MovieChat Forums > Self/less (2015) Discussion > Inquiry about the ending (spoilers]

Inquiry about the ending (spoilers]

posted 8 years ago by Tyler-A-Arse
14 replies | jump to latest

In the end, Damien decided to give himself up so Mark could be with his family. Would you have done that? I feel there is no way I would've done it. I know Damien was duped about a lot of things, but Mark wasn't. He knew what he was doing when he gave himself up for his daughter.

I know Damien was being noble mostly because of Anna, but I got no indication he was done with life, (thus the procedure). He spent 250mil to be young again and have another chance at life. It seems almost implausible that someone would throw that away.

[–] creatorof2002 8 years ago

He was upset when he learned he was lied to about the body being grown in a lab. I think it was not that that caused him to give the body back, he befriended the family and felt great affection for the little girl. As far as the girl was concerned he WAS her father she did not understand the body switch thing the way the adults did, though she had been told he died a few months earlier but kids are easy to manipulate. He got another chance to be a father because he had let his own daughter down in other ways, not shown in the film but his daughter hated him. I think he developed a genuine love and affection for the girl and the mother and giving up the body was his way of making amends.

Its a tough question whether or not I would have done that. I honestly cannot answer that, I would LIKE to think I would do the morally right thing but its hard to tell.

You know what I would have liked? Its beyond the end of the film but I wonder if his daughter would have felt differently about him had she learned what he did at the end.

[–] dakowill11 8 years ago

Um my thoughts as it ended were that Damien did the moral thing in giving up his consciousness for Mark since ultimately his choice to be transferred into Mark's body was a selfish one while Mark's choice to die for his daughter, Anna, was self-less.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> Damien did the moral thing in giving up his consciousness for Mark since ultimately his choice to be transferred into Mark's body was a selfish one

No. Damien did NOT make a selfish choice; he honestly thought that he was being transferred into a empty body grown in the lab. Had he known that he was taking someone's life and he still did it, then we can call that selfish.

He was the one duped by all this. Mark willingly gave up his life for cash to heal his daughter. But now, he has his life back. Do you think he's giving back the cash he took? No way.

Mark is the selfish one.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] dakowill11 8 years ago

Hmm okay interesting point. But, ultimately we'll have to agree to disagree I think. Looking at it more closely I made the following observations that indicate to me it's a little more complicated than I originally thought:

1. We've got Damien who originally seeks to extend or preserve his life. He chooses to do so by "shedding" or transferring his consciousness into another body and paying Dr Albright for the procedure. Irrespective of the body's state (i.e. "empty vessel" grown in a science lab or "still in use" unconscious body) Damien's initial choice is STILL a selfish one. He's not doing this for anyone else except himself, hence "self-ish."

Having made this choice do I think it immoral? Um...I don't believe so. Damien had the means to pay for the procedure. And who wouldn't, faced with the same choice and the wherewithal, want to live forever knowing a new body is awaiting you when the one you currently inhabit wears out?! Isn't that the whole premise for, and promise of, religion i.e. an afterlife?

2. On the other hand Mark chooses to extend or preserve his daughter, Anna's life. He does this by cutting a deal with Dr Albright to give up his own life in exchange for the money to pay for Anna's life-saving medical procedure. Mark's choice is a self-less one. He's not doing this for himself. He's doing this for his daughter, hence his act is "self-less."

3. As you rightly pointed out, however, Damien was deceived by Dr Albright (who is in reality Dr Francis Jensen's consciousness inhabiting his assistant's body) into believing the body he paid to be transferred into (i.e. Mark) was "uninhabited." Likewise, Martin and Judy, Damien's friends, who had the consciousness of their ill son, Tony, transferred into the body of a healthy boy were deceived by Dr Albright into thinking his replacement body was genetically engineered and grown in a test tube. These, along with that Dr Albright sees nothing immoral in attempting to kill Madeline and Anna to protect his business, reveals him to be a selfish, lying murderer.

In all, we see Damien starting out with a selfish choice i.e. to preserve his own life. But, in an attempt to make things right, he chooses self-lessly to protect and save the lives of Madeline and Anna even at the risk of losing his own life. And in the end he chooses to give up his own life or consciousness, to give Mark's body back to Mark's consciousness and return Mark to his wife and daughter. Perhaps because he sees his own relationship with his daughter, Claire, as irretrievably fractured as he put it, "When she was little...I wasn't around much. Once she was big, I was never around," and he wouldn't want the same for Anna.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> Irrespective of the body's state (i.e. "empty vessel" grown in a science lab or "still in use" unconscious body) Damien's initial choice is STILL a selfish one.

There are two different levels of selfishness. Damien thought he was simply paying for goods for his own needs. That is selfish, but it is within the bounds of moral and allowable conduct. People buy food to eat and that's for their own selfish reasons (i.e., to continue to live).

Then there is the other kind of selfishness where you take something from other people for your own needs. That's a bad kind of selfishness. In most societies in history, stealing and murder have been considered immoral and illegal.

Damien thought he was buying an unused body grown from scratch. That's selfish, but it is an okay kind of selfishness. If he knew that he was killing a man to take his body, that's the bad kind of selfishness.

> Mark's choice is a self-less one. He's not doing this for himself. He's doing this for his daughter, hence his act is "self-less."

Yes. But, in every society, the transaction that he engaged in would be illegal and condemned. We just don't allow people to sacrifice their own life for money. For example, if a mobster is sentenced to 50 years in jail, he cannot pay someone else to serve his sentence, despite many willing people eager to earn money for their families. It is also illegal to sell your heart or kidney to someone who flashes a stack of cash.

And, when Mark awoke months later in his own body, he should be morally obligated to return the money he accepted to give up his body. It's like if you sold a car to someone and then, a month later, you woke up at the wheel of that car and decided to keep it. You'd have to give back the money you sold it for.

> These, along with that Dr Albright sees nothing immoral in attempting to kill Madeline and Anna to protect his business, reveals him to be a selfish, lying murderer.

Sure. And, in another case of Hollywood justice, he got what he deserved in the end.

> And in the end he chooses to give up his own life or consciousness, to give Mark's body back to Mark's consciousness and return Mark to his wife and daughter.

Yup. That's the way Hollywood usually plays these things out. Everyone in the audience should have seen that coming from a mile away, based just on the title of the movie.

> Perhaps because he sees his own relationship with his daughter, Claire, as irretrievably fractured as he put it, "When she was little...I wasn't around much. Once she was big, I was never around," and he wouldn't want the same for Anna.

Unfortunately, Mark was in the Army, so I'm sure that he was away from his family most of the time already. And now what? Their home is all blown up so they have nothing to come home to. Do they just frolic on the beach of a deserted island for the next 50 years?

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] chilone 8 years ago

And, when Mark awoke months later in his own body, he should be morally obligated to return the money he accepted to give up his body. It's like if you sold a car to someone and then, a month later, you woke up at the wheel of that car and decided to keep it. You'd have to give back the money you sold it for.

No. He would not be morally obligated to return the money. Here's why using your car analogy. He sold his body (car) to someone and later the buyer decided to give it back to him free of charge. At that point, the body "belonged" to Damien and he was free to do whatever he wanted with it.

Unfortunately, Mark was in the Army, so I'm sure that he was away from his family most of the time already. And now what? Their home is all blown up so they have nothing to come home to. Do they just frolic on the beach of a deserted island for the next 50 years?

Did you miss the part about Damien giving Maddy an arseload of money? I think it was implied that that island was theirs and that they were basically set for life.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] SBL84 8 years ago

Yes. But, in every society, the transaction that he engaged in would be illegal and condemned. We just don't allow people to sacrifice their own life for money. For example, if a mobster is sentenced to 50 years in jail, he cannot pay someone else to serve his sentence, despite many willing people eager to earn money for their families.

The problem with your mobster analogy is that the person offering to serve the time is aware that the mobster did something bad and is taking their punishment for them. While they are giving up their freedom to help their family, they're also allowing the mobster to continue doing whatever harmful things that resulted in his legal troubles in the first place.

Presumably, Mark was told the same thing that Damian was told... that this procedure is used to prolong the lives of the greatest minds so they can continue their great work. Now, if Mark was told "We've got an aging serial killer who needs your body" and he went through with the process, then yeah, he'd be a pretty bad guy, even if he was doing it to save his daughter's life.

It's like if you sold a car to someone and then, a month later, you woke up at the wheel of that car and decided to keep it. You'd have to give back the money you sold it for.

Would you have to return it if the buyer left you a video saying "thanks for the car, it's really helped me over this past month, but I've decided to give it back to you and I don't want anything for it, enjoy."

There's also the fact that Mark's deal was with Albright/Jensen, not Damian... So, to use your analogy, if you sold a car to someone, and you woke up at the wheel of it one day, but the person who bought it also kidnapped your wife and daughter intending to kill them and sell their bodies... at the very least, don't you think that'd be considered a wash?

Mark made the selfless choice to give up his life to save his daughter's.

Damian made the selfless choice to give up his life to save Mark's, and benefit Mark's family who helped him understand what was important in life.

[–] bing-57 8 years ago

> Now, if Mark was told "We've got an aging serial killer who needs your body" and he went through with the process, then yeah, he'd be a pretty bad guy, even if he was doing it to save his daughter's life.

To save his daughter's life he wouldn't care if the man who got his body was Adolph Hitler. He is saving his daughter.

> Would you have to return it if the buyer left you a video saying "thanks for the car, it's really helped me over this past month, but I've decided to give it back to you and I don't want anything for it, enjoy."

I'm not sure that the DMV would take that.

Such a gift probably would hold up in court, but the moral thing to do is give the money back. That a problem with the world today; everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.

> So, to use your analogy, if you sold a car to someone, and you woke up at the wheel of it one day, but the person who bought it also kidnapped your wife and daughter intending to kill them and sell their bodies... at the very least, don't you think that'd be considered a wash?

Not legally. Each transaction is a separate one. The car is one, the kidnapping is another, and so on. The law just doesn't come along and say, "Oh, everyone was acting poorly so it is a wash."

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?

[–] SBL84 8 years ago

To save his daughter's life he wouldn't care if the man who got his body was Adolph Hitler. He is saving his daughter.

Of course. And if he was knowingly saving Hitler, he would be a worse person than if he believed he was saving someone who could positively effect humanity.

That's where the whole "morals" thing comes in. He was saving his daughter, and he believed his body would be used for the greater good of humanity. Morally, he's doing the right thing on both counts. If he was saving his daughter and knew his body would be inhabited by a genocidal dictator, he would only be doing the right thing on one count.

I'm not sure that the DMV would take that.

If the buyer took the time to apparently drug, or move the sleeping/comatose seller into the driver's seat, he probably took the time to transfer the title as well. Which would be further proof of his willingness to return the car.

Such a gift probably would hold up in court, but the moral thing to do is give the money back. That a problem with the world today; everyone wants to have their cake and eat it too.

Why is it immoral to accept a gift? The person who bought the car obviously enjoyed it for the month they had it, and they had the means to return it without wanting to get repaid. They even thanked you for the month they had the car because it benefited them, but they don't need it anymore, and they want to thank you by returning the car and your money.

Not legally. Each transaction is a separate one. The car is one, the kidnapping is another, and so on. The law just doesn't come along and say, "Oh, everyone was acting poorly so it is a wash."

Kidnapping, killing, and selling someone's body isn't legal in any sense. I'm sure if that guy kidnapped your family, you'd be rushing to return his money because it's the moral thing to do, right?

"Oh, officer, before you take him away, can you give him this check? He returned the car I sold him. Maybe he could use it on a good lawyer so he can get away with the horrific situation he put my family through. Thanks!"

Also, Mark completed his transaction. Just like you mentioned, each transaction is a separate one. If you sell me a car for $500, that's one transaction. If I decide to give you that same car back for free, that's a second one. You can't take back the car and keep my $500, but I can do whatever I want with my car once it's mine, even if it's giving it back to you for free. You have no moral, nor legal obligation to pay me $500.

[–] chilone 8 years ago

Mark is the selfish one.

No. Mark had no say in being brought back.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] omoxus 8 years ago

Seeing as how he never spent time with his daughter, he couldn't bare having that child without her father. So he provided the mom with a husband and the daughter with a father.

He became selfless by becoming self/less.

I am the Alpha and the Omoxus. The Omoxus and the Omega

[–] Strazdamonas 8 years ago

No. In fact i would have gone as far as to go along with them killing the woman in her house. Though i would give the doctor a real bitchy talk about lieing to me.

---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

[–] creatorof2002 8 years ago

Even if he returned what they paid him it would not hurt him much, it was enough money to pay for his daughter's medical care but its only a small fraction of what he "inherited" from Damien. We do not know how much but it was probably HUGE minus whatever he left his daughter (I like to believe that in the envelope he gave his daughter was a check).

If I lived inside of the fictional universe of the movie I would hope that now that he has gotten his body back and his family back and A LOT OF MONEY he would pay the karma forward and be inspired to be a philantrhopist and use his wealth and regained life to help people other than his own family.

[–] TakeTwoTheyreSmall 8 years ago

Mark would return the money to whom? Dude is dead. Again. The (original) Dr./scientist was long dead, and the person who Mark killed was his assistant (legally). Even if Albright assumed the Dr's conscience and retained Albright's identity, it was all illegal, including the funds received. No, there would be no refund, of any kind. Even if Mark and his family returned to The States and fessed up, no jury in the country would convict him of anything. All the people killed, were killed by Albright and his men, or Damien's conscience. Mark was innocent of the entire ordeal.

I doubt there was a check in the letter to Claire. He (Damien's "friend") made it clear that "Damien" learned he could not buy her affections. However, to stay within the storyline, it wouldn't be surprising to learn her non-profit organization received some very generous anonymous donations, or perhaps a trust from her father that was later revealed.

Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.