It's a movie, & not a math problem; there are clearly different ways to read the ending (as there are other elements of the picture) and that's part of what makes it, er, art. We may want to know what "really" happens, but what really happens is what takes place in you. Chris Doyle's DVD commentary refers directly to this freedom from narrative objectivity, saying "it is what it is." Some questions simply remain questions. He had a good line too (I paraphrase loosely) about "young people and their persistence in asking the same old unanswerable questions, which we need - to be reminded to keep asking questions." Certainly, a lot of Wong Kar Wei's movies work this way. And I recall an interview with Kieslowski about his movie "Blue," and several scenes that seemed very ambiguous - and upon re-viewing, remain ambiguous - and his being very clear in stating his intention that they should remain that way.
Cinema, being such a totalizing experience, has an amazing ability - once it's drawn us into its web of associations and complex of sounds, words and images - to leave us with a single image, sound or phrase that calls our experience into question, turns our heads around, and leaves us walking out of the theater into a space without words. These doubts can be frustrating, but it can also be exhilarating. Such as the ending of Last Life in the Universe. (The credits starting to scroll on the monitor at the airport was a really nice touch. [As were the slow insertions of the credits at the beginning - the title doesn't appear onscreen until 30 minutes in!])
reply
share