I thought I was getting this movie until the end...I was confused before that because I was thinking...Anna's eyes look dead. And the ending! What was that? Anna is dead in the end? Perhaps I am a lame American used to having everything neat and tidy and layed out in the end....can someone help me understand?
shareyes. ana dies hit by a bus. then the whole running into the house part and meeting otto there was just a dream of hers. like someone else mentioned before, this is the reason why when otto holds her she can not do the same and thats also the reason why she looks all petrified
cheers!
carlos_urtecho I think you will find that the ending is purposely ambiguous, okay it might make sense what you say, but the way medem ends it it is technically impossible to concretely say she died or didn't die. Of course, each person is entitled to say "I think..." she died/didn't die.
At the end of the day you shouldn't tell people this is the correct ending. It is just like in "Last Life in The Universe" how it ends
ie open to interpretation.
Perhaps yor are right, kpjf. I guess I am spoiled and like everything tidy in the end. But life is rarely tidy, is it?
shareActually, according to Medem himself Ana DOES die, hit by a bus. He admitted to have created the main character of his last film, 'Caótica Ana', to kind of revive her, since he was very much critizised for killing Ana.
The 'dream' that takes place after Ana dies is, in my opinion, what it "should" have been. Not that I think it should have ended in them meeting again or not, but the fact that one expects them to complete their circle.
I absolutely adore the ending and the whole film. It is just so round and, after seeing it so many times, all its nonsense makes so much sense.
Gee, I'm going to have to watch Caotica Ana then.
I didn't mind the ending, that she dies, it makes it even more sad, that just when they were about to meet again, they are separated by fate. With that scene of Ana and Otto meeting again in the apartment, you get the final 'thoughts' that Ana has as she lies dying, as she watches Otto walk up to her. The thought in her mind that milisecond before she dies, is what I think that scene portrays.....how she would have wanted it to be. It's what she was anticipating......running into his arms...but instead, in her excitement, she ran into a bus.
That last segment of the movie was totally shocking and unexpected to me. Much in the way the very ending of the book Atonement was. Blindsided by both endings. If only fate would cooperate!
shareI think the ending is somewhat ambigous... didn't you notice that Ana's eyes, in the very last scene, start to cry? How can it be possible if she's dead?
Maybe it's the director's way to let people imagine the ending they prefer.
But it's already been noted - as was said above - that Medem said that she DID die at the end. So any speculation about this is specious. It isn't up to the viewer to imagine the ending they prefer, the film is complete in itself.
shareA director can say whatever he wants to say about what something in a film meant or what really happened. But what really matters is not what he says happened, and not what he says he meant, but what actually ends up on the screen and how the audience members interpret what they see.
If people interpret something one way and he says he meant something else, then essentially he has failed in his job.
If he says he meant something to be ambiguous and it is, then he succeeded.
But the director's intentions (or after-thoughts) are really of little importance.
The only inportant thing is how it is interpreted by the viewers and how it affects them. (How it affects one or more citics is no more important than how it affects each individual viewer)
What utter cock. You are trying to impose a subjective assessment on a given fact and claim it has more validity.
Whether or not the director succeeded in his intention (according to you) is certainly open to interpretation and criticism; however if he makes a statement regarding his artwork then that has to be respected.
"The only important thing is how it is interpreted by the viewers and how it affects them." Rubbish. You can argue until the cows come home that the ending was ambiguous but you cannot insist that your view is more valid than that of the man who created the film.
I know this is an old post, but I had to respond because you are so utterly wrong. When a director presents his film to the world - unless there are events in the film that are ironclad - the work is then in the domain of the public and the interpretation is left to the VIEWER.
I'll give you two good examples: firstly Blade Runner and the status of Deckard as a replicant. In the film, there are some cues that Deckard *may* be a replicant, but there are also overwhelming indicators that he is human. The author of the book (Philip K. Dick) the screenwriter and producer all intended for Deckard to be a human, and at the time so did Ridley Scott. Later, much later, Ridley announced to some reporter that Deckard was a replicant. Many fans, including myself, reject this nonsense and continue to conclude that Deckard was a human. As the screenwriter, Hampton Fancher said (and I'm paraphrasing) "the question of whether Deckard was a replicant is interesting, the answer (that he is) is not". Frank Darabont, the director of The Shawshank Redemption also rejects Ridley's years-later gobsmack and gives great reasons (which many fans also assert) why this "revelation" is bullcrap.
The second example involves Harry Potter and J.K. Rowlings clumsy revelation that Dumbledore is gay. This was never established in the books, but simply something she added later to impress or ingratiate herself with the homosexual community. Many (if not most) fans have rejected this absurdity and rightly so. An author or filmmaker has no right "announcing" details about their work that wasn't *included* in the work.
What if Rowling came out and said, "Harry Potter never existed past Voldemort killing him. He died when Voldemort cast the killing curse on him. The entire saga was simply a figment of Dumbledore's psychotic imagination. In fact, Voldemort ended up killing all the good witches and wizards, except Dumbledore who joined him and actually killed Harry's parents himself." Now, I ask you, would anyone accept this? Would anyone agree with this? No, they wouldn't.
The point is this, when an artist presents their creation to the public it enters the domain of the public. If facts are presented in the work, then there is no disputing them. However, if it isn't presented in the work, then the author has no business "retconning" their work and it is the prerogative of the public to reject - outright - this nonsense.
You can argue until the cows come home that the ending was ambiguous but you cannot insist that your view is more valid than that of the man who created the film.
I have to say, it always helps somebody's cause to start off by insisting that they are utterly wrong. You continued in a rational and polite manner, so why start off by being antagonistic? Curious.
Interpret away. Films and novels are works of fiction, and subject to copyright laws. I do not and never will agree that a viewer's/critic's viewpoint is more valid than the author of the work. Critics are people whose reach always exceeds their grasp, which is one reason you get so much backbiting with some popular films.
It so happens that I agree 100% with your assessment of Blade Runner and the Harry Potter saga. I have the greatest respect for the talents of Ridley Scott and JKR, and I really can't imagine why these changes were made. With Harry Potter we will probably never know how much of that decision was made by Warner Brothers - I really can't imagine that it was her idea. So far as the idea of Deckard being a replicant, it never crossed my mind until I first heard about it, and then went and bought the PKD short story. As you say, it is obvious that Dick never intended his character to be a replicant - that's so way out of left field it's crazy.
With most art we all take away different things, and especially with abstract art. I have no problem whatsoever with that, but I do have major problems when people tell me that their interpretation is more valid than that of the creator. This to me is as silly as looking at an Audi and insisting it is a BMW.
[deleted]
Ana dies- there is no ambiguity about it. Her eyes are tearing up because she is dying and having her last thoughts- the dream about finding Otto again. Whether those are tears of happiness or remorse is really the only question unanswered.
shareAna's body sliding over the pavement after being hit by the bus, as if her very life was being knocked out of her body, leaves no doubt that she died. Otto on the other hand is the bigger mystery. The newspaper Ana grabs right before she gets hit has the answer. I don't understand the language of the headline, but I believe by it showing a picture of Otto's crashed plane, that he died before Ana in the crash, and when she believes she's running to the older Otto to understand the meaning of the headlines, and finds that he's already there, waiting for her in the afterlife. Which would explain why the delivery man, giving Otto a ride at the end of the movie, is the same man, skiing uphill, in the vision he had after sledding off the cliff and crashing. In my opinion.
"I find your lack of faith disturbing".
@sandman143 I agree with you, in my opinion they both die and so would be fair, otherwise it would be far too tragic.
share