MovieChat Forums > Resolution (2013) Discussion > What did the ending mean to you?

What did the ending mean to you?


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 money

reply

My interpretation is that the viewers of the movie are part of the story itself from start to finish, all the video or media that they found are just a sort rappresentation of the viewer expectation about the plot unfolding, the characters anyway have they awareness and they got to save themself to all the situation that "we create for them". For example:

-at the start of the movie, we see Chris going around shooting, after that Micheal receive the video on his pc, i suppose that we (the viewers) are who "send" the video to Micheal;

-the death by the two drug addicted or by the indian guys, i mean...didn't you thought about it? Me of course, i think about they got killed by that people, but in some way Chris and Michael always got to save themself from death.

All the paranormal stuff is inserted slowly and in a smart way in the plot just to confuse the viewer but at the same time, this stuff work like "inputs", in this way you start to think about about monster, ufo, monsters and prepare you to "set-up" the ending.

In fact, only in the ending the fourth wall is really broken between the viewer and the movie characters.Some point about it:

1-One of the the last lines "seems we've found an happy ending"
I mean...i never thought about a happy ending, i really didn't want it also i think most of the viewers didn't want that.

2-The video effect after the happy ending line
It was pretty clear, at this point the fourth wall is broken, the effect really remeber the "membrane" that the man in the caravan was talking about.

3-The last line "Can we try it in another way" is Micheal that is just talking to the audience, that "way" is supposed to be an ending that satisfy both the audience and the characters.

So definitely we (the audience) are the villain in this movie and in the end we choose the most terrific way to be sure to bring the characters to a "bad end".


Good meta-movie by the way.
Oh and sorry for my english, it wasn't easy to explain


reply

riki_san said it best here, and other points have been covered quite well too by other posts on here.

I don't understand all that much why there is confusion here, the film does a good job explaining itself without resorting to overly-obvious exposition. I'm glad people have their own interpretation, but I feel the one mentioned by the majority of people on here is the one the film makers were going for, as there is evidence of that premise throughout the film.

Perhaps I've read too many books on Screenwriting to smell hidden exposition a mile away, as I found this film to present itself quite well. Without being confusing or resorting too much to exposition. Such as films like 'Inception' that rely on it.

To add to the points riki_san touched upon...


One Quote I find deserves a fun mention is...


Michael - ''Why would they just leave all that stuff, you know?''
Chris - ''Because they don't exist I think...''

These clues are just cannon fodder to move the plot forward, which is what WE as a viewer want or maybe they are missing because they somehow escaped this fiction.


Also

Chris - ''if someone is following us (that's us, the viewer) why don't you just uncuff me so we can get away from them?
Michael - ''Will you go into rehab?''

...because we won't be happy till he says yes, right?



Also.. as said before...the french man explains most of the premise..

French Man - ''I think if it is something, it is none of these things, or perhaps all of them? how does an isolated tribesmen in ecuador, know the difference between an alien, an angel and a ghost. He doesn't...but he tells a story..to make sense of the infinite.''

This implies that the true GHOST, ALIEN, GOD or ANGEL is that of us, the overseer. We are the ones lurking in the shadows of their fiction, watching, waiting for twists and turns in the fiction, be it cave drawings, written, or film...and essentially WE could be nothing more than characters in somebody else's fiction, and so on...into the infinite.


It is also worth a mention look at is this Cabin in the woods, along with the Caves in the surrounding area are a hotbed for this activity, because they are essentially tropes and cliches in which allot of fiction take place. This place is visited frequently by us, by cliche, by our minds.


For me the biggest give away of the premise is when...
and I can't remember the quote but Chris says something along the lines of 'the footage could exist anywhere, I't could be on a harddrive somewhere'. Its likely we will be watching this film off exactly that, our laptops

And lastly...for those who are not happy with an ending without putting it down to an alien or monster of some kind...that is Exactly the point the Frenchman was making. We can't take we are the devices of a higher power's fiction so we create such explanations

reply

Personally, I do not believe that "the monster is the viewer." The viewer does not send the video and the map to Mike. Without those data sets, the "story" would not occur (the story the monster wants would not have "a beginning" without sending the map to Mike).

Yes, at play there's an idea about how characters and situations can take on lives of their own inside of various media. And there's also an idea that the monster is the actual PoV of some supernatural cameraman who recorded the reservation footage we viewers are watching.

The "monster" might be the story itself, it might be the film's directors, or it might really be some supernatural force that is "filming" everyone in this particular tale! I do not think the viewer is meant to be a catalytic participant in this film (neither in actuality nor metaphorically).

reply

I think all these guys are reading WAY, WAY too much into this movie.
I have watch this movie multiple times. I think this movie is one of
the most original I have seen in a long time.
There is something that everyone is missing. If you see the ending,
the camera is looking through the flames, but this doesn't mean that
WE the viewer are the antagonist, it was just a clever way to film
our 2 protagonists final reactions to what they are looking at, while
also not giving away what they are looking at. Thats all it means.
There is a even more important thing that seems to overlooked.
The cover art or poster art for this movie actually shows the ending
scene, which is viewed from the rear. It clearly shows a face in the
flame. This to me is exactly what the whole movie is leading up too.
It is an evil force that exists in that area. Since the drug using
friend began living in that abandoned house, the evil started to mess
with everyone. The evil is the one who called his friend to come.
The Evil was leading the story, and controlling the situation. It
wanted the 2 guys to do a particular chain of events, I assume for
its amusement. If they had left, and the drugie friend hadn't tried
to go back for his drugs, then they could have left and most likely
would not have been influenced by the Evil after that.

reply

Now that I've seen all the Bluray extras, I'm even more convinced the viewer is NOT THE MONSTER. But the filmmakers seem OK with viewers interpreting the work however they wish.

reply

Extras?!? I don't have the DVD/Blueray, what is there, deleted scenes or something. Let me know please, I will get my hands on a copy.
Thanks.

Oh, BTW, yes the filmmakers for a movie such as this one would basically let the viewer decide what they see on it. To me films like this one are true artwork, and like most modern paintings, the viewer is left to decide how it makes them feel.

This is one of my favorite's of the last 10 years or so.
Have you heard/seen a movie called 'Banshee Chapter'?? If not it's on Netflix if you have that service. Another movie that is has scenes of dread and chills and even might make you jump in your seat.
Probably the creepiest part is a chunk of the storyline is based on these 'number stations' which are real, and they use this creepy music that is a real recording from a 'number station'. Google number stations and check out Banshee Chapter.
There is even a website that has all of these recordings that are so freaky.

reply

Just watched Banshee Chapter and enjoyed it a lot! Thanks for the recommendation!

reply

No Problem! Glad I could help. There are a bunch more I could recommend, let me know by
sending me a PM, and I will hook you up with a list.

reply

I LOVE Banshee Chapter.
I just watched this movie (Resolution) last night. Unfortunately, I have a bad cold or flu and last night had a fever of 102.1 - I do not recommend watching this movie when sick - I felt like I was hallucinating and had HORRID dreams afterwards.....

reply

I haven't read this entire thread, just the last 2 pages, but I think the Frenchman's quote you cited is very telling:

'I think if it is something, it is none of these things, or perhaps all of them? how does an isolated tribesmen in ecuador, know the difference between an alien, an angel and a ghost. He doesn't...but he tells a story..to make sense of the infinite.''


The monster--or storyteller (or "prime mover" if you wanna get philosophical)--has a need to see a story explain the incomprehensible. But I don't necessarily think it's the audience who is the monster. It's the *camera*.

If you've seen the Wim Wenders film "Lisbon Story", a lot of that philosophy is at play here. That story revolves around a director who becomes obsessed with the idea that "observer effect" taints any event that is recorded on film, because the director or camera operator imposes observer's bias. So he walks around Lisbon with a camera strapped to his back so that he never sees what he's recording.

So now back to "Resolution", I think the idea is similar: the monster is the camera itself (in the hands of the filmmaker) which is calling the shots, imposing its observer's bias on the lives of those whom it films. A very subtle but significant hint of this is at the very end of the movie as the credits roll. On the right we see pictures of the French journal, and on the pages are sketches of the "Tesla machine" (or something like that... It's in French) which looks like a giant camera on legs.

I think pretty much everyone in this thread realized that the camera plays a part in the answer. But while most people say it's the audience (us), I say it's literally the camera. We, the audience, do not control the camera, its angles or its placement, so we're just along for the ride just like the pawns in the film (recall how the Frenchman also talks about infinite layers of film upon film upon film). So no human is the monster. The monster must be the camera itself. Check out those images at the end of the movie and see if you might agree...

reply

Your thinking is in the same ballpark as mine.

I read your other post as well... I do not have Resolution on Bluray yet. It has been in my Amazon cart since Christmas (no one loved me enough to give me the film as a gift). I will now go and right that wrong so I can see the extra material.

reply

So cool to see this discussion. Thanks for the thoughtful viewings. Here's some fun web sites to go further down the rabbit hole:

http://whatwasfound.wordpress.com

http://www.ourmultiversesavior.org

http://www.byroncassel.com

reply

The credit image rooprect refers to says (in translation) "Tesla's Thought Projector".

http://alien.mur.at/gedankenprojektor/konzept.php?lang=en

[The Thought Projector was] a - never realized - invention of Nikola Tesla: a camera with which you can photograph thoughts. In 1933, at the age of 78, Tesla said: "In 1893 [...] I became convinced that a definite image formed in thought, must by reflex action, produce a corresponding image on the retina, which might be read by a suitable apparatus. This brought me to my system of television which I announced at the time... My idea was to employ an artificial retina receiving and object of the image seen, an optic nerve and another retina at the place of reproduction...both being fashioned somewhat like a checkerboard, with the optic nerve being a part of the earth."


Also just before the end credits there is a (faux) copyright notice crediting "the Croatian Film Commission", further accentuating the Tesla connection. (Tesla was actually Serbian, but born in modern-day Croatia, thus equally celebrated in that country.) Not to mention Michael's surname Danube, the river that flows though Serbia and touches Croatia.

reply

Great detective work, Tchoutoye! I think you closed the case.

reply

riki_san ..... According to me you nailed it.Thanks Man :) .... this one had me perplexed.

reply

Ya, I think you guys are on the money with the whole 4th wall/viewers are the villains theory. Sort of Cabin-in-the-woods-esque. I guess that leaves me with the question of how does all the indian stuff tie in with that? Or was that just meant as a red herring?

reply

I had a totally different idea about this movie before I came her. I'll just throw my initial thoughts into the ring.

First of all, we know from Byron that people have always come to this area to study the strangeness that seems to happen. Even the Native Americans had no interest in rebuilding the house once it was burnt down, like they knew it was a bad place. So, there's a bit of supernatural set-up (that came from outside the personal experiences of Mike and Chris).

Then there are Chris and Mike's actual experiences. Chris acts as if a lot of these strange things are old hat and wonders why Mike is making such a big deal about them. He blames things on satellites and Satan worshippers. Mike is seeing these things for the first time, and being a more curious guy, investigates things. The more he investigates, the more that seems to happen. A lot of the equipment was older - supposedly left by the French students from 30 years prior.

What if all of the things Mike and Chris see and hear on the slides/records/CD/film are products of their own imaginations? Like shared psychosis? The first things they saw were random people doing strange things, but as the movie went on, the things they began to see involved them. They even thought they saw their future selves, although none of the things they saw happened exactly like the media suggested. Would it really be that out of character for them to be afraid of being killed by either the druggies or the Native Americans and projected that fear onto what they were watching? Maybe the media was actually blank and their minds filled in the blanks on what was actually there? And the more scared they got, the more intense the media became. But, what would cause this? Maybe I watch too much Supernatural, but my first thought was a Buruburu, the ghost of the fear that someone felt as they died (maybe the Native American who died in the original fire, maybe someone who's story we never heard). They spend their time making people around them feel fear, even in situations where no fear should really be felt. Over and over, Chris and Mike were shown terrible endings and the implication that they would have some horrible thing happen to them. This backfired when the media that scared them also taught them what to avoid, so their "ending" wasn't as fear-inducing as the Buruburu had wanted. So it manifested, and Mike realized what it wanted. It wanted to feel the men's fear but only instead was feeling their relief. So he asked, "Can we end this another way?", as if offering to make up a more fearful ending to satisfy the ghost. But, since we don't see how it ends, we can assume that the Buruburu didn't want them to make up another, scarier ending. It had wanted fear and it had wanted it immediately, so the fear of their own upcoming death was more intense than any ending they could have come up with on their own. Plus, it didn't have to wait.

I've got two good posts in me and I just wrote my third...

reply

My interpretation is much simpler. The demon trapped them in its own world, and led them to prevent being murdered so it could eat them alive.

Cinema Crazed: http://www.cinema-crazed.com/

reply

I don't think there's a right or wrong interpretation of the ending. But here are a few thoughts of mine that I haven't seen covered yet (spoilers -- OBVIOUSLY):

* In general, I see this film as a metaphysical mashup that combines multidimensional universe theories with Native American folklore.

* The film is also literally riffing on the notion that taking a photograph captures the soul of the person photographed.

* One of the most important clues to the ending occurs in the very first few minutes of the film. After Mike Danube finishes watching the internet video of his junkie friend, the camera jostles a bit. Mike looks over his shoulder as if he heard the camera move. At this moment, his proverbial soul is captured by the film, and his reality is transferred to the film medium. The audience sees the "film membrane" flash before the title appears, so the scene with the wife is already occurring on film. The idea Mike later adopts that he can somehow keep the supernatural events from affecting his family was a moot point all along. The conversation he had with his wife is replayed through various media he finds ("It's a horrible idea"), indicating that it, too, was recorded, and she's already consumed by the film like everyone else we see.

* Also at work is the concept of expanding and collapsing possibilities. The ending is literally the convergence of all the possibilities from multiple realities, with several scenarios played out in a way where the characters can see them from a third-person perspective. This aligns with theories that there is a higher level of multidimensional consciousness in which all possibilities can be experienced simultaneously.

* "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the Weather." ― Bill Hicks

reply

************spoilers***************


I definitely saw his wife's words as the ever so famous Harbinger of death. She predicts their doom, and the story can't end without doom. We end up getting that particular ending because no other ending can ever be better. We can create our own ending.

My ending is the one commonly shared-- about us the viewer being the monster, and the fourth wall breaking down. I think every time the screen flashed with red (sorry, I forget the proper term for the film reacting to heat or whatever like that) the viewer/monster is frustrated or anxious.

I think when they brought up the monster's wants, the monster gets uneasy and suggest an ending, but I think they were set up to fail since the monster kept interring. Which reminds me of god.

Everything can be made really simple in this story or everything could be complex and Indian spirits of fear yadda yadda.

I think it is like Cabin In The Woods, and both make you have to really over think it to appreciate it, and I think that's the point. It's fun getting lost in the whys and the interpretations, and the hidden clues.

reply

reply

The movie makes clearly references to The Matrix:


Every time you've heard someone say they saw a ghost or an angel ...
every story you've ever heard about vampires, werewolves or aliens ...
is the system assimilating some program ...


So, by definition, at the end, they see Agent Smith.

Oh, and one detail, when he was with the french guy and he shows him the mirror, and shows at him, he is actually looking at the camera, so.

reply

The thing about we, the audience being a monster is kind of Funny Games-ish to me.

it hurts

reply

[deleted]