MovieChat Forums > Gadjo dilo (1998) Discussion > Incomprehensible ending due to budgetary...

Incomprehensible ending due to budgetary constraints


I hate endings like this, caused by the production running out of money. It's too bad they ran out of dough, it would have been nice for the film to have an actual ending.
Ya know, that girl was in Trancers 4 and 5...I think that's kinda ironic.

Film was okay, but it's no "Tabor Ukedhit v Nebo".

reply

I really liked the final scene. if they did ran out of money, good thing they did. It was also like my way to dealing with my forgotten roots.

reply

This film did NOT end due to budgetary constraints! wow that is so stupid. I saw this in film class and Tony Gatliff came and spoke to our class as well. If you "don't get" the ending that is your problem, and don't see "No Country For Old Men" because you probably wouldn't like that ending either. You wouldn't "understand" it. In fact, why don't you quit going to movies altogether and just go hang out at the mall with your friends.

reply

i'm guessing you're a french film student... what don't you tell us what Tony Gatlif said about the film (two years on...ahaha)? :]

reply

Im sorry to say this but endings of a film have nothing to do with budgetary constraints. I hope u realize a movie is not shot chronologically due to locations , costumes, props etc. A film is produced and its filming days are planned so that the would be less costume changes, less trouble with moving to new location over and over again and so on. So If you found the ending to be unsatisfactory it has nothing to do with their budget but with their script writer, or producers or director that usually mangle into plots if they feel the need (i dont know the case here). So please I hope you will never ever asume an a film ends when the money does :P (usually an ending has a special meaning, in this case, the burial of the past the gypsie way of saying goodbye to lost friends:dancing-leaves room for alot of interpretation relevant to each of the viewer's past)
Enough said.

reply

in this man's desired ending, Stephane takes his DAT tapes back to grand Paris and makes his gypsy friends huge stars!

reply

Well of course the ending was like that cause of the script and not cause of some sort of money issue but I have to say I wondered too why Stephan destroyed and buried the tapes... I mean I didn't expect him to go to Paris and make the gypsies stars but still why did he do that? He was supposed to be a music lover, a songs collector so why to destroy such things?

reply

I truly loved the ending. It represented to me a young man giving up the ghost, so to speak. Letting go of his father's dream when he finally realizes his own. Romain Duris is reminding me more and more of Daniel Day-Lewis in his younger days, in respect to the manner in which he truly becomes the roles in which he engages himself.

reply



I have to disagree with the original poster. There was nothing incomprehensible about this film at the end at all. Maybe if you post your questions with a spoiler alert we could help you to understand?

I loved the ending. Which was also a beginning. Beautiful.





Criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, friend, acquaintance or stranger.

reply

Ummm... whatever made you think the film didn't have an actual ending? The one I saw had a perfect ending, quite symbolic and moving.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."
Oscar Wilde

reply

SPOILERS!

He destroys the tapes in the end because he is disgusted how his (white) race and culture treats gipsies. He renounces his race and becomes a gipsy. Recording gipsies and enjoying their music and exotic culture without genuine interest and love for them is a very white thing. As a gipsy he doesn't need the tapes any more. The music became a part of him and not something that will be analyzed and produced in a studio in Paris.

It is a great ending.

reply