, and thus Anna, had been through turmoil and danger, and finally, a second chance.
Renee
Lestatic #15
My very randomness astounds people!

[–] magnusman60 9 years ago

Its not about who we think deserved it more but why it was made in the first place.

The maker put everything he loved into the violin out of love for his unborn child,wife and the music.

I can think of no better place for it to be then with someone child who loves the music.
The maker was likely intending for his child to have it.

So in the end it ends up with the child of someone who loves the music as much as he did and understood why it was made.

I doubt it was made to be set on a shelve and stared at.