MovieChat Forums > 2081 (2009) Discussion > Questions about the end (spoilers of cou...

Questions about the end (spoilers of course)

posted 14 years ago by Decoding
7 replies | jump to latest

I read the short story a while ago and i see that it's almost exactly the same in the film. I just have a few questions about something i don't remember i read. The button-control that Harrison had in his hand which he said it was for a bomb, it was actually to get the show back on the air, right? So, i assume that the killing of him and the dancer was not supposed to be on the air. I totally missed all that part when i first read it. I don't remember i read that they were trying to block it. But maybe i missed it or dont remember.

So i'm wondering about interpretations on the lady in black's face expression when she sees she's on the air when they were killed? Was it like "oops, they caught me"? Was there a change at the end from the beginning? I apologize if i don't make myself understood.

[–] scarlettbees 14 years ago

I just got through reading the story and watching the movie and the movie is definitely, if not a misinterpretation of Vonegut's story, a re-interpretation of it. Most likely the latter.

In the story, there is no bomb threat or device of any kind. Harrison simply jumps up on the stage and declares him self "the emperor," monologues about how exceptional he is like in the movie, tears off his handicaps, then says he needs an empress, wherein the ballerina voluntarily steps forward, takes off her handicaps, etc.

Whether or not those watching at home see what the handicapper general does is immaterial in Vonegut's story. Harrison's father, for example, sees everything happening to his son, but the high-pitched noise screaming through his headphones blocks his thought process, so his thoughts and feelings are soon faded into oblivion.

In the movie, we're to believe the fact that everyone saw what she did is going to have an effect. It gives a glimmer of hope that things may change. The story offers no such conclusion.

[–] Decoding 14 years ago

Wow, i hadn't noticed those differences. Like i said it's been a while since i read the story. In that case, as usual in these cases, the story itself is much more depressing than this movie version. Cause i didn't remember reading the details i saw in the movie. The mother is portrayed as someone really naive, no wonder there are no handicaps at all, as her dumbness is enough handicap for her. Maybe that's too rude but that's how i saw it. In the movie, the father sees everything and it seems that Harrison knows his father is watching him, judging by the way he stares at the camera, and he's the only one who knows he's on the air.

Anyway, i'm just rambling now. I was just puzzled by the details i saw there as opposed to the written version. And i agree that this movie version has a lot more hopeful ending than the story.

[–] txmacguy-147-563360 13 years ago

But it's not a hopeful ending!

George has his memory disrupted by his handicaps. The irony, the tragedy is that Harrison would rather die if he could not live free, and in the name of equality he is killed. He arranges for this to happen on live TV, but the very handicaps he is protesting erase the memory of his sacrifice.

"I dunno...something sad...on the tv..."

great ending, I thought.

[–] sweeterthancandy28 11 years ago

I do think it is hopeful. At least, it is more hopeful than the short story's ending. In the story, George has gone to get a beer by the end of the broadcast. It is unknown whether he even saw what happened to his son. Here, George sees everything from start to finish. If you recall, at the beginning of the film he begins to remember when the H-G men took Harrison away. And if you notice, his transmitter doesn't really seem to go off during the broadcast. It isn't until after the broadcast cuts away that his thoughts are interrupted. Perhaps, in time, he (and others) will remember what happened to Harrison, and what Harrison died for.

[–] genevaporter 10 years ago

It isn't exactly true that Mrs. Bergeron has no handicaps. Society in general handicaps her by discouraging from thinking or talking about anything meaningful. She is smart enough to do what is expected of her, which is to stay polite, obedient, cheerful, and unimaginative.

If she had grown up in a less restrictive world, she might have become a decently intelligent person, but any sense of curiosity and creativity was crushed before it had the slightest chance to develop.

[–] zacharywsnow 9 years ago

I think everyone is missing the true meaning of the ending. No, it's not faithful to Vonnegut's original. But it is most certainly hopeful, and I like it better. But it's very subtle. Here's why there's a light (and, incidentally, the theme song is called "Shine a Light"):

Hazel is not so simple. That's the subtle but beautiful twist this team puts on Vonnegut's original. At the end (final 15 seconds) she is humming the orchestra's song, despite having just said, "You should forget sad things anyway. I always do." It's an act. She doesn't forget anything, and she certainly hasn't forgotten Harrison. But if the HG can't detect her fierce intelligence and strong memory (she also perfectly hums the ballet song at the beginning while washing dishes), then she can avoid their handicaps. She's been playing dumb for years.

Another question: Why do you suppose she springs to her feet all flustered and says, "Well, I guess I'll go get started on the dishes" and runs the water loudly and seems distracted for 10 minutes doing dishes right after we learn that Harrison has "miraculously" escaped from custody? Because she helped him. Harrison's message wasn't for Dad. It was for her.

And to the original poster: Yes, he knew he'd die, and that was precisely what he wanted on camera. Not for Dad or the geniuses, but for the ordinary people whose memories can't be wiped out.

Whereas Vonnegut says we need to recognize true exceptionalism, the movie goes one step further and says that the exceptional should be allowed to shine, but it's the ordinary people who will overcome.

[–] FlamRatamacues 9 years ago

Interesting take on the story. I like this interpretation of the story.