It just wasn't what everyone expected. Actually, the Woman in Black, in return for Arthur retrieving her son from the bog and giving him a decent burial, returned Arthur's son, little Joseph, to HIS mommy. And Arthur, too, was reunited with his departed wife, whom he had missed so terribly.
share[deleted]
Oh. :-) Well, I assume you're right, as I haven't listened to the commentary. Thanks for explaining. I had to read the plot synopsis in Wikipedia after seeing the film... And I can't recall any part of the film, itself, revealing the director's/screenwriter's intention, regarding the WIB, (aside from vengeance and madness).
However the atmosphere, music, cinematography, and acting made the film enjoyable enough. I suppose the plot murkiness might even go along with the whole spooky dream quality of it. And figuring out the intentions of the Woman in Black would be literally like pulling the boy from the mud. So, in that sense, I guess it all fits.
I prefer my take on the ending, though. Makes more sense. But then it's a supernatural film, and one shouldn't expect any sense to it at all, and I'm with Mr. Daily on that.
And after all the effort and thoughtfulness that Kipps put in, too... the reunion 'not working' just seems rather pointless. :-)
[deleted]
I've just watched this for the first time and I had no idea what the writer and the director had said about the ending.
Throughout the film, the WIBs rage was fueled not only by the fact that her son died, but also because the people who were supposed to be his 'parents' didn't do anything to save him. I thought that her curse was going to be broken by the fact that Arthur died trying to save his son. In fact, till the moment she turned to look at the camera, I could have sworn she was smiling. I figured it would end with something to show that she was at peace now.
On the whole, I really liked the film, but I was really disappointed by that last shot of her still being evil.
Bet your life there's something killing you
[deleted]
It definitely isn't perfectly clear, it's open to interpretation, which is what the director actually says on the commentary. Grayseph (poster above) misrepresented the commentary with his/her comments; they were not anywhere near as detailed as to what they thought or intended the audience to believe.
shareYou are misrepresenting their commentary by adding a lot of words; the director and producer weren't anywhere near as detailed with their intentions. They barely stated what their intentions were with the ending (they made one brief statement apiece), and the director clearly stated that the ending was open to interpretation, and the writer's first comments addressing the ending was that A LOT (verbatim) of people interpret the ending as the Woman in Black thanking him. The writer said she liked the ambiguity that was left by that.
share[deleted]
I didn't misrepresent anything; in fact, you just reaffirmed what I said the first time.
Just as I said, the director and writer said one sentence apiece on their intentions on the ending, thus barely mentioning them. They certainly didn't provide the elaborate paragraph that you posted before.
Also worth noting is that the subject was initiated by the screenwriter stating that a lot of people interpret the ending as the Woman in Black doing it to thank him, indicating that impression has obviously been popular for it to have been the catalyst to mention the end's interpretation to begin with.
And again, what director Watkins clearly says at the end is: The ending is definitely open to interpretation, the thing is, the Woman in Black is still out there, looking at you.
[deleted]
SPOILERS!!!
The ending is actually confusing me. I'm trying to figure out if indeed she was trying to reunite him with his wife, and the son with his mother. HOWEVER, in the final shot of the house, you clearly hear Jennet whisper, "Never forgive. Never forgive. Never forgive." So by the time Arthur is reunited with his son on the platform, and Joseph gets that look on his face and wanders off along the tracks, and Arthur finally sees him and tries to save him, thereby causing them both to die, and they are reunited with the his wife, I began to look at it as the wife being their "saviour," and The Woman in Black having been thwarted in her revenge, and NOW possibly the cycle of revenge having been broken because of it.
Because upon first thought, I, like many of you, thought The Woman in Black was doing her version of a "thank you" for being reunited with her son, but then I thought back to her repeated, "Never forgive," as stated above, and I began to wonder (as said above) if she merely wanted revenge again. Because the look on her face upon seeing him walk away with his wife and son and being happy, clearly made her UNHAPPY.
So I now interpret the ending as her being in an endless cycle of rage and revenge, with the possibility (as said above) that the cycle may finally have been broken thanks to Arthur and Joseph's reunion with Arthur's wife. Seeing as they're the only ones to have died at TWiB's hands but not being "lost" as the other children seem to be who died at her hands.
You're only confused because you haven't decided for yourself what the ending means. You can interpret it any way you choose.
shareSo by the time Arthur is reunited with his son on the platform, and Joseph gets that look on his face and wanders off along the tracks, and Arthur finally sees him and tries to save him, thereby causing them both to die, and they are reunited with the his wife, I began to look at it as the wife being their "saviour," and The Woman in Black having been thwarted in her revenge, and NOW possibly the cycle of revenge having been broken because of it.Just watched it, and that was my take. The stories dovetail very neatly.
[deleted]
I don't think that sequel's ever getting made.
Well... maybe if it's straight to Blu-Ray.
The kids are a mess! You brought them home exhausted and pretentious!
I never thought of that.
What I got from the ending was that after death, Kipps and his son were together and they were reunited with Mrs. Kipps.. However, even though the WIB is dead, she has never been reunited with her son. Her wrath and her will to never forgive has kept her in limbo. She tries to fill the void by collecting other dead children but that doesn't sate her because she so desperately wants to see her son again.
Arthur did try to help her, but he did not give her what she truly wanted. It seems like no one could; her hatred for the village that had stolen her son is impenetrable. The sad part is that what's really keeping her back is that if she could let go of her hatred, she could move on to the next plane and see her son.
So watching the Kippses walk off together as a happy family must have been a bittersweet torture for her, and it indicates that while Arthur Kipps's struggle is over, the WIB is stuck in the same place and children will continue dying.
OOOh! I was just about to write something similar to this. Having just seen the movie my interpretation is this:
I'm assuming the movie has Heaven/Hell or Limbo type afterlives.
WIB has turned totally evil and doomed herself by taking revenge on a bunch of innocents (either to Hell or Limbo) and thus will never be reunited with her son, because as an innocent his soul has already been sent to Heaven.
So she goes on killing, and kills Arthur and his boy. After Arthur and his boy are dead they no longer see WIB because she's in Hell or Limbo - and being good people they've gone to Heaven with Mrs Arthur.
It's still a sad ending because Arthur was doing his darndest to keep his boy alive. Even if they both go to Heaven with Mrs Arthur/Mom it's still sad because the boy never got to grow up etc.
And WIB will probably never stop killing innocents.
Anyway, that's just how I saw it. WIB is a B****.
I like your comment, genevaporter, because it adds a sort of depressing twist to the haunt. This woman is so consumed in her revenge that she stops caring about the son, and cares only about her anger. This is the point at which she truly loses her son, and that's sad.
I had thought that seeing a parent sacrifice himself to save his child--the very thing Nathaniel's adopted parents didn't do--would allow the WIB to get some peace, but even this doesn't seem to placate her as our last view of her suggests.
I like when people can debate an ending (or any other aspect of a movie) rather than getting caught up in "what the director said." I don't want to get all Stanley Fish on everyone, but director commentaries and interviews are a relatively recent thing. I find it ridiculous when a director tries to build up this huge backstory or supplementary narrative, or cram his own interpretation down a viewer's throat.
If they want an ending to be interpreted a certain way, then script a clear ending--don't make an ambiguous ending then insist in the commentary that it must be interpreted a certain way!
This is particularly true of horror and sci-fi movies. I just watched Prometheus and tried to read the IMDB boards, but was immediately turned off by the way that the 'viral marketing campaign' and director commentaries changed the movie into something very different from what I just saw.
__ __ __
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"--Pres. Merkin Muffley
I had a similar thought but thinking about it now, if that scenario is true, it's pretty harsh on the kid. I mean he's denied his whole life because the only way she could say thanks to the dad is to kill them both.
After all, he would've been reunited with his mother eventually regardless so either way, the WIB comes off as a bit of a bitch.
I was glad they didn't wimp out with the utterly predictable and boring Hollywood ending, but that alone wasn't enough to make the film especially original.
Their ghoul was utterly true to form, an implacable force of evil that couldn't be magically transformed into rainbows and bunnies.
[deleted]
Yeah, in retrospect, I agree. It was only slightly less boring and predictable than usual. The ending didn't really matter to me anyway because the characters hadn't engaged my emotions throughout the film. As with most ghost films the potential for originality was wasted. Haven't seen The Innkeepers. Will go check that out.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Jesus. Pay attention.
shareI think you're forcing that interpretation onto it. At least I don't think it was implied that that's what the WiB was trying to achieve; we hear her malevolently whispering "never forgive" after they leave, and I don't think it's implied she meant for Arthur to die trying to rescue his son.
share