MovieChat Forums > Black Mirror (2011) Discussion > Unseen ending of "The Entire History of ...

Unseen ending of "The Entire History of You '


Interesting they left this out, but he clearly murdered her.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

When I first saw the ep, I had the awful feeling that he might have murdered her, but on a second viewing (need a grain!) it seems to me from the visual clues around the house that she simply took the baby along with her favorite painting--they really make a point of showing you that the painting is gone--and left. I know they also make the point that he hates the painting, but...

I think the reason some people feel so strongly that Ffi was murdered is because Liam shows all the signs of being an incredibly abusive person. He does push her around to the point that she's frightened enough to show him what took place between her and Jonas.

I can see him having beat the *beep* out of her and that being the impetus for her to leave, but I think she's alive. If you think she's alive, he pulls his grain because he can't bear to look at the fact that his wife really loved him and he destroyed their marriage. If you think he killed her, it's the above and the fact as a lawyer, he knows that without a grain, it will be difficult to prosecute--maybe. If Ffi is lying in a ditch on their property somewhere I'm sure they could take her grain and see what happened.

Like all good, creepy stories, it's just ambiguous enough to mindscrew you either way, though I honestly believe she saw Liam for the utter *beep* he was, took the baby, and got herself the hell out of there and away from the abuse.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

If you think he killed her, it's the above and the fact as a lawyer, he knows that without a grain, it will be difficult to prosecute


Correct. He killed her but the primary reason for pulling his grain is due to the fact that he was hurt by his wife's actions, which, not coincidentally, is the primary reason he killed her. Also not coincidentally, this is the exact same motivation for the vast majority of crimes of passion.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

I'm pretty sure she just abandoned him, then he full of remorse cut his device away. There's no strong indication to believe he killed his wife, the point of the ending was to show how knowing everything is not good for us. Some things are best left ignored.

"It's a beautiful Sunday"

reply

the point of the ending was to show how knowing everything is not good for us.


So you admit it'd be good if he killed her.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

Of course not, I consider murder is wrong. But even then, the moral of the story is not "you'll murder everyone if you know everything", the moral is "knowing everything it's not good for the soul". As simple as that.


"It's a beautiful Sunday"

reply

Except it was good.

He found out he was wrong to trust her, he punished her, and he moved on.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

It would be a really hard thing to debate, I would also prefer to know what is going on but, basically knowing or not-knowing, it's lose or lose situation.

"It's a beautiful Sunday"

reply

That seems rather crazy, obviously not knowing and being duped is worse than knowing and not being duped.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

Yes, but I'm talking about the consequences of knowing your loved one cheated on you, the emotional impact it's pretty devastating.

"It's a beautiful Sunday"

reply

The point is it is better to know, so there was no message about negative impacts of new technology, because there was no negative impact of new technology.

This technology saved him from being fooled and deceived. The only question is did he kill her, and the evidence says yes.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

On first viewing, I will admit to having a small question as to what happened after viewing her memories of that night. The final scenes do flick by quite quickly.

However, I find the irony quite amusing yet perversely disturbing in that it prompted many of the posters here, and even myself, to watch a 're-do', analysing and even scrutinising in detail (much like he did) the final few scenes to fill in the blanks and get their much sought after answer. Kudos to the editors for prompting that. To me it is the need of said re-do that really makes the ending even more perfect.

It is however quite apparent, after a re-do (or two), to ascertain that she simply left (with baby, painting and furnishings). Leaving him in a cold house with beer bottles and dirty dishes lying around and memories of how despite her indescretion had still loved him.

Whilst the 'proof' of her leaving is not quite so blatent (without the script), it is almost impossible to argue that he could have killed her (and even the baby). Others have very concisely detailed the numerous reasons why, so there is no need to repeat what they have said.

reply

she simply left (with baby, painting and furnishings). Leaving him in a cold house with beer bottles and dirty dishes lying around and memories of how despite her indescretion had still loved him.


More likely, given his history, he killed her, removed her body (with paintings and furnishings). Leaving him in a cold house with beer bottles and dirty dishes lying around and memories of how much time and how many feelings he wasted on her.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

Right. Even though there is absolutely nothing to suggest he killed her that is the more likely outcome. What?

Don't we feel like the deaf deserve better movies?

reply

there is absolutely nothing to suggest he killed her


She's missing, he's violent and motivated. That's how it works in the real world.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

Where do you live that that is your real world? Because here in the US most people don't murder their cheating spouse.

Don't we feel like the deaf deserve better movies?

reply

Wrong again, if the spouse is missing the husband is the FIRST place they look.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

No I'm not wrong. There are very few people who think murder is an appropriate response to infidelity. But if he killed her and the husband is the first one the police suspect then why is he free? He would be locked up. Unless there is also an imaginary unseen clip where it is revealed that he is somehow capable of committing the perfect totally unplanned murder.

She is only missing from that scene. All we know is that she isn't there. It is never made clear why. At most it is only a possibility that he killed her. It's also possible that they are still together but got rid of the painting and she and the kid are visiting her parents for the weekend. But neither of those things is likely based on what we saw at the end of the episode.

Don't we feel like the deaf deserve better movies?

reply

why is he free?


Because he removed his chip.

it is only a possibility that he killed her.


Violence is his first response to a slightly discomforting situation, it follows extreme violence would be his response here.

Also, as I previously explained, there are no reasons to not show her leaving, there are many reasons to not show him killing her.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

So the little chip would be the only proof of the crime? The wife was out of the house for at least a few days before he removed it. Proof would have existed not only in his files but in the form of blood spatters or witnesses who can talk about weird behavior from him. At the very least friends and family would notice that they haven't seen or heard from her and can not get in touch with her no matter what they do and they would report that to the police. To borrow a phrase from you, that's how it works in the real world. But apparently we are now ignoring that because it is convenient for you.

"there are many reasons to not show him killing her."

There is only one. We aren't supposed to think he killed her. The baby was also gone at the end of the episode. Do you think he killed the kid too? For what reason?

Don't we feel like the deaf deserve better movies?

reply

We aren't supposed to think he killed her.


Incorrect, we know he a violent nature, and we know they didn't show what actually happened. If he didn't kill her, there are no reasons for both.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

I like how you didn't address anything else I said. That really helps your argument.

We know he got drunk and roughed up the guy who slept with his wife to force him to delete his memories of her. Assuming just because of that that he would kill his wife is a huge leap. I guess in your mind anyone who has ever been in a fight should be a murder suspect?

Don't we feel like the deaf deserve better movies?

reply

just because of that that he would kill his wife is a huge leap.


That was to show us he is violent, and that they didn't show what happened brings the likely conclusion, whether you like that conclusion or not.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

That was an example of someone behaving irrationally when drunk and sleep deprived. And of course that NEVER happens in the real world! In closing, you trippin.

Don't we feel like the deaf deserve better movies?

reply

It was them, showing you, his first reaction is violence. If you don't know why, that's your problem not mine.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

And you're the only one who thinks so. That says something, although not what you think.

Don't we feel like the deaf deserve better movies?

reply

Incorrect, and irrelevant.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

I think he kicked her out but he couldn't get over her because he kept playing the memories of happier times. and he couldnt reconcile that with what happened.





"I think I liked it better when I thought Sylar ate brains." -Warriorrenegade

reply

i just watched it. i didn't see him murder her. there was no murder.

reply

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that they broke up and she simply was told to GTFO. That's kind of the natural conclusion to one partner being cheated on. I think if we were to compile all the documented cases of consequences of affairs... it would prob look like 80% relationship ends 15% couples attempt to work through it 5% somebody gets murdered. I dont mind the premise... interesting theory... if there was some evidence a weapon seen laying around either before or after, blood spotted anywhere before he cut the grain out... something, I may say you're lead to believe that but there's literally nothing to support this theory and for me it's not an obvious conclusion.

reply

At first I thought it was going to be that he had murdered her bur if that was the case, then where was the baby? He's clearly reminiscing over happier times by watching the grain memories but is she were dead (and he wasn't in jail) thenot he would have the real life baby with him

reply

You're wrong. We are all wrong. The OP is the only person on the planet who picked up the true meaning of the ending. The much more likely and logical thing is not actually what happened. Apparently.

Don't we feel like the deaf deserve better movies?

reply

Well of course, logic and what they show on screen doesn't count for anything. It's what we don't see but then make up that counts 

reply

I thought she just left him.

EDIT: And what about the baby?

----
Don't be a hater, dear. www.youtube.com/user/dinoatcharterdotnet

reply

The OP purposely avoids talking about the baby, because he has no explanation, he is trolling at best , at worst he made a ill thought out thread and just can't admit he is wrong. Because the guy still has feelings for the baby is why we see him remembering the baby in a now empty crib, so saying he killed a baby would make him go from a jilted lover to full psychotic.

"Let us die young or let us live forever
We don't have the power but we never say never

reply

Why are people saying she left him? He caught her cheating after she repeatedly denied anything was going on and then would have had him raise a baby that wasn't his. Isn't it more likely he left her/kicked her out?

reply

[deleted]

It wasn't "left out". It simply didn't happen. You missed the point of this episode. Nothing supports your argument, at any point in time.

reply

It simply did happen. You missed the point of this episode. Nothing supports your argument, at any point in time.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

The audience was shown neither the action, nor the result. So ... when and how did it happen? Col. Mustard? Lead Pipe? In the ... Conservatory?!

reply

The audience wasn't shown her leaving, taking the baby, nothing.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

Yet we were shown the effect, if not the action of her being thrown the *beep* out. The crib was gone. The bedroom was different, in that the incriminating art piece was gone (either by her, or by him ... it doesn't matter). The living room was gone, in that the black couch she was shown on was no longer there. The kitchen was a wreck, and looked like a bachelor's pad. There was also that slow fade to black before all of that was shown, which usually implies a significant passage of time.

If he had killed her, he would have been the primary suspect, and would have been caught immediately. He had just gone to her lover's house (and ... baby daddy), and threatened him with a broken bottle to the jugular. And that had been reported to the police during the act. He then viciously assaulted a tree with his car. That dude was NOT getting away with strangling his cheating wife in their bed. So again, the audience is shown the result (actually, more of a non-result) of him NOT committing a murder.

reply

If he had killed her, he would have been the primary suspect, and would have been caught immediately.


In order to be a suspect, let alone caught, or "caught immediately" there needs be a report of a killing, and then evidence of a killing. Clearly there were no witnesses, and as you already acknowledged, he had severe anger issues. He means, motive, and opportunity to kill her immediately and time to dispose the body. And the producers had reason to not show this, considering the ending they did choose.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

Hey, that fade to black, and then back again thing is meant for the audience to fill in their own version of what transpired over a given amount of time. We are then shown pieces of the later time, to complete that picture. From my own assertions, and reading the rest of the comments, it seems that most of us have filled in that time with him throwing his wife and Jonas' baby out of his house and going on with his life. I got the impression that he kept going back to painful memories, so he decided to take drastic measures to remove them permanently.

If you thought that he killed someone, disposed of a body (when and where did he show ANY capability, or capacity for that?), somehow avoided police suspicion in a person's disappearance (even though he was obviously going to be contacted by them in the very near future over the car in a tree, and the whole bottle to the throat thing), and also magicked off Jonas' child (or did he kill it too?) during the break, then ... hey, everyone is definitely welcome to their own opinions and interpretations of everything.

And the producers had reason to not show this, considering the ending they did choose.
If none of it was shown, neither action or effect ... why do you think it happened?

reply

Because according to him, she deserved it, so he was willing. And we already know he is capable of acting out his emotions, so he was able.

Also, we know she was the one who wanted to stay with him, she was the one who felt guilt over destroying their relationship. And if the baby was not his, as he questioned, he could have rage-killed that baby as well. Which is even more reason to keep things ambiguous, yet by implication making the ending that much more powerful. .

Before the viewing, he almost killed the guy and that was just for the memory tapes.

During, she did nothing to indicate she would leave.

After, he was remorseful, or at least sad, a stage that comes after anger.

Add it up, it's the ultimate example that these tapes would fail, what the episode is about.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029234/board/inline/188235766

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/board/inline/230716142

It's generally the ones who agree don't bother posting.

Given all the information about the characters, she wouldn't have left, and he would have killed her. Anyone who understands the characters understands that, thus no need to show it,. Anyone who understands basic psychology knows before sadness, there is anger. What made him sad are the memories that he believed and felt were real, thus giving him the strongest motivation for getting rid of those memories.. It's high praise for the writer for creating such convincing characters.

That we didn't see her leave is just more evidence they could not film that scene without clearly and blatantly betraying the characters they have given us, thus ruining the entire episode.


http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

During, she did nothing to indicate she would leave.
Why do you think he left this to her choice? The baby wasn't his. Why would any court force him to keep a cheating wife and someone else's baby? I got the impression that he just told her to leave and take the kid with her. You seem to have the idea that he buried them in the back yard.

You've just posted links to boards to two things that I have not seen. That hardly supports your idea that he killed her. "Willing" and "able" are not substitutes for action or effect in film. Or ANY story format, for that matter. Able? Any one with a gun is "able" to kill someone else. Willing? We actually don't know that he was willing to go through with it. Being mad at someone, is a long ways away from killing them and their child, and then getting away with a double-homicide.

I'm not trying to change your mind. You are entitled to your opinion. I am just pointing out why I, and others, have an opposing viewpoint.

reply

I got the impression that he just told her to leave and take the kid with her.


 Now that's funny, the one message and only motivation about this character that they purposefully gave the audience is jealous uncontrolled rage.

It's also funny you think that, and yet you have no explanation why they wouldn't just show that.

All the evidence points to a rage-murder in the story, in addition to the evidence for not showing this ending.


http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply