That's not the point I'm trying to make. In the end, the wife is bleeding to death and after her son is already killed, she laughs maniacally and euphorically, vaguely insinuating that she might've been a part of the cult for some time (probably from being recruited by her friend Fiona). If this is the case, why would she shoot her cult members? Was it because she loved her family more than her religion? If she really was innocent in all this, how was she such a good shot? And how was she such a cold-blooded killer (i.e. no emotion or remorse after shooting people in their heads).
Apparently the director said she laughs in the end from sheer shock and disbelief, however I think that takes away from the film. Why would he clarify the ending so transparently? That would be like Scorsese, in regards to Shutter Island, saying: 'Just to clarify the ending, Leo doesn't know he's crazy.'
I get the irony of it all: the husband becomes more and more violent after he has a taste for blood. He gets marked down by the cult-member Fiona after he abuses his wife, presumably because Fiona saw potential in his increasingly aggressive nature. His violence ends up killing/sacrificing his own wife and son, as planned by the cult, and now he is the new cult leader. The cult members wanted someone ruthless to take control of their ritualistic traditions, and knew he was cold enough to take that role.
But why explain the ending in black and white if it literally takes away from the film? So I'm supposed to believe she's some normal housewife that laughs when her son is stabbed to death by her father? Now, the audience is left with no imagination and no ambiguity to analyze. Note that all the classic novels are left ambiguous; that is because we like to look into things and use our imagination to tie the story all back together. However, when a movie's ending, which is filled with plot holes, gets explained that there is no deeper meaning, it really is a shame. So, instead of guessing that the wife might be some kind of ex-hitman in secret, I'm supposed to believe she picked up a gun for the first time ever and gunned down several intruders with pinpoint accuracy and with complete composure?
My theory was that the cult recruits killers, and that she was an ex-hitman in secret; when a cult finds out your loved one is also a killer, the two of you are placed into a deathmatch, as a means to say: You are your worst enemy. The loser would be the sacrifice (an honorable death, which might explain her happily laughing) and the winner gets crowned the new leader, for having sacrificed your own loved ones. She knew they would try to capture her and her son for the deathmatch, so she tried to kill them off with the pistol. This theory would explain almost every plothole, but I guess I'll try and fathom how a normal loving mother would emotionlessly gun down several men and laugh when her only child gets stabbed to death...
reply
share
wildblueyonder
9 years ago
there is no deeper meaning, it really is a shame.
Personally I don't think that's a shame at all... Maybe the deeper meaning is that there isn't any deeper meaning. Or that we are not privy to it. Or most of us aren't....
Loved this film its very thought provoking. I used to have a girlfriend who, during intense arguments, would sometimes burst into laughter. She didn't know why (but was it ever infuriating!). Point being there is plenty of latitude for interpreting Shel's laughter at the end.....
To me it seemed that the whole purpose for building the relational foundation of the movie in the beginning was to set up the ending. The two (Shel and Jay) clearly have a close bond but also an emotionally unstable one, and its center is their child. It seems to be clear that Shel knows her husband was a hit man. Not sure why many here seem to assume she didn't. AND she wants him to work.... which he hasn't done in 8 months. The irony of course is that to a degree her nagging is what causes her fate, and his violent and emotional nature his. These facts and the sheer horror of her end send her into manaical laughter... It makes sense to me that the director wouldn't want that missed.
FYI haven't seen Shutter Island but I guess now I know the end - please be considerate with your spoilers....
reply
share
clemmysl
9 years ago
Oops sorry about that. If it helps, that isn't actually the ending, but a mere interpretation.
I can somewhat fathom the maniacal laughing by the wife but how is she a perfect shot? She guns down several 'professionals' with pinpoint accuracy in the pitch dark. This goes back to my theory that she is/was in fact once a killer, which would explain her skills and the fact that she encouraged her husband's job. But even an ex-hitman would be rusty and/or hesitant with her shot, so my theory is far from filling in the holes. In either case, this is rhetorical because I'm giving the film too much credit for being deeper than it really is.
reply
share
ThatNoodleLizard
9 years ago
It's discussed early on in the film that she was in the Swedish national service, so probably had weapons training. Also her husband's a *beep* hitman, he probably taught her a thing or two.
reply
share