MovieChat Forums > Cold Souls (2010) Discussion > Your interpretation of the ending?

Your interpretation of the ending?

posted 15 years ago by LauraLuvsBacon
26 replies | jump to latest

I enjoyed Cold Souls very, very much. But, that’s irrelevant. I would like to hear your interpretation of the ending. Here is mine:

A story like this is surely hard to end cleanly. It’s such an abstract concept—so dreamy and surreal—that I’m sure it’s difficult to complete, explain, summarize, and hint at what the characters’ futures will be like.

I think the ending was meant to be open to interpretation, but, specifically, I want to know: Do you think Paul Giamatti and Nina became romantically involved? I don’t.

This is the first movie in about five years that I’ve seen that portrayed a married couple in a positive, strong relationship. (Many movies trivialize or romanticize marriage or show it as inconsequential, complete with acceptable cheating, abuse and contempt.) Paul was devastated when he realized that storing his soul may be the end of his marriage. Also, when he finally looked into his soul, his wife composed a significant part, and he seemed utterly relieved to find her there, and to be able to embrace her.

So, where does Nina (the mule) fit in? Why does Paul track her down? In the final scene, Paul approaches Nina on the beach (The beach was probably chosen as it was on Roosevelt Island, where Nina and Paul first encountered each other on the cable car) and the shot fades. One could assume he found her to start a romantic relationship. I beg to differ. She’s lost. She has no soul of her own. She’s in a foreign country, out of a job. And, most importantly, she’s carrying a shard of Paul Giamatti’s soul. In a literal sense, they’re ‘soul mates’ – which doesn’t necessitate romance. This happens in ‘real life’ too. You can have a friend—a soul mate—with a particularly strong bond, without being romantically involved. I think this type of relationship is what the movie was alluding to.

But many people interpret because a man (Paul) is trying to form a relationship with a woman (Nina), it is about romance/sex. I think, instead, Nina needs a friend and Paul understands what she’s going through (he was soulless at one point) and he sought her out to comfort and help her. His heart, however, still belongs with his wife, because the movie went through the trouble to establish that he loves his wife and that she (his wife) is a part of his soul. There was never any sexual interest between Nina and Paul.

I find it odd that many people think Paul is leaving his wife for Nina. A man and a woman can have a relationship without being romantically involved.

I believe that this movie, the ending in particular, is meant to be open to interpretation. What do you think?

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Tessa11 15 years ago

Remember, Nina carried a "bit" of his soul in her...(if that was Nina on the beach, that far away...it was difficult to tell...could have been his wife.)

And, if Nina was dying because she was filled with all these bits from being a mule, then she hadn't much time...and they'd share a sunset together. It was symbolic....as he lost Olga's soul, when he transferred his back....since she committed suicide. They learned something, souls aren't long-lasting.

"I am disinclined to acquiesce to your request."

[–] LauraLuvsBacon 15 years ago

You're right! The person on the beach could have been someone other than Nina! I never even thought of that...

You know, it's been a couple of weeks since I saw this movie, and I think I've lost some of it...but, I hope Nina wasn't dying because of all the bits/shards! That would be too sad!

[–] LauraLuvsBacon 15 years ago

Oh! I never even put myself in Paul's wife shoes - you're right! It was a creepy/upsetting situation, but she handled it well, and was very sympathetic!

Also, I agree there was no romantic/sexual connection at all between Paul and Nina. They just seemed like good, oldtime friends - even down to the teasing.

I like this movie's portrayal of literal 'soul mates' (in a friendship capacity.) I wish more movies would further explore that kind of relationship!

[–] ldealberti 15 years ago

I just think after all she did for him to help him out (and remember she had carried a bit of his soul so they had a connection), he tried to help her out (which is only natural since he got his soul back so he went back to being a decent person), there was certainly no romance involved.

The ending is downbeat and melancholic but I liked it, while I don't think that Nina will die soon, there was the sad realisation that she had lost her soul forever

[–] AStreetwalkingCheetah 14 years ago

Great movie,I seen it yesterday and have been wondering about the ending since.Nina has residue form both Paul's soul and Olga's,so there is that connection straight away,they already have a bond that he can never have with his wife.Nina also went far,far out of her way to help Paul,which was unusual,she didn't help Olga out,so merely being "the mule",for Paul's soul wasn't just the catalyst for her compassion,it goes deeper than that.Because of the help he received from Nina,Paul feels deeply indebted to her,and rightly so.I guess the ending is ambiguous for a reason,take what you will from it,talk about it after.I doubt they had an affair,Paul's wife(a slightly under-used Emily Watson) seems to be a big part of his soul from what we seen when he "goes inside".One thing I really liked was the end shot,on the beach when Paul and Nina walk out of focus,and their silhouettes merge into one for a moment...very nice touch.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] psbate-1 14 years ago

Reading these posts it occurred to me that maybe Nina took the dead poet's soul and had it put in. Paul had such a connection to it (and her) while he embodied it.

[–] KenyaOne 14 years ago

Most of these posts share a common theme which really isn't disputable. However, I'm approaching this from an additional and mathematical angle: it was said that (I think it was) about 5% of the soul is lost in transfer and the same amount is kept. That is, Paul lost 5% of his soul by "storing" it, the Russian actress kept 5% and Nina also had 5%. Then Paul took the Russian poet's (Olga) soul and will always have 5% of it even after giving it back. Nina also has 5% of Olga's soul and 5% of Paul's soul.

If I haven't created even more confusion, that means that Nina and Paul both share about 10% of each others soul! Okay, most of you already observed that, more or less.

But most of you also said Nina is "soul less." Not so at all! Whereas she did indeed lose her OWN soul, she still has at least 100% of a collection of other people's souls. This in fact was repeated at least twice in the dialogue.

So my only difference with most other posters is this: She has "as much" soul as anyone, in quantity, but rather than one complete soul of her own she has about 20 other portions of souls in her. This is why it was said she couldn't do soul transfers anymore because she was overloaded with soul fragments!

I think that is what Paul connected to: that Nina is the epitome of a "lost soul." As such, the ending must be highly ambiguous because Nina's soul is highly ambiguous.

And yes, I will simply repeat other posters that, of course, there is no sexual relation between Nina and Paul for at least two reasons: the story went to great length to show that Paul and his wife truly loved each other and were already soul mates - and that with many opportunities Paul and Nina never so much as kissed. So there is no "motivation" for them to become lovers. But there will remain a mathematically substantial soul connection between them.

In the end, and on a few levels already mentioned by several posters, Paul "owes" Nina his friendship and assistance.

I hope my comments don't cause even more confusion.

[–] rooprect 13 years ago

That's a cool mathematical analysis. I think it gets even more complicated because each time Nina transfers a soul, she's also transferring a percentage of "mule residue" along with it. Anyone who undergoes a soul implantation is getting a percentage of all the souls Nina has ever carried.

This would make a nifty math problem for an algebra class. Given that every time a soul is removed it loses 5% of its mass, and every time a soul is transported it is diluted by 5% with mule residue, and every time it is implanted it loses another 5% of its mass and mixes with whatever is existing in the new host, what is Paul's soul composition at the end of the movie?

I'm not enough of a math nerd to figure it out exactly, but since Paul's soul undergoes a total of 3 removals (losing 15% of its mass), 3 implants (losing an additional 15% of the remaining 85% = 12.75%) and being diluted by 3 different hosts, the chickpea he gets at the end is only 72.25% chickpea.

But wait, there's more. Now consider that the chickpea also carries the Russian actress's original soul (I don't recall her original soul being removed before implantation of the chickpea). And also consider that the Russian poet's soul was never removed from Paul. So in the end I'd guess Paul was something like

40% Paul
30% Russian poet
25% Russian actress
5% mule residue (Nina)

(I really hope my highschool algebra teacher, Ms. Weigel, isn't reading along)

So anyway, the whole point is that Paul, at the end, is a big jumbled mess of souls just like Nina. That, in addition to the connection you mentioned, is what makes them kindred souls at the end. I don't think it has anything to do with sexual or even romantic attraction. It's a more fundamental connection than that.

[–] ppllkk 13 years ago

...it was said that (I think it was) about 5% of the soul is lost in transfer and the same amount is kept.

We are never told that 5% of a soul is lost in transfer. The only information that we have is that at least 95% of Paul's soul was extracted. We are never told that he would have less than his original soul if the extracted soul was placed back in him.

They have to measure how much of Paul's soul was extracted, and the implication is that extraction rates vary. 95% extraction appears to be an upper bound because we are told that a person can't function with much less than 5% of their soul. We only have this one bit of data. We do not know what a typical or average extraction rate is. I don't think they even bother to test for extraction rate in Russia.

I think it gets even more complicated because each time Nina transfers a soul, she's also transferring a percentage of "mule residue" along with it. Anyone who undergoes a soul implantation is getting a percentage of all the souls Nina has ever carried.

If the machine extracted a large percentage of all the souls in a person, the fragments would not accumulate in Nina to the point that there is no more room. The soul extractor seems to extract up to 95% of one soul, presumably the largest, or most complete, one in the person.

It almost makes sense that the soul extractor has trouble dealing with small fragments, residues of other souls. They may be harder to identify and latch onto than a large chunk of soul, and they may cling more tenaciously where they are. (Perhaps like removing something sticky from a surface. Part of it remains on the surface.)

Now consider that the chickpea also carries the Russian actress's original soul (I don't recall her original soul being removed before implantation of the chickpea).

Sveta's is Dimitri's wife, and he runs the operation. It is clear that she is going to get the best soul extraction treatment possible. A concern about limited space for souls in a person, and probably a concern about unpredictable reactions, would seem to dictate a standard operating procedure of extracting a person's soul before another soul is implanted. Whether or not the movie showed it, this is surely what happened.

You can argue that they don't count, but in the deleted scenes, we are shown Sveta's soul in a storage container. It is formless, gaseous. Quite amusing.

Also, if you succeed in implanting a soul on top of a full soul, it is not clear that you could reverse the operation in a predictable way. The soul storage/soul rental business is based on the idea that the procedure is mostly reversible if you don't like the results. A person would have to be really nuts to try it otherwise.

Paul does have his own soul added back on top of Olga's soul, but they are under serious time pressure to get Paul's soul out of Sveta and back into Paul, and both of them as far away as possible, lest they get caught. Perhaps luckily, they don't have time to think about the issue of what to do with Olga's soul. Both Nina and Paul have connected with Olga's soul, and they would not feel good about casting it adrift.

What Paul gets back of his soul is minus the residue left in Nina and the residue left in Sveta. Olga's soul is minus the part left in Olga and the residue left in Nina. So it would appear that sometimes a person can have space for two souls, or at least large parts of two souls. Probably people very in how much space they have for souls, and of course, souls are of all different sizes.

Having these two souls seems to work for Paul, but in general, the results of having two souls might well be problematical.

Along with some other people, I would like to perform a numerical analysis, but we simply don't have the data. We have the 95% extraction rate for Paul and absolutely nothing else. Nina is filling up, but we don't know how many residues she has in her, how large they are, or how typical her space for souls is.

[–] rooprect 13 years ago

We are never told that 5% of a soul is lost in transfer. The only information that we have is that at least 95% of Paul's soul was extracted.

That's precisely what I meant. The chickpea represents only 95% of Paul's soul; therefore it lacks 5%. My mathematical analysis is of the chickpea. You mustn't confuse it with the residue left in the vessel (body).

You can argue that they don't count, but in the deleted scenes, we are shown Sveta's soul in a storage container.

While that's interesting, I do argue that deleted scenes don't count since they were usually removed for a reason. It's very possible that the director removed the scene because she wanted to show that the Russians were sloppy in their methods and heaped two souls on top of each other, as the final movie would imply.

I still don't see any fatal errors with my mathematical analysis. Granted, I made wild estimations, but the conclusion is valid: by the end of the movie, Paul's chickpea is a mixture of fragments, residue and impurities. That is why he and Nina share a common bond at the end.

[–] ppllkk 13 years ago

The first quote in my post is from KenyaOne. I am glad that you agree with me that he is wrong.

While that's interesting, I do argue that deleted scenes don't count since they were usually removed for a reason.

Certainly. We don't know for sure why it was removed. In listening to director's commentaries of other films, it seems that a major reason that something gets into the deleted scenes is that they liked the scene, but they felt that it interrupted the flow of the picture. (Length is another major reason but that does not apply here.)

I don't see any reason to believe that Sveta's soul was not removed, but I don't see any point to arguing about it if you're not convinced by the arguments that I've already given.

I am struck by the fact that you do not respond at all to the fundamental objection to your analysis.

Nina is filling up with soul fragments. If the soul extractor were removing not just the soul that she is transporting, but also a similar percentage of the fragments, she will not be filling up.

Can you refer to anything in the film that suggests that when a soul is extracted from a mule, the soul also contains a bunch of fragments?

At the end, Nina has a residue from carrying Paul's soul and a residue from carrying Olga's soul. Paul obviously has most of his own soul and most of Olga's soul. That is the bond.

[–] rooprect 13 years ago

Can you refer to anything in the film that suggests that when a soul is extracted from a mule, the soul also contains a bunch of fragments?

Not in the film but common sense. If you approach this scientifically, you can consider that Nina is a vessel just like a beaker in a lab. If you keep re-using the same beaker without thoroughly cleaning it, it will build up residue (as the movie implies happened to Nina). And each successive time you use that unwashed beaker, it will contaminate your solution with whatever residue it contains.

If I pour hydrochloric acid into a beaker, then pour it out, then (without washing the beaker) fill it with water, would you be willing to drink that water? Or would you agree that there is some hydrochloric acid contamination present?

Now consider that Nina the beaker has been used & re-used so many times that she is almost filled with goop & residue. Doesn't it make sense that the next liquid you pour into that beaker will be hopelessly contaminated? We don't need the movie to explicitly tell us this.

[–] ppllkk 13 years ago

You are still avoiding responding to my objection.

As I understand your position, Nina is at least to some degree being "cleaned out" each time a soul that she is carrying is extracted. You seem to believe, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that each time a soul is extracted from Nina, a bunch of fragments/residues of other souls comes along with the main soul.

I've gotten the impression you believe that the fragments of other souls that are being extracted with the main soul are large enough that they are an issue. If this is the case, how can the fragments be accumulating in Nina?

There is no issue of "contamination" or "gunk." We are talking about fragments of souls that are left over after extraction.

[–] rooprect 13 years ago

You are still avoiding responding to my objection.

No avoidance here; I think you're just missing the point I'm making.

I'll say it again: If you use the same beaker over & over without cleaning it, the beaker will eventually accumulate all sorts of gunk, as Nina did to the point of being filled with gunk. This beaker will contaminate any substance you put in it.

Or to put it in more direct terms: would you be willing to drink out of a toilet bowl? After all, it has been flushed since its last use, and 95% of the crap and urine has gone down the drain.

Now consider that Nina is a toilet bowl that hasn't been cleaned and has so much crud clinging to the rim that you can't even take a new dump in it. Wouldn't you say that it's bound to contaminate whatever you put in it? If your answer is still no, then drink away!

[–] ppllkk 13 years ago

You are reasoning by false analogy, and what you are saying has nothing to do with the situation in the film.

Would you care to respond to my observation that according to you Nina is being cleaned out by having fragments of previously carried souls extracted along with the soul that she is transporting?

I am beginning to suspect that you do not have an answer.

[–] rooprect 13 years ago

You are reasoning by false analogy, and what you are saying has nothing to do with the situation in the film.

Explain yourself. What is a "false analogy" about saying Nina is like a beaker?

I'll spell it out.

Nina is a vessel that transports souls.
A beaker is a vessel that transports liquids.
(A toilet is a vessel that transports sh*t.)

Nina has gotten gummed up with residue from all the souls she's carried.
A beaker has gotten gummed up with the residue from all the liquids it has carried.
(A toilet has gotten gummed up with the residue from all the sh*ts.)

Would you care to respond to my observation that according to you Nina is being cleaned out by having fragments of previously carried souls extracted along with the soul that she is transporting?

I've addressed that 3 times.

You're wrong; Nina is NOT being "cleaned out" with each extraction. Like the beaker in my analogy, nobody cleans it between uses, and that's how it gets gummed up. And with each successive use it contaminates whatever is poured into it.

If the beaker analogy is over your head, how about the toilet bowl analogy? You didn't respond to that, so I'll repeat the question: Would you be willing to drink out of a toilet bowl? Or will you finally admit that the residue left on the walls of a vessel is "an issue"?

[–] ppllkk 13 years ago

You're wrong; Nina is NOT being "cleaned out" with each extraction.

I don't believe that Nina is being cleaned out; you are the one who believes that.

In an earlier post, rooprect wrote:

...each time Nina transfers a soul, she's also transferring a percentage of "mule residue" along with it. Anyone who undergoes a soul implantation is getting a percentage of all the souls Nina has ever carried.

...every time a soul is transported it is diluted by 5% with mule residue...

So, according to rooprect, every time a soul is extracted from Nina, some percentage of all of the fragments that she carries are also being removed. One of the few things that we know for sure is that Nina is filling up with soul fragments. I have asked rooprect several times to explain why she is filling up if soul fragments are being removed as well as added, and he simply evades the issue.

Let me say again, there is absolutely nothing in the film to suggest that soul fragments are being extracted along with the main soul. Invoking "science" and "common sense" in support of this speculation is strikingly unconvincing given that the film has nothing to do with either science or common sense.

...every time it is implanted it loses another 5% of its mass and mixes with whatever is existing in the new host...

There is absolutely nothing in the film to suggest that there is any soul loss when a soul is implanted. There is absolutely nothing in the film to suggest that soul fragments "mix" with the main soul during the short time of transportation.

Maybe I have to say this: The soul extractor does not exist. All that we can possibly know about how the soul extractor works and what its effects are is what we are told in the film. Making reasonable inferences from what we are told is one thing; completely making something up is a different matter.

Paul's soul undergoes a total of 3 removals (losing 15% of its mass)...

The first of Paul's three removals leaves 5% of his soul in him.

As far as analogies go, souls in this movie are not liquids that mix easily and completely, and cannot then be separated out. We are told that in time souls can condense and coalesce in a person, but we are given no indication that this occurs while transporting a soul from Russia to the United States. There is no suggestion in the film that soul fragments "contaminate" anything. There is no suggestion that soul fragments are "gunk." There is no suggestion that Nina is being "gummed up." She is filling up with soul fragments and may not have room for her original soul.

At this point, I believe that enough information has been supplied that anyone who reads rooprect's first post and the replies to it should be able to make up their own mind whether or not his position makes any sense. I am quite content with that. That is all I really want.

[–] rooprect 13 years ago

I never said, implied or mimed that Nina is being "cleaned out", nor does the part you quoted suggest it in any way. Calm down, take a laxative and work on your reading comprehension.

[–] theunbeholden 9 years ago

True. however

"3 implants (losing an additional 15% of the remaining 85% = 12.75%) "

You say that implanting causes the soul to lose 5% its mass to the rest of the fragments? Thats never stated. Implanting works fine with 100% of that 95% placed into the body otherwise the container would not be empty. ie there is no losing addition percentage for implanting.

95% of soul Paul is taken out, placed into the Mule.
(95x0.05=4.75, 95-4.75=) 90.25% total of Paul's soul is taken out of the Mule and 100% of that %90.25 total is placed into Sveta, and then again 5% of it is left in Sveta when its transferred (90.25x0.05=4.5125, 90.25-4.5125=) 85.7375% of his total soul is left over hence why it look dried up. That is the correct math (because the machine doesn't know what the size of his original soul was when it was first extracted, so its leaving 5% in the patients body of what the soul CURRENTLY is...) and even then we are assuming its always at a 95% extraction rate (it could be lower sometimes, by how much we don't know and how often it differs).

"and every time a soul is transported it is diluted by 5% with mule residue".

Thats the only assertion that I would not outright object to I think. Yes you say its common sense and I think it might be possible that fragments are being removed along with a soul (we don't see evidence of this like any change in color but I can go with it)... that perhaps the 95% isn't just the main soul but also trace pieces of other souls mixed in with it which would make the math more complicated as we'd have to subtract 5% from the various residues (which would be 0.5% from each 5% residue, and total soul residue in one person would eventually make the total soul size in his/her body exceed 100% while some people would have less than 100% total soul size in them if they get a really dried up soul that underwent too many extractions... eventhough they themselves may have only had a 1 or 2 extractions done, so not having much soul residue to compensate for the weak dried up soul).

" Now consider that the chickpea also carries the Russian actress's original soul (I don't recall her original soul being removed before implantation of the chickpea)."

Sveta's soul is probably in storage, in some vault. Its ridiculous to think that a person could have 2 souls in their body. Its already established that someone can't get another soul if they go above a threshold of soul residue, its not stated what it is but lets say 21% residue and they try to get a soul implanted that is relatively new one at 95% total soul size. Its a tad disturbing really, but yeah the movie would never break its own rules by allowing 2 souls to co-exist. Fragments yes, but even then its limited in how much.

[–] hafeez112233-1 13 years ago

ok, I think this goes even further in a mathematical, metaphysical and spiritual sense!

A major metaphor for souls is the water and particularly the ocean...I am sure most of you have the concept that our "souls" are drops of water in the ocean, that our individuality is, in some sense an illusion.

This is, I think, the primary conceit of the movie, that we can trade our souls back and forth without loss of function, but with perspectives forever altered.

again, water is a common theme...I think when it is shown as ice, the indication is of frozen separateness, when liquid, as in the end, of connectedness.

Remember also the doctor saying that perhaps a soul could regenerate from a small residue...again bringing to mind the concept that all the universe is connected and that all information is available (and recoverable) from the smallest part...

A very thoughtful movie, intellectually and emotionally!

[–] jabberwalkie78 13 years ago

Couldn't the woman in the ending beach scene be Olga, the dead russian poet?

[–] dhnia 13 years ago

That's an interesting point!
Am I the only person who thinks that Nina is dead at the end?? They show her in the bathtub, smoking, and then her eyes stop moving (dead like) and they show Paul in a dreamy kinda sequence, as shown when he and also Nina were viewing into his soul. Furthermore, in this dreamy sequence (a look into the soul) he goes through a door and closes it behind him. I thought that was a metaphor for Nina dying....since the last (and most impacting) piece of soul in her was Paul's.

Then we see Paul (sorta looking like he's grieving - or just sad) going through the city and at the shore he seems to cheer up a bit when he sees a woman walking at the beach. We can't make out who she is, but it doesn't look like she's got blond hair. This is the part that is left to our imagination. I thought it was his wife. But I guess it could be an apparition of Olga, or even of Nina - though again, I've re-winded and watched it a few times, I really doubt she's got blond hair....but it's hard to say due to the lighting.

Anyways, I agree with the original poster that they do actually show an appreciation for what marriage really means, and that Paul does really love his wife!

[–] pswitzertatum 9 years ago

My husband and I enjoyed this quirky and strange film. Paul Giamatti was perfectly cast and did a fine, often hilarious, job, but the great Emily Watson was wasted in it. We expected that Paul would eventually bring to his role in the play a deeper understanding of Chekov's Uncle Vanya or something related to his acting "soul" but the movie just ended. It just died at the end in our opinion.

[–] walkerus 8 years ago

I agree, when you have such a deep and thought provoking story about swapping souls how do you end it? ...... Find a beach at sunset and merge a couple of people into the clouds.