This post contains spoilers. Just thought you'd like to know....
At the end of Wag the Dog, is Dustin Hoffman's character dead or was it just a set up by the secret service. Because the newcast about Albanian terrorists and the closing shot of the conference room, lead me to question how dead Dustin Hoffman is.
Any clarification would be nice.
Hoffman's character is definatly dead. It was the hard, cold reality behind it all. The entire movie was dark comedy, laughs, and the underlying threat (that people would nervously laugh at) that if someone talked they'd be killed. The ending brought that threat back and made all too real. The entire movie was about illusions over reality, but in the end, the truth behind the politics is deadly.
shareYeah i think he was dead too, and the funniest part is they started a real war at the end.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.share
I completely disagree. I don't think Hoffman is dead at the end of the movie. I think they faked his death so he couldn't go around taking credit for the whole war, because a "dead" guy can't go around saying it was all his idea.
I think the ending with the Albanian terrorists taking credit for a bombing was Hoffman's return to the news cycle. He had so much fun with it (and since he is "dead" in everyone else's mind and he can't produce movies anymore), he might as well continue his work on the "pagentry" that is the war with Albania.
So I don't think there was a bombing, Albanian terrorists, troups returning to Albania, or a heart attack.
Hoffman being killed doesn't fit in with the rest of the movie at all. The idea was misinformation and not letting the public know what is really happening, not threats and secret murders.
No. He's dead.
He was about to blow cover and he was a liability. You don't hide someone that could escape and blow the whistle on you.
He's dead.
He is dead. The newscast was a REAL story.
shareDefinitely he is not dead !
You should see the movie once more!
The only one who is right is funone2712
to me it seems easier to just kill Hoffman. It's made perfectly clear by the end that he can't be trusted with not taking credit.
Even if the last newsreport about the bombing was by him, what kind of credit dit it give him? and that's what he wanted.
and about the fact that a "dead" man can't talk: if it were really him it must've been quite easy to prove he was still alive, given fingerprints and DNA analysis.
so therefore i think he's really dead
and the bombing-newsreport was real, just to show another aspect of the inpact this "albania-war-setup" has on the world (no doubt the albanian bombers are responding to the 'nonsense' on global TV ;))
greetz!
Nils from belgium
Maybe you should watch the movie again,...Hoffman is DEAD!!!!!!!!!!
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!
I think they faked his death so he couldn't go around taking credit for the whole war, because a "dead" guy can't go around saying it was all his idea.
I think they faked his death so he couldn't go around taking credit for the whole war, because a "dead" guy can't go around saying it was all his idea.
no, they killed him to silence him. hence tghe pained look on DeNiro's face as they take Hoffman away. it wouldn't make any sense for them to take him away and fake his death. they had to kill him to keep their fake war from being fake.
-----
nothing to say here
well of course he's dead because if they faked his death then all he would have to do is go in public (which proves a cover-up has happened)!
shareCharacters, including the actress, were repeatedly warned that whoever leaks will be killed by the president, and it was never with a wink or nod. The ending shot of an empty, unused conference room where they had staged the initial war shows that this "second" war is real - there's no staging area.
You're letting your emotions color your understanding of the film. It's not for play.
BTW, the incident with the convict - whatever crime he had committed - showed they had no problem with people getting killed. The pilots didn't walk away either.
Also, Conrad Brean kept saying "knock on wood", because he's not taking anything for granted. Stanley kept asking, "who would know?" At the end, Stanley made up his mind to tell the world. Brean would never let that happen.
I just finished watching it and i cant believe its even being debated.
He clearly was killed at the end.
He had been warned several times throughout the film that he couldnt tell anyone.
At the end he said that this was his greatest achievement and that "he did this for credit not for money" and he "wasnt going to let some film school dickhead take credit for it".
It was pretty abvious when Hoffman was being unreasonable, DeNiro nodded to the Secret Service Agent and they then swarm him on the tarmac and the next scene we are told he was found dead poolside by his maid by an apparent heart attack.
[deleted]
He's dead.
The ending is left to interpretation...but my opinion is the president's people learned from Stanley and just used some of his old tricks to further manipulate the public. I can see where some might feel that there is a real newsstory at the end, but that's not my take on it.
I agree that the ending is left deliberately vague; this is a common thing in many movies, as it leaves it open to sequels (although they probably wouldn't have made one for this movie); but moreover, it generates interest, as now there is a mystery surrounding Stanley's fate (and people like us can speculate on his fate).
If he WAS 'definitely' supposed to be dead, they may have more likely shown a little better material to support his death, definitively....
But since they didn't, and since the whole movie was about outrageous fake-outs, it leaves one to truly wonder whether he was killed or not...
*** BUT, if he WERE killed, then something is unexplained, and that is:
Why is Brean shown visiting Stanley's house in California after his death? Because, if they were to have killed him, it would have been to cover up his involvement with the President or any of his staff; after all, Brean could likely have been seen by the media visiting Stanley's manse, and at the beginning of the movie, it was clear that Brean did not really know him.
Wouldn't it have been much cleaner just to have simply let the Secret Service (or whoever they were) bring Stanley home and stage his death, and STAY AWAY?
Why the visit????
Watch the movie again. The news story announcing Motss's death states that he was found in his pool, by his maid (or something similar). Pretty hard to fake that.
share[deleted]
of course he's dead. Stanley was a stereotypical Hollywood flake, do you really think he could keep his "fake" death a secret for longer than a few minutes, Brean always had the contingency plan to kill him and when he realized Stanley couldn't keep quiet he went thru with it.
Arthur: Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?
Ash: Nope. Just me baby... Just me.
He had it planned since he first heard Stanley say that it would be a great story to tell, and how he wanted credit. You could tell that neither of them were convinced when he said "It's a figure of speech" I think they both knew he'd open his mouth sooner or later.
shareIf you think he's dead, thats one thing, but thinking that its "pretty hard to fake" Motss' maid finding him dead, then you should watch the movie again. They just faked a whole WAR, a hero, his death, an entire unit in the army, and everything in between. So tell me whats hard about having some guys maid say he's dead when he isn't?
But personally, I don't think he's dead. I think it was just one more thing that they faked along the way to keep the entire thing secret. It would have gone against the rest of the movie and the characters interactions for them to get rid of him so abruptly, which is why they had the news broadcast at the end. It was a final note to the audience that Motss is still around, still spinning his ever growing web of lies.
I didn't say it would be hard to fake Stanley's death. I said it would be near impossible for Stanley himself to keep quiet about it(he was so despondent about not getting the credit for his actions). I don't believe his death or the newscastat the end goes against the film's message, if anything it shows the cost of their diversion a real death and a real war.
Arthur: Are all men from the future loud-mouthed braggarts?
Ash: Nope. Just me baby... Just me.
this is exactly as i see it too.
DeNiro had to kill Stanley (a contingency plan someone mentionned) but also they were really getting along fine so he didn't like killing him.
I agree. They needed to keep him quiet. How would faking his death accomplish that? What would they do with him if they kept him alive? He was quite adamant about telling the truth and do you think they'd want to risk that?
shareHE is dead! Remember when Conrad Brean (DeNiro) tells Tracy Lime (Dunst) when she asks what would happen if she talks, that they would send someone to kill her, Which is what happens to Stanley Motss (Hoffman).
Tracy Lime: What would they do if I did tell someone?
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: Come to your house and kill you.
He is dead.
Earlier in the movie, he mentioned to Conrad that there isn't an Oscar for "Best Producer". To me, that said that Stanley was someone who wanted public recognition. As the "war" was his finest work, he wanted to be be able to say "hey, everyone, I did it" despite the warnings he had been given.
Therefore, and sadly, he was silenced and the exact nature of his death faked by the secret service to make it look like a heart attack.
As regards any whether the aftermath from Albanian terrorists was genuine or not, who knows? Perhaps some other spin doctor had hired another producer and was engineering his own "crisis" to cover up another embarrassing political faux-pas.
I always thought he was killed. This is a satire, and in the satire there has to be some elements of reality and the truth to make it satire. Throughout this whole movie you keep hearing, in a laughing way, that the government would kill someone who spilled.
Killing him off let you know there wasn't anything joking about it. It gave a cold chill over the entire movie that let you know it wasn't all fun and games, it was serious.
Why on earth would Conrad be upset about ordering the faking of the death of Hoffman's character?
The last bit about the news story I always thought was Breen continuing the work of Hoffman's character. It didn't have the same grace and symmetry of hollywood, seeing that Conrad isn't really a producer. I never thought that it actually started a real war, which would be some sweet irony.
Of course he's dead, people...the movie is a comedy, but it's a serious one, it actually wants to say something. The cover up is in the way they said he died, not in the fact that he's dead. Why would he accept to fake his own death? What kind of recognition that would provide him? NONE. So, yep, he's dead. Why bother on not killing him? About that last bit, i'm open to different interpretations...but I kinf of think that it it's actually a real war, because they had already achieved their goal, so, what's the purpose on keeping the lie? But, it kind of goes against the whole idea of the movie...Im not sure bout that one, really. BUT HOFFMAN'S CHARACTER IS DEAD...haha.
sharewhen DeNiro nods and touches his face while looking at the secret service agent (just as Dustin Hoffman is leaving) that is the signal that "it has to be done."
I never questioned that Hoffman was dead and never questioned that the news item at the end was real. After all, once the USA establishes that they are fighting "terrorists" in Albania, of course terrorist cells will rise up there.
he's dead.
but who's that (italian/mexican?) guy taking an oath, saying "Si, si"?
My thought is...
they would have killed him anyway. He was too egotistical and I am sure they had to kill him instead of the chance of him writint a book or being interviewed.
Yes, they killed him and would have anyway
The Mexican is the guy who was driving the combine harvester right after they crashed the plane. Remember when Ames (Heche) says that it won't look good if it transpires that Schumann was rescued by an illegal alien? They are granting him status as a US citizen to avoid the controversy.
And yes, Hoffman dies. I can see the argument for him possibly being alive, but the fact is he just wanted credit for his work. Why even bother going back to spinning if he couldn't be acknowledged either way? And the sadness in DeNiro's face when he knows Stanley must be killed, despite the warnings and a proven empathy for him, is a testament to how great an actor he is...
Great film. Mamet is a god...
Yes great film, great message, great acting
DeNiro is awesome
DEAD DEAD DEAD!!! There's no point in it if they let Hoffman live,...think about it for one second,...why go to all that trouble,..then let the loudmouth ruin it? Letting him live makes no sense and anyone who thinks this is off their nut. "I want My BEAN'S!"
The Smoker You Drink, The Player You Get!
But perhaps they 'needed' him for the 'new' crisis that is only hinted at....
shareSo wasn't Hoffman, eh?
Notice how the 2 greats (DeNiro and Hoffman) are so good that poor Heche is upstaged, and looks like a rank amateur.
off topic
"There is no Oscar for best producer."
That always sort of bothered me, because Best Picture honors are given to the producers of a flick.
Are there two versions of the movie? I saw it in theatres and seemed to recall at the end they say Hoffman's character is dead. Then they show DeNiro going into a house and meeting Hoffman (under house arrest) saying something like "It had to be this way" to which a sad Hoffman replies "At least it is better than the alternative." Then I just saw the movie again on TV and this final part with Hoffman's character being alive was not shown. I've seen similar things where they cut out scenes I saw in the movie theatre for ID4 and Terminator ... and don't get me started about the (re)release of the original Star Wars Trilogy ...
There are lots of movies that had, or potentially could have had, alternate endings.....
It is especially true when a particular ending doesn't really affect the rest of the movie excessively....
For example, isn't there an alternate ending to CLERKS, where Dante actually gets killed (instead of just closing-up the store)?
Producers/studios sometimes exert their influence and demand a different or more vague ending (if the writers or director haven't already supplied a vague ending).
Among the possible reasons could be to keep the public guessing/speculating as to 'what happened' (just as we're doing right now), or that they want/don't-want a more Hollywood ending...
I'm sorry, but the ending for WTG is not fully resolved in my mind: sure, Hoffman's character might have really been killed-off, but he just as easily might have not been; we never see the killing or the dead body (all we hear are news reports), and just WHY DeNiro visits his home afterwards is not explained (indeed, it would have seemed more hush-hush if DeNiro DID NOT visit Hoffman's house -- after all, he didn't know the guy BEFORE contracting him to stage the war; what reason does he have for going there, and how would it be explained if the media made the connection?).
The secert service killed him after he left the room, and it was made to look like natural causes, becuase he was gonna spill the beans on the whole "war" because he wanted the credit
shareHe is dead and the ironic part about his death is that during the newscast the woman reading the news said that he was a producer in hollywood and is CREDITED on many different films, in the end after his death only then does he recieve credit for what he has done.
shareMOTSS ISN'T DEAD
The director just pulled one on his audience just as the movies characters pulled one on their own.
Throughout the movie Motss was always being confonted by Connie of the consequences of telling his story, and as the movie evolves you can see Motss' expression as if he is testing Connie in return. Somewhere at the end there is a little bit of dialogue (in the tractor) that seems to suggest the Motss feels disonnected from his partners. I believe that this is where he takes on his own agender and sets up his own death out of fear for his life. Whos to say that Connie ever left his previous helpers alive. The cost of letting the cat out of the bag would be huge downfall for a political party.
Connie tells the agent to take steps... for all he knows the agent is just one of the actors. "the best work i've ever done...100% fake..." - Motss
And when led to the car, the other agents look awkward and even laugh while getting him in.
Someone posted earlier that Connie look out the window looking upset at what needed to be done. I think he's looking just a little bit unconvinced. From the time the war finished, Motss, and even the Fad King, seemed to take over of the whole deal. And at the very end it shows the private board room completely empty, even though there is definetly some dodgey work going on, who do we suppose is ment to be doing it. The director didnt show that final shot for no reason at all.
Then again, maybe i'm just looking to far into it. But i think the actual director of this movie is as slippery as an eel.
>> He is dead ... <<
That is an opinion, and although I respect that opinion as surely being a possibility, it's still an opinion...
We never see Hoffman being killed or even see his dead body; all we see is Hoffman being taken away in a car, and hear news reports, and then see DeNiro getting out of a car to visit Hoffman's house (a man he never knew before asking him to help stage the war -- someone has to explain to me why DeNiro personally had to go up to Hoffman's house, and risk the media getting wind of his connections to the war hoax)...
If you can provide concrete proof of Hoffman's death that would be great, but until then, the ending is open to speculation.
People keep using indirect, inconclusive things to say Hoffman was killed (like the news story; that DeNiro had warned of killing people before; that DeNiro shook his head; etc...). NONE of these things prove anything, especially in a movie devoted to showing how nothing is as it appears, and how everything is a hoax.
I'm not saying Hoffman's character was alive at the end, but I can't certainly say he was definitely dead either...
I think he's dead. It definately works with the theme when we first meet his character. DeNiro walks in and sees Hoffman lying in the tanning booth, shaped like a coffin surrounded with dark, red flowing drapes like a shroud or tomb.
Definitely a foreshadow of his eventual death..
Tis the doom of men that they forget..
>> Hoffman lying in the tanning booth, shaped like a coffin surrounded with dark, red flowing drapes like a shroud or tomb. <<
That's good, I like it....
>> Definitely a foreshadow of his eventual death.. <<
I wouldn't say 'definitely'... it could have also as well been done to show that Hoffman 'flirts with death' since he is in fact alive and talking in that 'coffin' -- or maybe THAT's what it is!: DeNiro visits Hoffman's house, at the end of the movie, to see him again; this time he's in a real 'coffin', yet he is actually alive in it, faking his death....
Lol, I know that's a stretch too...
But hey, this is film analysis, and anything goes!
Then again, the fact that Hoffman is in a tanning booth is not necessarily a 'definite' foreboding of his death; again, we're speculating....
It could have simply been done to show us instantly and obviously of Hoffman's character's vanity.
Why do you think DeNiro visits Hoffman's house at the end if they didn't even know each other? No one can seem to come up with an answer to this one...
Wow. You people truly amaze me.
"Is he dead?" "Yeah, he totally is!" "Wait, no, but why was De Niro, like, at his house?" "Umm..."
Ok kids. Here's the deal.
De Niro's character, Connie Brean, is not at all associated with the President's administration or the government. He does not exist in the public consciousness. Therefore, all questions on his appearance at Motts' home after his death being harmful to the administration, blah blah blah, yap yap yap, will stop. Since he has nothing to do with the administration. And he's definitely got nothing to do with the B-3 bomber.
Now, moving on. Why was he at Motts' home? Well, he wasn't the only one, as you can tell by the multitude of cars in the drive. Famed Hollywood producer, sudden death... hmm... perhaps... could they be having the visitation at the home? Why I think you've got it! The man was just going to pay his respects. You people are focusing on the wrong issue.
The real issue, what are the fates of the Fad King, Johnny Dean, Liz Butsky, and the rest of Motts' staff? Were they all offed as well, or were they persuaded to keep their silence? (Motts being the prime example for why that would be conducive to a long and healthy life)
That was issue number one.
Issue number two is: did they also off the guy who made those awful campaign commercials? Cause honestly, they should have fired that guy and hired the Senator's people. The "Thank Heaven For Little Girls" bit was a nice touch. Not too subtle, but still, a nice touch.
Issue number three: What is wrong with you people? How many times do I have to say it? There is no B-3 bomber. No, it will not be mobilized, that's a complete fabrication.
Excellent post! I'm ROFLMAO
sharelol its funny that people would actually watch that movie and then come to the conclusion that the guy isnt dead. Why do people (especially on this website) always have to look for a deeper meanings in movies instead of just take them literally, which 99.9 percent of movies are supposed to be taken.
""I dont know how to put this but....Im kind of a big deal. People know me.""- Ron Burgundy
>> Why do people (especially on this website) always have to look for a deeper meanings in movies instead of just take them literally, which 99.9 percent of movies are supposed to be taken. <<
Where did this 99.9 percent 'rule' come from?
And how do you know this one isn't one of the 0.1 percent?
LoL.
If any movies should lead to ambiguity, this one is surely a good candidate, given the 'nothing-is-as-it-seems-in-the-media' premise... and how do we learn of Hoffman's death? Through a media story.
I guess just like in real life, we decide what is real or not real through the media.
I think the film makers were 'dogging our wags' on this movie.
I can't believe this is being debated honestly.. It's pretty obvious and NECESSARY that Dustin Hoffman's character be killed. It won't be able to work any other way.
sharetake them literally, which 99.9 percent of movies are supposed to be taken.66.6% is more likely, Satan. ๐
He is dead. DeNiro Warns him seevral times that he is NOT joking. Hoffman became a loose canon and has to be silenced. So they kill him. Whats the point of fake it? he wants to blow the whole story to the media
shareIf you read the novel that this film is based on....HE'S DEAD!!!! End of story. Case closed.
Yeah, I realize I'm replying to a post that is over 3 years old. lol
"...If you read the novel that this film is based on....HE'S DEAD!!!! End of story. Case closed.
Yeah, I realize I'm replying to a post that is over 3 years old. lol..."
But then again most movies do not follow the book very closely; some are even only very loosely based on 'the book' at all (not that that's necessarily the case with this one)...
(also, print and movies are 2 radically different media, and by nature can never really be the same anyway)...
So, it's not necessarily 'end of story; case closed', although it's certainly very acceptable...
I would have no problem if each person who watches makes their own minds on what happens (or even leave it 'up in the air')....
It is also possible that the failure to actually show the death/killing, had the intent of at least making people wonder what 'really' happened...
I mean, if they really really wanted viewers to know he was dead, they would/could have shown it on-screen...
"...If you read the novel that this film is based on....HE'S DEAD!!!! End of story. Case closed.
Yeah, I realize I'm replying to a post that is over 3 years old. lol..."
But then again most movies do not follow the book very closely; some are even only very loosely based on 'the book' at all (not that that's necessarily the case with this one)...
(also, print and movies are 2 radically different media, and by nature can never really be the same anyway)...
So, it's not necessarily 'end of story; case closed', although it's certainly very acceptable...
I would have no problem if each person who watches makes their own minds on what happens (or even leave it 'up in the air')....
It is also possible that the failure to actually show the death/killing, had the intent of at least making people wonder what 'really' happened...
I mean, if they really really wanted viewers to know he was dead, they would/could have shown it on-screen...
The only thing that surprises me is that sometimes people don't/can't grasp the usefulness of ambiguity in the arts... It IS used quite often, probably partly because it incites interest and discussion of 'what it means', etc...