MovieChat Forums > En tu ausencia (2008) Discussion > Great Movie! But Questions About the End...

Great Movie! But Questions About the Ending... (CONTAINS SPOILERS!)

posted 15 years ago by ToAsToAsT
17 replies | jump to latest

**CONTAINS SPOILERS BELOW!**

I really liked this movie... alot! It was well-done and had a great plot. But what exactly happened at the end? (Maybe a dumb question?) Pablo didn't "shoot" Paco, but Paco was believed to be dead. But at the very end, Paco is telling the adult Pablo the "story." I got the part about Paco and Pablo's father liking Pablo's mother years before (probably at the same time) but is that the only reason why Paco came back? Did he already know that Pablo's father was dead before he showed up? (He must have if he wanted to be with Pablo's mother, right? And their "togetherness" was all planned out well in advance, is that right too?)

I thought this was indeed a great movie, but I was a little stumped at the end. Any clarifications would be appreciated!

[–] Zombieaddicted 15 years ago

I was confused as well and would like a explanation too please. I thought it was a pretty good film.

Surprised how good the film looked for a budget of $500,000.

[–] Uneken 15 years ago

I don't think the budget was as much as 500.000 dollars, much less I believe!!

FotoFilmVideo
Production Services in Spain

[–] ynoel-2 15 years ago

Hi Toast,
Ok, so here we go...
As I see it the story before the shooting goes like this:
Paco and the boy's father were friends in the army (as Paco tells Pablo in the cemetry scene). They both met and fell in love with the same woman.
Then (as paco tells the older Pablo at the end of the film) the boy's father was 'faster than he was', meaning he got the mother pregnant first.
Paco gave up, until he learnt of the accidental death of the father, at which point he would visit the mother (his old flame) not in the village, but in a nearby town (which is why the postman at the lake states he was seen in 'Jerez').
The boy, far too close to his father, and protective, would not allow a perfect stranger to enter his home and replace his dad, so they planned that Paco should first 'seduce' the boy to be allowed to enter his home. A job Paco does far too well, on very fertile terrain.
At the end Pablo, beyond furious at the betrayal, is on the verge of killing him, before the postman takes over. We suppose Paco dies, but doesnt, and is seen 10 years later old and in a wheelchair. At which point he recounts the past events to a grown up Pablo.

but...
there IS another possible explanation:
Paco could be Pablo's father.
He would have met the mother during the father's life (a seriously flawed man!) and fathered Pablo. This would give another valid reason for him to meet up with Pablo again.
Pablo might have even sensed this: in the final betrayal scene he cries 'dad, dad' as he sees him laying on the ground. We are allowed to think that Paco may indeed have been his dad.
(or Pablo might simply have been calling on his dead father for help.Or seen Paco as a father-figure).
Point is that, dad or not dad, Paco stole the boys heart. A heart that remains stolen 10 years on. It's up to us to decide what kind of feelings was in that heart of Pablo's.

[–] Zombieaddicted 15 years ago

Thanks ynoel-2!

[–] ToAsToAsT 15 years ago

Thanks so much! What you said really makes alot of sense! This was indeed a GREAT movie!

[–] danny_b_va 15 years ago

When Pablo said dad dad I though he was having a "flashback" of sorts to his dad's accident.

I don't give a damn about sports.
Mayo is sick.

[–] ynoel-2 15 years ago

'flashback'...?

well, yeah!
It hadn't even occured to me that idea, and I'm the one who made the damn thing!

It almost sounds like the most probable theory to me now. Thanks.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jm10701 15 years ago

I'm a Psychologist, and that is what I understood at the end, that the kid was detaching from reality to see the second parental figure laying dead on the ground. In essence he was not having a flash back but a nervous break down which temporarily detached him from reality. a very common reaction to trauma that in a way is repeating it self... specially since he was relatively responsible in both cases, or at least felt that way.

Please forgive me if I'm just being cynical, but I question your claim to be a "Psychologist," if by "Psychologist" you mean a licensed or otherwise certified professional holding one or more advanced degrees in psychology who is engaged in professional mental health counseling or research. I question that claim for the following reasons:

1. You inappropriately capitalized the word "psychologist."

2. You used "laying" where you should have used "lying."

3. You diagnosed a "nervous break down," which is not a term normally used by mental health professionals.

4. You misspelled "breakdown."

5. You misspelled "flashback."

6. You misspelled "itself."

If you truly are a professional psychologist, but in a country where different professional terminology applies, or if you made those errors simply because English is not your first language or because you have a communication disability, then I apologize very sincerely.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] haileybaron 13 years ago

How riDICKulous is this!?
Do you think they teach grammar and give spelling tests in medical school!? Lol

My father is an MD and he is the WORST speller I know.
My mother jokes about it all the time and his friends make fun of him too when they get his emails.

Some people are just bad spellers.
I think you should go see a psychologist and find out why you felt the need to go to this extent to discredit a person on imdb?
I mean really. Make a LIST of all his errors?!
Is it because you feel the need to feel superior to this person?
Very strange...

[–] daddyd-2 15 years ago

The first thing that flashed in my mind when Pablo says 'dad, dad' at the end was that Pablo had been carrying this guilt for the death of his father and was now feeling responsible for the shooting as well. A flashback of sorts making him feel guilty for yet another death, even though Paco didn't really die.

[–] Chapaev36 14 years ago

Thanks for the insights.

I have to say that I was a bit disappointed in the revelation about Paco and the mother. Mostly because it made the relationship between he and Pablo seem less meaningful than seemed. I suppose that's the point, but I really felt for Pablo.

I was half-hoping that the car's breakdown was accidental and the meeting in fact by chance. That said, Paco's sudden interest in the boy would have been somewhat strange perhaps (I am not sure whether this would be interpreted differently in other cultures), but it would have left for great ambiguity in terms of what Paco's feelings for Pablo.

But those words of Paco when he says that he finds Pablo "a little strange" were crushing. Suddenly the relationship becomes not what it may have seemed. Pablo's emotional reaction in this respect may have been somewhat justified, all of this considered.

I loved the film, but the final revelation just did not resonate with me. I could not believe it. Paco's dismissive comment about Pablo in particular. Maybe it was something I missed, I am not sure.

I think the thing that probably threw me off the most was the implied moral matter of an unusual relationship between a man and an adolescent. The mailman's skepticism and the townfolks' attitude seemed to work towards developing a dilemma about this. And suddenly all of this was completely shot by the discovery that Paco's goal was primarily to reunite with the mother. Considering this, the relationship was stripped of all meaningfulness. Maybe that's the point - we see what Pablo thinks he sees.

Anyway, these are my feelings of disappointment. I expected an examination of a relationship and got something else. But I should add that I was disappointed in a good way. I was engrossed, which means that the film really took me in. So I quite liked it, even though I'm still not sure how to react to the ending. Took me by surprise. I'll keep reading the comments here.

[–] ynoel-2 14 years ago

Hi there,
There as many ways of seeing the film, as many reactions to it, as many variables as there are viewers. Each one sees a film through his/her filters, cultural, personal, space and time.
This is why it is so usual that poeple vote a film 10 and others 0.
Films that are unanimously liked are only films that people like because they are considered 'classics'.
No one for example would dare say they don't like 'The Godfather'. Poeple like it because they HAVE to like it. Plenty of films of the times were better, but that got the vote of the famous, and so it stands.
With this in mind, I can only say what I myself wanted to express - whether it worked or not.
Two points on your comments:
- The REAL twist intended in the film was not so much the 'turn around' of Paco, but rather the way the entire story turns around: by the end it is no longer what Paco feels or doesn't for Pablo, but what Pablo himself felt. We spend the whole film seeing Pablo as a silent helpless potential victim. At the end it becomes his active feelings that become the focus.
That is where the question lies, so it is, in a way, irrelevant that Paco didnt turn out to be something he wasn't.
- The other thing is: don't forget that Paco is not speaking to Pablo in the end of the film. He doesn't know he's there. If he was aware, he wouldn't have spoken that way about him, in that flippant style. People adapt their conversation about others according to whom they are with. Paco is sort of 'showing off' in front of his woman, to the expense of Pablo (his father, the postman, and the villagers).
People are nearly always two-faced, depending on the situation. Paco is in a post-coital almost macho 'high'. It struck me as being as brutal as a real way of expressing himself. We know nothing of him all through the film, we never see his real side. We certainly do by the last few minutes of the film!

Hope that was useful.

[–] Chapaev36 14 years ago

Thank you for your comments, Ivan.

It feels great to interact with the filmmaker like this. I am very happy and feel privileged to have the opportunity.

You are, I think, correct that the way we see films is, at least in part, shaped by our own experiences - and therefore we have our own expectations and form distinct interpretations.

I, personally, never saw Pablo as a potential victim and, for me, his feelings were central throughout the film. The interesting part was trying to "unscramble" Paco and figure out what his role in the relationship was, and thus make sense of the relationship. In other words, the feelings of both characters are crucial - those of Paco were more ambiguous. We gradually get more and more inferences about what shaped Pablo by means of flashbacks. Paco is, conversely, completely distant from us.

Due to the fact that we invest so much in Pablo and know of what he assumes about the relationship, the final revelation becomes quite crushing. At least this is what I can say of my own reaction.

It is interesting how different people can have such different interpretations, including the filmmaker himself!

I saw the trailer for your next film and I hope I can find the film soon. Take care.

[–] ynoel-2 14 years ago

This is the best example of what i said: you way of having seen the film differs greatly from the vast majority.
Because, it is evident that from the moment Paco appears most poeple (we do live in that kind of climate) see Pablo as a victim, and only a victim. So much a victim that not only are his thoughts on the matter irrelevant to most poeple, but it would be quite unthinkable that Pablo harbour anything but basic puppy kind of affection for a possible replacement father.
Sadly we often see this repeated over again on the news: when they talk of kids, or crimes against them, or similar, the actual kid's point of view is strictly of no relevance at all, and we never hear it. His/her thoughts don't form part of the moral structure in place.
So, well done for feeling empathy for Pablo!

[–] JeffL1965 14 years ago

Interesting point, Ivan. And I agree with you. I felt it was pretty obvious from the bedroom masturbation scene that Pablo was torn between Paco and Julia, just that Julia showed a sexual interest in him, yet Paco didn't. Considering how selfish predatory Paco is, it is interesting that he didn't use Pablo's desire for his own advancement. But after hearing Paco call Pablo strange, makes me wonder. Did he say so to set up Pablo so that if they are caught in an encounter that the blame goes to Pablo? Does Paco sense Pablo's nascent sexuality? I'm curious myself about both Paco and Pablo. It makes me hate Paco for being so predatory and selfish to use a child, even to the point of taking advantage of one sexually as well as emotionally, to get what they want. Paco is truly a dog! I really hope that Pablo was able to overcome the damage done to him by Paco. :(