I'm slightly confused by the ending of this film.
It seems the obvious answer is that they committed suicide in the block of cement, however, what was the old people scene about? Is that how life could have been? Or is that how it turned out? And really they didn't bury themselves - but it was merely a metaphor of them cementing their love for each other?
What do people think?
This is an easy one. The final scenes were played as if YOU, the audience, cried "Game!" and were unable to tell if the 'foolie'was real or not. You could accept one or none of the 2 posited possibilities. You, yes You, need to cry foul or be caught up in the game. The audience simply could not throw their hands up in disgust: You must decide if you are in the game or a uninterested bystander.
For some of the more squeamish viewers who want less corporal connections amongst the principals ('slap'stick, so to speak), I understand your reaction. It has always been a favorite theory of mine that 'opposites attract'. So, what happens if two very strong egos meet on the battlefield with equal wit and ambition? You get "Love Me..." with a raft of characters who are baffled and frustrated with personalities who are addicted to the game of 'who laughs last'. I suppose Julien and Sophie regarded themselves as Master Gamers with the rest of the world as their chessboard or punching bag.
I just finished watching the film for the first time incidentally, so this is a first reaction.
I feel like Sophie when she was wearing her red dress. I can no longer see what is the game and what isn't. I want to shout out that I am game for more, but I want to know also. So I am torn. So I don't know which ending is which. I don't know. I finished watching 10 seconds ago. And I don't know.
sharethey died. what happens next it's only what it could'be been, just like the scenes with them kissing (which also never happened)
:)
Awesome take on the ending slconn ;)My thoughts exactly.
shareMaybe i'm not being deep enough, but couldn't the two have somehow survived being encased in cement and live out the rest of their lives as the couple in the last scenes. I Know it seems impossible and maybe slconn was right about the ending afterall. sorry if I confused anyone
shareNo, that's the whole point. Their entire life they tried to make something work, but it couldn't. Not in this world, not with their characters, not with the rules. So the risk of having it not work once more would have been to great.
Their deaths were actually their love's chance to live, hence the final scenes.
I think you've got it right. That makes it clear to me. Thanks.
The way they wanted to live their lives together, with the game, was to difficult to manage in this world. That is why they had to separate for 4 & 10 years. In the concrete hole they said they couldn't bear to be apart again, but knowing that they were not able to stay together in this world, they left this world together.
Then the old couple at the end are like their spirits. Still playing the game, having fun, and loving each other into old age or eternity.
No, that's the whole point. Their entire life they tried to make something work, but it couldn't. Not in this world, not with their characters, not with the rules. So the risk of having it not work once more would have been to great.
Their deaths were actually their love's chance to live, hence the final scenes.
Precisely my take on the ending.
...Well, if you notice the montage of kisses, they were all the ones they COULD have had. So, I recommend multiple watchings. (I've seen it like 20 times now. )
Les enfants de choeur à 11h00 au CID! Premiére internationale!
I owe this film several rewatches, because I cannot explain the ending at all.
shareOkay, I from what people have said earlier, I can accept that it's a 'choose your own ending' kinda thing...but what doesn't add up is the fact that someone narrates it. You can't narrate something when you're dead.
That's kinda bothering me, but other than that? The movie was beautiful.
[deleted]
'You can't narrate something when you're dead' - what about the film "Shallow Grave"?
Anything is possible. Consider it the ultimate 'unreliable narrator' when they're actually dead! ;)
by yummy_sushi (Wed Nov 15 2006 06:20:56 )
You can't narrate something when you're dead.
[deleted]
To ireadthatgrassisgreen,
Not really major spoilers...
First line of American Beauty is "I'm 42 years old; in less than a year, I'll be dead."
And Sunset Boulevard is such a famous picture that it would be difficult not to know what's going on, 60 years after it was made.
Difficult, but not impossible. Not everyone saw these movies, and even if it's the first line, you ruin something. It is important to try to select what you write. He/She could've written "For the ones that haven't seen American Beauty and Sunset Boulevard, SPOILERS:..."
--
Forget her, she's a predator posing as a house pet.
" by yummy_sushi (Wed Nov 15 2006 06:20:56 )
You can't narrate something when you're dead.
American Beauty? Sunset Boulevard? They had died in the cement. End of the story."
american history x!
sorry, couldn't resist adding to list.
--------------------------------------------------------
-Well, he's probably gonna get killed.
-Good, I hope he does get killed. **** him. I don't care.
American Beauty.. anyone?!
:D
Well, they could have died... In a lot of movies you have people that died narrarating the movie. Hmm... I just finished watching it a couple minutes ago too. Did you guys notice that the "Teddy" was covered in cement when it shows them as old people? Still, it could be showing what their lives could have been, I guess. It's a little like Inception, without the whole movie being a mindf@*k, which Marion Cotillard was also just in. It would be nice if they had lived to be 80, but maybe in reality it was better for them to die together, like Romeo + Juliet. Either way, it's still romantic, and a great movie.
sharethere are few kiss scenes in the final, i think those are time points..
if they just speak out: "Je t'aime" in those times,
they may have a different life:
live together for long time and still say "i love you" when they are age.
i think the ending is expressing "IF"
sometime we have lots of chances to do better, but we do nothing.
if we catch one of them, maybe the ending will be totally different.
anyway love is a dangerous game,
tu joues, cap ou pas cap? :)
i'm almost positive they died together in the cement. Thats what made the ending so beautiful. Well, this is at least the way i interpreted the ending.
sharepositive ending in dying? seriosly? they've could live happily together with their own rules. what is so positive in being sufocated by cement and then going to hell?
shareLet me give you another possibility. I don't think the ending is expressing "IF". I think the ending is expressing what actually happened. I think the whole film up to that point is a red herring; a ruse; a metaphor; game, if you dare (pun intended).
Those ending scenes show them kissing, the very same scenes which during the film were shown not kissing. He kisses her after the first dare, and from that moment she knows that he loves her. Because the whole doubt for the characters were whether they truly love each other or not. That's how the roller coaster of illogical decisions started. When Sophie asks Julien if it's a game to him or not, and he doesn't respond. But this would have been moot if they already knew ever since they were kids how they felt about each other.
This would also explain other strings of the irrational, like his father's unexplained animosity towards her (which might be a metaphor for people opposing their relationship, circumstances making difficult, etc), not seeing him for 10 years, living a life they don't want to, burying themselves into concrete (despite kid Julien as a narrator telling the audience not to).
The film gives you the characteristics of their love, but not what happened. A game full of dares, crazy to the core. The life they lead though, is shown during the ending.
The point, I think, would be very real, actually. Ignoring, for a moment, the very last scene (as an old couple), Julien and Sophie were merely ensuring they'd be together forever.
It's just as simple as Romeo+Juliet, as a matter of fact. It's a play that nearly everyone labels as a tragedy, when, in reality, death by poison was the only way the two lovers could be together. Is it not the same with Julien and Shopie? They were together forever, and nothing could change that.
I think you could take it a step further (if you'd like) and say that the carousel had floated to the top as a symbol that the game was over; there was no need for the game because they had both already won. It's just a thought; I agree with earlier points on the very last scene though. I think it's a big "what if" that was necessary for the story to retain its depth.
Great movie; one of the best.
Cheers.
It`s `love me if you dare`.The main challenge was fulfilled in the end by Julian,telling Sophie he loves her...
sharethe ending is so irrelevant...it should not bother...all that's important is the feeling this movie creates and the magic of love spread around...(sorry for being so "soap opera"-ish right now,but really,the end is not so important)
shareThey did not die. It's a metaphor- cement=their love. It is practically impossible to kill yourself like they did( because there were people watching and they would have called the police:))))...Another scene which can not happen in a real world is the scene- where he falls in the rain. It is in front of a hospital. And where does his wife and her husband disappear? aaa?
Your point rings very true - my reading of it is a little similar to yours in regards to 'he falls in the rain'... I say that's where he dies. And everything from that point on is the last flickers of his dying mind. He grew up with her, they parted, he became a sociopath that carried on the pattern of treating all people as a 'game'... and finally he dies, with the sad dreams of what his life could have been like with her.
I see it as a folie deux where he led her to wilder and crazier things, but eventually she wasn't as sociopathic as he was and actually had a conscience. Remember how he killed? I say that this is a film of what could have been, if only.
I know it's a bit late, but the scene where he kills someone was actually not real. He says "123 dreams of being a real tyrant" and then it switches to his real life where he says "yes, I'm listening," and then goes to the job site.
shareactually the official explanation that was given is that the scene where they are old is a metaphore.
shareI think you're right. I've seen this movie about 20 times, and for the past nineteen times (about a year and a half now) I've taken the movie way too literally.
The movie is painting a picture of two people who live as much in their imaginations - in the realm of 'The Game' - as they do in the physical world. The movie switches between this imaginary world and the real world, and you can SEE this happening with the style!
When Julien imagines himself as a tyrant, the movie gets a golden, fuzzy appearance, like it had when the pair were children. After Julien gets punched by Sergei, he falls into deep water and has an imaginary experience. The imagery of the film switches dramatically, and after he wakes up it DOES NOT CHANGE BACK. It stays in that weird dream-sequence style! When they get into the hole and are waiting for the cement, the film reverts back to the style that we saw during their childhood - exaggerated reds and greens, with a golden glow and a little fuzzy around the edges. This becomes even more noticeable when the couple are old - it's like the style at the very, very beginning when Julien messes with the bus. This period of the film, when they've just met and have just become best friends, was the happiest in the movie. There were no complications.
Also, after the sequence with them as old people is over we see a sequence of them kissing at every point where they SHOULD have kissed, and would have kissed if the game or someone's ego or a misunderstanding had not gotten in the way. And the thing about this is, it's in a much crisper style than that we actually saw for the appropriate parts of the movie. This is especially true of the clip of them kissing in the rain - presumably after Julien gets up after being hit in the face. This doesn't have the fuzzy blue-tint that the movie had when he was dreaming or when Sofie was trying to wake him up. The last kiss, the one after they've just met and are young children, is also not nearly as sepia-ed as the beginning of the movie when they are at that age. This movie is a work of art, a moving painting, and it's important I think to look at the style of the painting for clues as to what is happening in the story.
While it's possible that this doesn't mean anything and that they really did die, I think these stylistic switches are hinting that there's an equal possibility that all of the things that happened at the end were still part of the imaginary world these two exist in, and that the reality was something different - that the cement was a metaphor for a life spent together in the real world, and not in their imaginary one.
I posted this in reply to someone else, but I'll post it in reply to you too, because it's fitting, and you should read it.
"Let me give you another possibility. I don't think the ending is expressing "IF". I think the ending is expressing what actually happened. I think the whole film up to that point is a red herring; a ruse; a metaphor; game, if you dare (pun intended).
Those ending scenes show them kissing, the very same scenes which during the film were shown not kissing. He kisses her after the first dare, and from that moment she knows that he loves her. Because the whole doubt for the characters were whether they truly love each other or not. That's how the roller coaster of illogical decisions started. When Sophie asks Julien if it's a game to him or not, and he doesn't respond. But this would have been moot if they already knew ever since they were kids how they felt about each other.
This would also explain other strings of the irrational, like his father's unexplained animosity towards her (which might be a metaphor for people opposing their relationship, circumstances making difficult, etc), not seeing him for 10 years, living a life they don't want to, burying themselves into concrete (despite kid Julien as a narrator telling the audience not to).
The film gives you the characteristics of their love, but not what happened. A game full of dares, crazy to the core. The life they lead though, is shown during the ending."
So I think you're right. I didn't notice the stylistic changes (I've only just seen it for the first time), but it might just be proof of what the filmmaker's idea was.
i think its just them in heaven or something. i like that one persons post about us and our reactions and whatnot. thats a pretty good explanation. but they did indeed die. they wouldn't do those same exact things, such as peeing, if they kept living. i think thats just them in heaven in old peoples bodies as children, like they were.
i thought that concrete thing was the most beautiful thing ever. they really sealed their love in stone. it will never move. its forever. how cool is that? its really disturbing if you think about it in a literal sense, but i refuse to, because its just amazing the way it is. i've never cried harder in my life when that scene happened. it was just... incredible.
i take it that they die together, kissing and forever in love because after all, before that scene, Sophie dared him and herself to never be apart again, 'cap ou pas cap'.. they both said cap. And hence literally, they will never be apart sealed up in the cement. A beautiful story, good meaning. and i admire their guts for doing so. Imagining myself in that position, my heart would drop to the floor. But i guess if you are really in love, nothing could be stronger that the passion. Lastly, i confess that the first kiss they had in the film was so passionate. It was a dare but a real thing, and doing it on the car too!
share[deleted]
I think it's just a symbolic end. I've just reflect a bit and I think the cement scene can see in a methaphoric way: the last joke of the two, play to be buried together, but it's just methaphoric they probably bury only the merry-go-round to bury their past and begin to live the future, to bury their separated life and begin to live together.
shareI liked your post the best. . .neither pretentious or superficial. Thanks.
shareI believe the ending shows their "undying love" for each other. Since true love almost never lasts forever in real life, they will be in love for eternity since they died while at the peak of their love. Because they are dead, they won't have to deal with complications due to their present lifestyles like being married, having children, etc.
Everybody has the dream that they will fall in love and live happily ever after in a honeymoon state-of-mind. In this situation they will never have to worry about fighting, losing their love, and dilemmas that typically interfere with true, undying love. The part in which they grow old I believe is just a way of showing how eternal their love is. It shows everything they could have been had they lived together and the glowing candy signifies that it is a dream world.
Yes, with this scene they show that their love for each other is concrete.