cruel film (Major Spoiler)


I must say, I felt it is a very cruel film. artistic, beautiful, oscar-performance by Rush, nonetheless, cruel.

I felt very sorry for Virgil; he spent his life alone, looking for what he considered to be true love (as cheesy as it may sound, it seems he never was with a woman because he felt that he should wait for the "one", and he referenced this when he mentioned that his paintings told him to wait for the "one")

I really felt bad and discombobulated after watching it. It left me with an absurd, unpleasant feeling. Perhaps because i am dealing with an emotional struggle of my own.

Beautiful, artistic, well done, but cruel.

reply

I agree with you. The ending is cruel. I respect you for your ability to judge the film objectively, even though you found the ending to be very cruel.

In my opinion, Virgil kind of deserved it. He hates people, treats them badly, lies to even the one he's close to or cares about. He lied to fake Claire several times in the film. He's distrusting, arrogant and selfish.

Nonetheless, in the end of the film he still has a lot of money, which is more than what Jasmine in Blue Jasmine had at the end. I mean, he still has hope if you think about it.

I would also suggest you look at the film once more from the perspective of another character. Take Lambert's character for instance. He's worked for Virgil for years, and had been married for 30 years. But Virgil never bothered to ask about his life, that he was surprised to know that Lambert was married. Take Billy's perspective for instance. He's supposed to be Virgil's best friend. But he's always bullied and mocked by him even though all he was trying to do was help him. How would you feel if you've been working as an artist for decades, and someone keeps telling you that you suck at it.

People didn't talk as much about how cruel it is for Richie DiMaso in American Hustle when he got swindled at the end, his career ruined and his love life too. Because he's not the main character. What I mean is, when you focus on a character less, you'll care less about them. Then you realize that it's just a matter of perspective and that life can be cruel or kind to everyone.

reply

eloquent reply and excellent points.
This raises several philosophic/moral questions, though;
Is being arrogant/nasty justify the act of robbery or retribution in this very below the belt way?
Billy and Lambert could have always left the condescending Virgil at any point, I do agree he was arrogant and belittled these people, however, we can see that he was generous with Billy for instance (when he tripled the amount of money he gave him for one of their scheme)

Lets think about it; here is a someone who for once in his life experienced love (and evidently for the first time been with a woman) to the point where he sacrifices his privacy and years of cold-distancing himself from others, here he is tricked and robbed from two of the most important (if not "the" important) things in his existence: his love and his only valuables.

I loved your comparison to American Hustle, Indeed, I did not feel sorry at all at the detective in the film (what a wonderful comparison you did, bravo); however i feel i am able to defend myself, is the DiMaso was just so self-absorbed & black-mailing other people, i.e. "forcing harm to be inflicted" on the hustler and his girl, while virgil never forced harm into anyone.

Another great example is jasmine; yes, the ending was cruel, but i was not sad about her because she was the one who reported her husband to the FBI! I found myself sorry for her and how she ended alone, but always reminded myself that it was her wrath and foolishness that caused her to be in that place.

sorry for the long reply, and thanks for the excellent discussion

reply

Hi, sorry for the very late reply. I was pretty much occupied in the last few days.

Is being arrogant/nasty justify the act of robbery or retribution in this very below the belt way?

No, sir, it doesn't. I'm sorry I wasn't clear in my previous post. When I said "Virgil kind of deserved it", I didn't mean it's okay to rob him like that. I was just too lazy to explain that Virgil did somehow inflict it upon himself by the way he treats Billy (and further, by the way he tried to manipulate 'fake' Claire). However, his character or behavior does not, in any way, justifies robbery or other crime towards him. I was only trying to make a point that since most viewers don't find it cruel when it's the 'anti-hero' who experiences unpleasant things, therefore the film's overall score should not be judged entirely according to the viewer's emotional feeling for a particular character. I'm not against basing one's opinion of a film on how much they can relate to the main character. But at least, take a careful look on the bigger picture first.

Billy and Lambert could have always left the condescending Virgil at any point, I do agree he was arrogant and belittled these people, however, we can see that he was generous with Billy for instance (when he tripled the amount of money he gave him for one of their scheme)

Good point. No argument on this one.

Lets think about it; here is a someone who for once in his life experienced love (and evidently for the first time been with a woman) to the point where he sacrifices his privacy and years of cold-distancing himself from others, here he is tricked and robbed from two of the most important (if not "the" important) things in his existence: his love and his only valuables.

Again, I agree with you that it is cruel indeed (but maybe not on the level of cruelty). I guess he could have inflicted that much of hatred in Billy from all the years of their relationship, or Billy's just a really daft arse, or a combination of both. In the film, we see on many occasions Billy was put down by Virgil, and Billy did express his feeling about Virgil's lack of faith on his works of art which could imply that that had a huge impact on his life or career. There's always two (or more) sides of a story. What if the film revolves around Billy's character, maybe starts from his early 20s where he was a young promising talent who had to suffer years of bad review from his own best friend, Virgil. You could say that what Virgil did to Billy might be as cruel. It's just a matter of perspective. Same thing with what you said about DiMaso and Jasmine. Everyone finds their own certain criteria in film characters that helps them decide whether or not those people 'deserve' their cruel fate. This criteria differs from one person to another. Therefore, some people might say different things about the ending. That's why I think how a viewer feels about the main character and/or their ending can not be a proper measure of how good or bad the film is.

The next paragraphs are not related to the main topic, however I'd like to give my opinion on DiMaso and Jasmine.

First, from what I gather, and I agree with you, Richie DiMaso was too self-absorbed and ambitious. But I don't think there's any intention on causing harm to anyone other than to arrest the bad guys. Or he could have ignored the possibility of inflicting harm because he was too ambitious. Still, there's that line between a murderer and a killer.

Second, Jasmine's ratting out her husband to the FBI can be viewed as a negative action, and a positive action as well. Try this perspective: She wasn't the one who scams people off their money. Telling the FBI about it can be viewed as a good thing. She was lied to and cheated on by her husband many times. I'm guessing she felt really stupid and mad to learn about how many times her husband had cheated on her from another woman. Then again, she could have been happy when she moved in to Ginger's. But she screwed that up by being a conceited jerk.

In comparison, Virgil's fate was somehow better than Jasmine. He can still afford tickets to Prague, he still has his huge 'empty' house, and a surviving reputation.

sorry for the long reply, and thanks for the excellent discussion

No problem at all. It's been a pleasant experience reading your writing.

reply

How do know she didn't show for him at the end. I think she fell for him also. Plenty of sings pointed to this.

reply

I know it's a movie but what was he thinking? A super-hot young girl which can be his grand-daughter will fall in love with his old ass? He got what he deserved. Plus, he was a con artist himself. Karma!!

reply

*SPOILERS*

Plus, he was a con artist himself. Karma!!


Yes, people seem to forget this. He amassed quite a priceless collection by deeming the paintings fake so that Billy could buy them for him at a much reduced price.

That said, I did sympathize with him at the end. Perhaps because Geoffrey Rush played the role with such finesse, revealing the character's warm heart beneath his cold exterior. I thought it was very cruel that he should lose his prized collection as well as the love of his life--and then his sanity.

If you believe in karma, then he really got hit with it!






And all the pieces matter (The Wire)

reply

Why not? Such thing happen.

Your right, he also was criminal, but that was "only" economic loss, he never hurted anyone directly with that, what that women (do we know her real name) Billy and the other guy did is much worse IMO. They betrayed him, played with his feelings, otheres would commit suicide because of that.

reply

lol the italian school of drama. Great film. thanks for reviving the thread.

reply

I share your feelings, your discombobulation. I would have liked a better ending, but I am grateful they didn't throw on a happy ending without the justification to get there. Geoffrey Rush was such a pleasure to watch and the story line they chose just wasn't going to end up at a happy place and I am glad they didn't try to force it there so he wasn't forced to compromise his portrayal of the character.

reply

The protagonist is an amoral character. He lies and steals his way through the first act. Then, the person he lies and steals with him stabs him in the back. The pro' got what he deserved, in my opinion.

Don't lie, don't steal and treat people with respect. That is the message I walked away with.

reply

yes, protagonist was unsympathetic & got his comeuppance. Glad to have witnessed it-- old criminal fool. Still good story.
But yeah, sorta saw it coming, not unpredictable in any sense. Of course this was coming!

reply

yes, protagonist was unsympathetic & got his comeuppance. Glad to have witnessed it-- old criminal fool.

Billy was also an old criminal fool. Where was his comeuppance?

reply

sorry, wish I could help ya out. Can't speak for others but seems obvious one won't remember a movie (much less a discussion thread related to it) written years ago. Barely recall the film itself.

reply

That's OK. The age of the discussion doesn't matter. The point was that his bidding accomplice, Billy, didn't have clean hands either, but the movie didn't punish him.

reply

Since Virgil acquired the paintings through dishonest means himself, I didn't really have much sympathy when they were stolen from him. It was basically a case of one thief robbing another (since Virgil's dishonest devaluations of the works amounted to theft).

The people who conned Oldman were despicable as all thieves and con-artists are despicable, but it isn't as though they were taking advantage of a decent, innocent man in the process.

reply

Of course in the end, it seemed like a very cruel film. But even in love, he was being dishonest. He didn´t even mention the automaton to Claire, he didn´t include it in the auction, he was actually stealing the most valuable thing in the whole lot of things!!!

Because of that, I think he did deserve his paintings to be stolen, the "material side" of the robbery. The "life ruined" though, that was cruel indeed.

reply

Agreed

reply

[deleted]