MovieChat Forums > Girls Against Boys (2013) Discussion > Am I wrong? - Ending discussion and spoi...

Am I wrong? - Ending discussion and spoilers.


If I watched this right, then Girls Against Boys is similar to another famous movie Fight Club in that one of the characters are imaginary. I think Lulu is imaginary, and all the murders are not real but fantasy. Just after Shae kills Lulu, there is a scene showing all the crime scenes with no victims, no blood.

To me, that's implying none of that happened. So what did happen?

* I think Shae was raped.
* I think she then had fantastical thoughts of killing people, with Lulu being her "evil" self.
* I think when she pushed those thoughts to the actual rapist, that she realised she couldn't do it.
* Fantasizing further about being with the boy, she realises that Lulu would push her to kill any male, and so she kills Lulu, and returns to reality.
* The final twist then, is as she's smoking with the girl on the steps, you can see Lulu in the background, implying that Shae is still evil, Lulu is still there, and perhaps she will go on to live out her fantasy.

That's how I took it anyhow.

Opinions?

reply

Interesting.

reply

Yep, that's exactly it! *^^)b

reply

I think you got it totally spot on....your post clear up several question for me and made the movie more understandable ...thanks !

reply

I never saw American Psycho, but I don't get the Fight Club comparisons at all.

Your reasoning seems pretty sound on how the events unfolded, though.

reply

Dont forget that in the very first shoot of Lulu in the bathroom before she goes in to strip for the cop there is a small round mirror that shows Shae's reflection, instead of Lulu's as she stands up. Its pretty quick but you can catch it if you watch it again.

Good over all movie, even if they dont spoon feed you the 'twist' at the end. And of course all of it being fake helps with suspending disbelief. But the one thing I have a problem is with the rape itself. Who dosent hear someone being raped in a hallway in the morning? I mean come on! She was screaming pretty loud. I guess if he was fast, like 2 minutes or something but still. Kind of hard to swallow that part.

reply

Wow, good call. It actually makes me kind of like the movie now, kind of.

I did catch the reflection in the mirror part at the beginning.

reply

Interesting take on the movie and its ambiguous conclusion..

I must say that I, for once, did not see the dual identity/multiple-personality coming until after Lulu's death.. Upon her initially dying, there in Shea's apartment, I just assumed that it was a way for the main character to escape the entire murderous rampage, and emerge as merely another victim of the crazy serial killer, Lulu. I thought that was going to be the way that it ended with Shea being able to simply return to her life with no blame or fault in the multiple killings that'd taken place over the course of a week.

It actually wasn't until Shea is shown emerging from the bath water that it began to sink in that there was a great liklihood that Shea was in fact Lulu all along..then we see Shea back at work and her entire persona was essentially Lulu..from the hair, make up, clothes, and most importantly the demeanor in which she carried herself and interacted with other people.. at that point I knew that the whole multiple-personality deal was the way in which the film had gone. Though, I must say that had I NOT missed the opening scene where its clearly shown(if even for the most briefest of moments) that the face of Lulu was Shea as reflected in the mirror.. I believe if I had noticed this in the opening scene that my mind would have consumed the entire movie from a totally different perspective(ie.knowing that the main thread of the movie was about dual identity/MPD)..

So, in that regard I'm actually glad that I did miss the quick glance in the mirror during the opening scene because I've actually come to dislike the whole "it was really me" that was the psycho killer "twist" that is all too often used these days in horror/thriller movies.. I was able to see if from a totally different perspective throughout the entirety of the movie, and for me, that was more enjoyable.

Lastly, I must say that I didnt even consider the possibility of all the murders having been merely a part of the main characters "fantasy"..yes, I fully realized the run through of all of the crime scenes being totally "normal" with zero signs 0f there having been brutal murders carried out at each of them, but I actually didn't once see that as indicating that the murders had all been merely a figment of our main character's imagingation(along with the now obvious "Lulu" character having never existed in reality).

After clicking on this thread and reading the discussion and theories regarding the plot it now seems almost certain that we are to believe the entire movie was 98% fantasizing done by main character, Shea, and in reality everyone was still alive&well, even Lulu, who was never truly in existence to begin with, so, in the end she remained where she had in fact been all along, alive&well in Shea's mind/fantasy.

Kinda underwhelming when looking at it from that perspective(all a fantasy, never happened in reality)..and thus the exact reason why I say I am quite glad that I missed the quick glance of Shea's reflection in the mirror during the opening scene..having missed it allowed me to, I think, better enjoy a movie that I quite likely would've been disappointed with throughout had I known the good ol' used-up cliche "twist"(MPD) was once again being used.

All in all I enjoyed it:)

reply

Girls Against Boys is similar to two other famous movies in that one of the characters are imaginary. I think Lulu is imaginary, and all the murders are not real but fantasy.


American Psycho -- supposed to be ambiguous whether murders are real or imaginary (according to the director, although conventional interpretation is that the director didn't pull it off and leaves slightly too much evidence toward fantasy.)

Fight club -- the mayhem is real. Edward Norton's character creates the 2nd-party alter ego to create it, so a study in psychotic schizophrenia on one level.

GAB -- I guess can be seen as a mix. The 2nd-party evil alter ego, but toned down so that the murders are merely cathartic and not real. So worried me that it was a cop out ending to spare the fairer sex from being cast in a psychotic light, until....

* The final twist then, is as she's smoking with the girl on the steps, you can see Lulu in the background, implying that Shae is still evil, Lulu is still there, and perhaps she will go on to live out her fantasy.

I don't think there is any "perhaps." The movie redeems itself here, and puts the edge back by leaving the future mayhem to our imagination. So, just like the way serial killers often start out by hurting animals first, Shae has "practiced" her craft thru imagining how Lulu would do it. Now, Shae is ready to take the lead role in corrupting this other girl -- but in reality.







reply

I wasn't talking about Fight Club comparison being with not real murders, just that Brad Pitt didn't exist.

reply

That's not clear.

And why did you drop the American Psycho comparison in todays edit?

reply

Because Brett Easton Ellis has flat outright said on numerous occasions that the murders really did happen in American Psycho and that Patrick is a real character.

My analogy was about fictional characters within the movie (like Fight Club) so, whilst I know a lot of people think Patrick Bateman is a fictional character within the movie, I decided not to muddy the waters and just leave it at Fight Club.

reply

Peter Benchley didn't blow up his shark at the end of the book Jaws. So if he said the shark doesn't blow up in the movie version, do you accept that?

That's why, since we're discussing movies, I mentioned the DIRECTOR'S take and not the AUTHOR'S take. Unless the author is the director also, what he says "flat out" doesn't matter about a movie if it contradicts what the director says.

Which made sense, until you decided to delete what you wrote.

reply

I just assumed that Shae was disgusted by how Lulu was acting, loving murder, & having become an obsessed stalker potential rapist herself & that Shae kills her in self-defense. Then,when she meets the other girl at the end, who was probably also raped, Shae realizes that Lulu was right in the beginning, & that the cycle will repeat.

In Fight club, they show you they are the same person. There is nothing to say that none of the murders happen. The twist is Shae becomes just like Lulu.

reply

I think they only really tossed the mirror thing more as in it's part of the fantasy world Shea was creating.

If we are to assume that part of the story was a fantasy, the logical point of it's beginning would be the rape. Given that's when the screen goes black and the return to reality after Lu's death. While assuming it's a fantasy this would allow us the excuse of why in the cop murder it seems Lu could be Shea, but other scenes don't make as much exact sense if there was only one girl there.

But of course still assuming that's where the dream starts, there still the scenes before hand with Lu in them. But if that's the case the real Lu may not be the psycho she was in the dream.

The end would seem to imply to me whether real or not, Shea is ready to play the Lu role to this new girl's Shea.


The crime scene scenes looking all clean makes me want to go with the fantasy option, I assume the other interpretation is what Shea cleaned them up? I'd say that seems more "fantasy" to me but then again the only cops we see in this movie look pretty incompetent.

Communities left for being too closeminded: Gamefaqs, Home Theater Forum, Toonzone

reply

Interesting.

reply