I was just curious what your interpretation of the ending was?
I had to watch it and re-wind to find clues before I figured it out.
Please when you post spoilers make sure you state so!
Cheers
Baby, that was money! Tell me that wasn't moneyshare
so what was it?
So, maybe I'm off base here. But after scouring the internet a bit for some help, I think I finally came to a realization. I'd really rather have people retrace my steps to said conclusion. So, I'm going to point out things that helped me. The last spoiler below is my conclusion.
1.The biggest hint, for me, comes from Byron, the man in the trailer whose dog dies. Watch that scene again, if you can, and pay attention to what he's doing with the mirror as he... explains.
2.The story includes several other "stories" in the form of the various media that Michael is "lead to". From this, it's safe to assume there's something meta going on. You may to have to expand your rules of what's "allowed" to happen in a film.
3.We see that the lead characters are being filmed without seeing who is doing it. Before too long, possible endings of their own story are being revealed to the characters. It seems like everyone (even the lead characters) wanted a good solid ending. Why can't viewers just be satisfied with the ending they got?
4.The story is about a junkie. Perhaps you share some common ties with him? Did you want them to die? Did you want to see whatever was controlling the strange events? Do you want more answers about some of the strange characters? When will you be satisfied?
5.In the final scene, it seems we're looking out at the lead characters from the perspective of the crazed, media-creating "power" that has been terrorizing them. Whose eyes are we looking from? Is anything really missing from this shot?
So, yeah. I think the viewers of the film are the "monster", the thing that Michael "doesn't want to bring home" to his family-to-be. Our addiction to stories brought this upon them. I think those French students may have unleashed some power that allowed us, the hungry viewers, to will the film into its existence. Or perhaps, this power already existed and they too were merely victims of some other story.
The fact that the end seems like an enraging, cliché cop-out just adds to this. They're not looking at some off-camera CGI creature in that last shot; They're looking at you!
No ending would have satisfied all viewers! Except, instead of an ending to the story of two friends, you are given another story: The story of the dilapidated house where the wills of media viewers/readers/listeners manifest horrific situations on unwitting victims.
That was what I felt too and u have expanded on it.
The final scene was them looking at us the viewers, hungry for drama.
I could not get what Mike said in the final scene. Was it, "Can we try another writer?" ???
If that was what he said then we can definitely say that not every viewer is satisfied with a ending of a film and in this case, the characters knew a happy ending was not the way to go.
What he says is "Can we try it another way"
shareIt seemed pretty clear to me that "Can we try it another way" was Mike referring to the fact that they had just escaped from two different possible endings (being beaten and apparently murdered in the cabin by the two junkies, as seen on the TV, then being shot by the Native Americans, as heard on the CD they find in the truck.)
When the fire monster or whatever rises from the burning cabin and seems about to kill them, Mike asks for another way to end their story. If he'd been able to make out what he was seeing on the film they found in the can (he said he could see the two of them standing in front of a fire), they might have been able to escape that ending too.
"Sex Cauldron?!? I thought they closed that place down!"
Agreed with ianhyphen about the monster/viewer theory and him saying "Can we try it another way?" was a question to both the viewer and the supernatural force.
Also agreed with Len-27 about the possibility of the last reel being played.
I believe all of that is exactly what is going on.
People hate what's popular and people jump on bandwagons. The rest of us are in the middle. Done.
The third part is how I see the ending, very good post ianhyphen!
sharereally interesting theory of this and it makes sense. i was a bit perplexed by it all but your explanation makes it seem a bit clearer in my head anyway!
shareso its just me that thing that "aliens" making the histories got mad for them to ruin the ending they wanted and appear to them has punishment?
shareNot only it makes sense, it also makes it a rip off of the Sopranos ending.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings
Yeah, I think this is the best take on it.
shareThis is very nice. thank you for this and hopefully more people see this.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
Only watched it one time through and that's a dope explanation, completely bumps my rating of this movie.
People hate what's popular and people jump on bandwagons. The rest of us are in the middle. Done.
http://www.ourmultiversesavior.org/
http://whatwasfound.wordpress.com/
http://www.byroncassel.com/
Thanks for the links. I enjoyed the movie.
shareI guess I have to disagree with everyone because to me it was obvious what all the clues and pics and drawings were indications of (especially the ones shown during the end credits)...a Native American Shape-shifter. they can be good and also very evil.
Manitou are the spirit beings of Algonquian groups of Native Americans. Manitou is similar to the East Asian qi, the Hindu Brahman or the Japanese kam.
I found this movie and the two lead actors very engaging.
9 lives 7 left
"The Fox Indians believed that the manitou dwelled in the stones of the sweat lodge. On heating the stove, the heat of the fire made manitou to come out from its place in the stones. " (from Wikipedia, about Manitou).
I agree with you, but also with the idea that the monster is, like a kind of Manitou god, the filmaker. Not the viewer, but the filmaker, the creator of the story.
Sorry for my english!
Here's my interpretation of the ending: It really chilled me with that eerie feeling... that this is 1,5 hours of my life I'm not getting back.
Let me extrapolate:
If some of you are right, we're the entity watching these 2 for our entertainment and insatiable craving for storytelling, in which case we should definitely insist they "try it another way"... and then wake us up when it's actually entertaining or scary.
Or...there is an ancient Indian shape shifting ghost/monster behind all this, with some killer internet skills, and one hell of an editing, sound recording, distribution facility, coupled with a disturbing hipster slant towards obsolete media formats... in which case, I will sacrifice my entire Super 8 collection to it, as an offering to demand a better movie.
Really enjoyed this film. My wife was left dumbfounded, but my two sons & I spent ages afterwards dissecting it, until it occurred to us that....
... maybe we're missing the point in trying to draw meaning from, and fill in the gaps for a film that was deliberately designed to fall short of a... resolution (sorry!).
Could be that...
- after Chris runs back towards the burning house, their time to be off reservation runs out. Which may explain why Chris apologizes to the ‘thing’
- when Mike says laughingly "Hey, we gave that thing a story with a happy ending", the ‘thing’ is unhappy with this outcome and destroys them
- they were doomed regardless, which may or may not have been revealed on the part of film Mike didn't look at
- they aren't actually destroyed, and the film just runs off reel, in keeping with the ‘film within a film’ theory
What made me settle on a "fourth-wall" theme above any other is the scene in the trailer. Beyond the disappointingly transparent "film/membrane" play on words (which itself is a pun), when Byron is flipping the mirror and it finally rests so we see Mike's face, what would the actor playing Mike have seen in the mirror? As if to say, "Of course we're here for the entertainment of others... can you not see the camera?" I do hope that was intentional, because I thought it was a little gem!
All I know is if I have to go online and read thoughts and Ideas about what the ending means, then there is something seriously wrong in the story itself. I liked the film, I liked the dialogue, I liked that crazy stuff that was happening. What I didn't like is best buddy coming to save the day never ever showed any emotion throughout the whole film. From the time we see him, till the end, he was the same mono character. He kinda got boring for me. I mean if some *beep* was going down like that, I be like, yo bro, some serious stuff is going on. Be he was like, this is odd, its weird but I will stay. Kinda goes against reality.
My biggest problem is WHY? I am a pretty savvy viewer, I usually get the story at the end unless there is not one. We never learn anything about why it happened. We can sit here and think on it and weigh in our thoughts, but since we have to do that, the film makers failed in telling a complete story. I am also an indie film maker and it says this film costs a million bucks to make.. WHERE? This film can be made better, with better visuals, actors(which i liked for the most part) for 100 grand. EASY. It also says it was filmed on the RED 1. If they shot on the red, then they also put a filter on it in post because it does not look like a RED. It looks like a DSLR. So there is some issues there.
I still say there is a wonderful story here, just not fully realized.
All I know is if I have to go online and read thoughts and Ideas about what the ending means, then there is something seriously wrong in the story itself.