Can please someone help me understand the Ending?
What happenned? Did he took the money? why he took the wolf?
I am confused
in my opinion he didn't take the money and just went back to taxidermy. he took the dog because he liked it and it apparently liked him.
shareThe taxidermist liked to imagine perfect heists or perfect crimes, as he does on the bank while he is waiting to be paid. When he returns home, I think that he never leaves his work table again and the rest of the movie only happens in his imagination. The dog already belonged to him and he simply included it in his "dream".
shareThat's the worst explanation ever.
shareYou are so bright aren't you. I assume that you have a better explanation? By the way, the explanation given by Lucaz happens to be correct. Let you mommy put you back to sleep.
"Since I am convinced myself I do not have to convince anybody else" Edgar Allan Poe
Well yes as a matter of fact I have, and it's already been explained by other people on this board, and it's a lot more logical than your "zOMG IT WAS JUST A DRAEM"
share
It wasn't a dream. You get nothing. It was the imagining of the plot of the writing of a perfect crime. Couldn´t you see in the end all the objects that were around his working table? You are not going to say that he stole all of them too. Even the dog. And do you know why it is called El aura, by the way. The name is the clue and the answer in itself.
It's a pity that writer director Fabian Belinski is dead.
Mientas tanto salame gringo vive filmando porquerías con un budget de millones de dólares... Una lástima.
"Since I am convinced myself I do not have to convince anybody else" Edgar Allan Poe
I meant "dream" as in "he dreamed it all up" as in "he imagined it"
There isn't a single clue in the movie that would make us think he's writing something.
Yes, I've seen the objects that were around his working table. I didn't notice anything unusual, there were some working tools with which he was making his animals. I didn't see a sledgehammer or a welding torch, which one of the bad guys was planning to use.
As for dog, yes he took the dog, but that isn't a surprise. Here's what the other poster said:
"It seems pretty obvious to me when the last shot of the film is the dog/wolf it means everything that happened wasn't imagined. He took the money and the dog/wolf but life hasn't changed. He's a loner like the dog/wolf. An introvert whose wife left him. He can barely communicate with people, and even with all that money he doesn't know how to enjoy life. His only comfort is being around dead animals."
And what's the big deal with the title? The meaning of it was explained in the movie, it refers to his epilepsy, and you're trying to make it sound like it's a big mystery or something.
"And what's the big deal with the title? The meaning of it was explained in the movie, it refers to his epilepsy, and you're trying to make it sound like it's a big mystery or something." Lol. You got nothing about it, did you? And then I suppose you never had the chance to hear Bielinsky's explanation on what motivated this movie, what his investigations on the aura pre epilepsy attack were and where they took place, and that, of course, you never heard his explanation for the intrigue in the movie. Nor you know what the Aura is inspired in. I had the great fortune, being a fellow Argentinian, to interview Fabian for página doce, a local newspaper some years ago, and then Dolores Fonsy. Their comments on the plot were somehow the same: the character himself is so cryptic that he resists speculation, that the objects throught the whole movie are crucial clues to determine the ending and that he (Fabian)was inspired by the idea of Hombre mirando al sudeste, and that he wanted to produce uncertainty with a turn of a screw and the character living beyond the plot, keeping a secret. The character indeed keeps his secret and is unwilling to reveal it, which is clear by his last words. This is far from the explanation you are waiting for, but anyway, I'm not trying to convince you and I will not. Neither will you, so what's the point? Given the terrible relationship we are developing, I think we should call it a day. My apology if I offended you previously.
.
"Since I am convinced myself I do not have to convince anybody else" Edgar Allan Poe
Eh, I guess I must be the one who should apologize, not you. I'm sorry. You interviewing him changes a lot. But you should have mentioned that from the beginning. Now I look stupid :)
share
Lol, no offense taken at all. I didn´t say anything about those interviews 'cause it felt like bragging. By no means you look stupid, as a matter of fact you look better to me. Thanks for this reply.
"Since I am convinced myself I do not have to convince anybody else" Edgar Allan Poe
Only "now" you look stupid???
share[deleted]
Well, I have read Sontag too, and no one here has implied other interpretations are remotely invalid, this was a simple discussion of issues I won't waste time repeating to you. As for "mientas" instead of "mientras", you have really astonished me. What a bright and witty assumption. "You suppose I meant "mientras", well, it must have taken you lots of prodigy to suppose that. Picking on such a silly misstype, that is something open to interpretation. You "nationalistic much", here I give you something to correct, but I'm afraid it is so erroneous it might take you a lifetime: Get yourself a life.
"Since I am convinced myself I do not have to convince anybody else"
Yes, I'm a girl
How fortunate for you to have interviewed him; what fascinating work he does.
I was hoping you would share with us the information you referred to- the phenomenon of The Aura vis a vis epilepsy; what 'clues' made sense out of the ending, etc.
Of course if Fabian said that the casino heist etc. was all imagined by Darin, then that is the fact.So do please help explain if that is indeed what Fabian said in his intervew with you. I myself felt that the heist actually took place. Otherwise, how can one account for the mistakes that Darin made in the heist itself? In the bank he seemed to have the imagined bank heist all figured out perfectly, so if he were just imagining the casino heist, wouldn't that heist have been perfect too? I also felt that the only time he 'lived' was during the adventure, and that the wolf attached himself to Darin and accompanied him home (along with the antlers.)
I am very confused by the reference to Man Facing Southeast. I saw and really liked that film but I do not see a connection between it and El Aura.
Please educate us about all this. I am eager to learn! Thanks so much.
Ad hoc, Ad loc, Quid pro queeee,
So little time and so much to see
I agree with lucaz as well, it was all in his head.
Belle de Jour had the same ending.
i think this is the best explanation!
shareThe third guard locked the door of the armored car from the inside before bleeding to death from his wounds, so there was no way to get at the money. The dog is a metaphor for the part of the criminal portion of the protagonist's personality.
shareBut there was an acetylene torch available in the remote cabin, and they do show a scene of him coming back to the cabins (where Diana was) with a suitcase in his hand - containing money perhaps?
It's an interesting idea that he imagined it all, but I'm not sure of that. Why would the heist not be perfect if it was his imagination? I think that it was real.
This is how I see it:
He goes back for the girl, but she is not there anymore. There is a note left on the table, but it is addressed to her brother, Julio, who is dead. She didn't think of him at all, there is no incentive to try to get the money. He goes back to his life with the only friend he has, the dog.
[deleted]
I watched the movie twice and I am growing more convinced that he imagined it all. Here is how I think it goes:
(Last Scene) An ordinary guy finds himself working surrounded by several familiar elements (dog, newspapers, tools, plastic bottle, deer horns, etc). Caught up in his work, he imagines a fantastic story in which most of these elements are thrown into the mix while listening to the music. He plans HIS perfect plot.
(First Scene At Work) This is in fact how Esteban sees himself at the start of his fantasy. He imagines himself working in his lab listening to classical music and abstracting from the outside world. This is probably the only things we know for sure: he is a taxidermist who enjoys listening to classical music whilst working (we know this since we see all this happening in the last scene). But there is no certainty concerning some of the other elements he mixes into his fantasy (wife, hunting friend, etc) and I am tempted to say that we don't even know if he has the medical condition (this is in fact linked to the first scene at the cash machine which I can't fit into my interpretation, see below).
(From Then On Until The Last Scene) He plots HIS perfect plan. Why are we to assume that in his mind the perfect plan does not involve killings? Why are we to assume that he cares about the money or even the girl more than about his dog? As there seems to be no agreement on whether he imagined himself running away with the money or not, this may be open to further debate. But I am convinced that the plan he imagined reflected an aspect of his personality that transpired from that last scene (the real events). After all, regardless of whether he keeps the money, he gets away without anything linking him to the murders. The fact that he didn't find himself with Diana may tell about his uneasiness with people in general. That's why throughout the dream the dog seems to be his only companion and features in almost every scene where Darin seems lost or unsure about what his next step should be.
(The Scene At The Cash Machine) I have thought carefully about this scene. As far as I can remember, we are not revealed when that happens, specifically if this takes place before or after he is working in his lab. Two things we do know though: it's late night and he collapsed. I am hard-pressed to think that this is part of his imagination. My best guess is that this scene is real and serves two purposes: 1) to show that he has a medical condition and 2) to leave the spectator wondering about how does it fit into the whole movie!. As I said, everything seems to suggest that this scene is real but that is as far as we know. I am not really convinced about my interpretation of this scene, so I guess I'll be giving it further thought.
Now, beyond these interpretations/theories about the movie, I found this movie to be excellent. I just think that having the twist of "it didn't really happen" makes it a lot more intriguing and delves deeper into psychological terrain. I already miss this guy Fabian Bielinsky.
Wow sebafreille, you just moved this movit onto a whole new level with your interesting interpretation:)
Stop "The Warriors (1979)" remake!
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/stopwarriorsremake
Oh, come on! I can't believe how anyone would think this was all a dream. I mean, what would be the point of the movie then? He imagined it all and it wasn't real? Wow, that's mind-blowing and highly original, yeah right. I think you're underestimating Bielinsky as a screenwriter.
shareEven he took it or not. His life is the same. Nothing change, he is the same guy. If this was a hollywood movie, I'm sure the ending it would be "... and they live happily ever after". But in this case the life goes on and nothing makes him happier. Money is nothing when your life is screwed up.
shareIt seems pretty obvious to me when the last shot of the film is the dog/wolf it means everything that happened wasn't imagined. He took the money and the dog/wolf but life hasn't changed. He's a loner like the dog/wolf. An introvert whose wife left him. He can barely communicate with people, and even with all that money he doesn't know how to enjoy life. His only comfort is being around dead animals.
Oh sweet mystery of life at last I have found yuuuuuu
i just watched it and i think it is a marvelous film, it is really a shame that the director is dead. and about the ending, i think that he just leaves it to our imagination and everyone choose to believe what was real and what was his imagination.
about the cash machine scene...if i'm not wrong, he only crashed whenever he was really nervous, so i guess that could mean 2 things IMO. 1) if it is before the whole action, it could mean that he was dead broke and really in need of money. 2) if it was after the whole action, the nervousness (sorry if i mispelled it) of checking the money in his acount.
i could be talking bollocks, but anyway, i loved the movie.
Great Amudad, I think the second version is the correct one. Its a great movie when it inspires us to write about it.
share[deleted]
This debate about the whole "aura-experiencing" plot when the facts only happen in the taxidermist's head is very interesting.
I didn't see that at first but after take a look at this forum i started to think about it. One shot in particular that took my attention was at the beginning, when the taxidermist's wife was talking in the door... but we cannot see her clearly.
That fits with the theory of the lone wolf man, taking aspects of his life to make that plot. The woman, which he can't communicate effectively, that leaves him with a note (although the "second" note was adressed to somebody else).
However, scenes as that of the ending, when the taxidermist in the woods imagine himself killing the thief (who is reloading his gun), and then actually doing it, makes me doubt about that whole "aura-lone-wolf" theory.
And yes, the dog-wolf looks A LOT like an taxidermist uncomplete job.
PS: excuse my errors in the writing.
that two points are stuck in my head too....
shareBy the look of the tools, the scenery and the dog, I take it he stayed there.
There is indeed a quite popular idea that this was indeed all just the taxidermist's imagination, as seen by the circular elements within the story (the epileptic attack, the letter, etc.). The "mystical" atmosphere only helps confrim this point, yet I'm not too keen on that version myself.
Clavo coito Dios temor mujer por...
I'm not convinced about the whole affair being in his imagination, as we know prior to the events in the forest region he imanies the impact of the bank heist whilst in the queue, and this sequence is very obviously a fabrication utilising the envirnment in which he;s currently standing. Why then would he (if this were all in his imagination) need to imagine stealthily killing his would be assassin in the woods prior to actually committing the act, surely a "one-take" would be all that was required "in a dream" and no need for a mental dry-run....????
Theories aside I caught El Aura on Film 4's Argentina season and think it (along with a majority of the films screened during the season) walks over everything output from Hollywood in the past two decades, fresh stories with dynamic twist, unsurpassed acting, cinematography and I only wish my language skills were up to the ponit that I didn't have to take in the subtitles instead of focussing completely on the images.
PS I recently purchased a superb double disc edition DVD direct from Argentina with heaps of extras on the AVH label
Why does it matter, the most brilliant thing about this movie is that it makes you wonder what exactly happened, i do like to think that it is his imagination, but it could also be real, thats not the point --- to find out if its real or not...different people have different views on this, thats the good thing about this movie, not a happily ever after type!
shareI haven't read all this thread, but I think he just didn't take the money but kept the dog because they liked each other..and possibly so that he would have a "souvenir" of his own perfect crime...the first thing I thought as soon as everyone was dead and he's standing alone was that the perfect crime might just be one you happen into on accident...he didn't mean to get involved but he did, and BECAUSE nobody knew who he was, nobody could trace anything back to him except the sister who ran off anyway and even then she wasn't COMPLETELY sure there was something foul going on...there was NO reason he should've been out in that remote area, so who's going to trace anything back to him? Nobody.....and that's why it was the perfect crime...wasn't planned out like he always wanted, he just happened into it...
share[deleted]
[deleted]
The dog was the only thing that consistently paid attention to him, and he knew that that was the case. He didn't have anybody and he knew all that money wouldn't solve anything. Regardless if he made everything up or not, it's clear that he would still be the same person, daydreaming in his little worlds and not having anyone besides the dog. Either way, the movies that make you think and leave multiple endings and questions to debate, are the best kinds of movies out there. Think what you want, and believe what you want. In the end, the movie is still fascinating.
By far, the scenery in this was maybe the best thing about it. Along with the subtle musical score to go along with it, it was a beautiful little film.
It definitely happened. The imagined "perfect" crime at the beginning was precise and thought out. The situation he was thrown into only proved to him that there is no such thing as a perfect crime, especially for an epileptic thief. Crazy twists you cannot predict are always around the corner. It is a metaphor for his life as a whole. As far as the dog, it did not like him when first sniffing him. He was a pussy. Its master was a wife beating crook who was always in charge. The other guys didnt respect him either. The dog accepted him after he was able to finish off the crime by killing the two other criminals. It respected him as the new master and went home with him. Whether he took the money or not is irrelevant. I like to think he did and that he was still content going back to his old profession.
Why can't American filmmakers/studios put out more quality stories like this? Oh, that's right, explosions and stupid one liners make more money.
I am really sick of people making up these "IT WAS ALL A DREAM" interpretations. In this case especially, since The Aura is such a good movie. When you watch a movie, you should ask yourself "HOW WOULD THE DIRECTOR BE SERVED BY MAKING EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS FAKE." In the case of the Aura, the answer is NOT AT ALL. Making everything into a dream is just a slick, cliched trick that devalues a good story.
If you want a simple argument as to why the movie is not an imagining of a heist, look at the actual imaginations. Everything goes perfectly well in his fantasies, and everything goes WRONG in reality.
One thing that gets in the way of the imagined heist theory is the use of the chapter titles with the very linear progression of the days of the week. At least from Wednesday to Monday, as the final Wednesday may or may not be the same as the first.
If we are to assume that the imagining itself lasts six/eight days, it is therefore not one single expression of the subconscious unfolding (as in a dream or epilepsy-induced hallucination), but more like someone consciously developing a plot for a novel or a film. For me that would be disappointing because it would take away a lot of the power of the film (but maybe that's just my taste).
It just isn't believable that someone would take a whole day (objective time) to imagine a whole day and that day only (subjective time) of his plot, then wait for the next day (objective time) to imagine his plot's events of the next day (subjective time), etc. on a strict one-to-one basis over a six/eight day period.
Or are the chapter titles themselves purely a tool of the protagonist's imagination to structure his plot's events? This enables the time progression to be in his mind and non-linear (though expressed rather linearly in the film as a red herring). It would be stylistically very weak if some of the chapter titles were extradiegetic (the film director's tool) and some of them diegetic (the protagonist's tool). This suggests a distinct divide between either "nothing was imagination" and "everything was imagination", because it rules out the very last scene (with its own chapter title) being real/objective, that is, according to this imagined time progression explanation.
My conclusion: although a great film, the use of the chapter titles (used as a red herring device if the imagined heist theory is to be followed) is the film's major weakness because it too strongly implies a linear passing of objective time. Without the chapter titles, a non-linear passing of subjective time, which makes much more sense psychologically if the imagined heist theory is to be followed, would have been a lot more plausible.
I do not think it was imaginary because why would he imagine many things going badly and the wrong people getting killed (the bank guards and Julio)? He would, instead, have been imagining another perfect crime and probably Diana running off with him at the end. I also like to think he did get the money as well as the dog, but doesn't know what to do with it yet. He has to be careful not to show he suddenly has a lot of money so as not to raise suspicions.
Contrary to what some have said here, there are quite a few people who know he was in the area--his hunting friend, Diana, people at the casino, people at the tavern. On the other hand, maybe he realized that and decided not to take the money for that reason.