I think I have an okay understanding of what the film was generally about and it's message, but can anyone explain the significance of Preston killing(?) his mother at the end? Also what did the symbol being printed on the paper/that was on the bottom right-hand corner of the last shot mean? What about the main characters sexual ambiguity? The pile of snakes that opened the second act?
Anyone have any ideas?
Here's what I got. The attack was just his last major outburst/tantrum of the movie, the culmination of his bad behavior throughout. I'm not sure about the symbol, maybe it was in the book, but I do know fascist movements usually adopt aggressive symbols in it's iconography (eagles, bears, snakes, etc.) As far as the sexual ambiguity I caught in the scene where they are discussing how Germany should be punished one of the diplomats mistakes the main character for a girl. The next scene he's walking around in an open robe making sure no one there could make that mistake again (another tantrum). Along with that the french tutor suggests he should cut his so he would more resemble a boy. Finally I thought it was interesting that at the en the "leader" had gone as far to shave is head and grow a thick beard, unmistakable markers of masculinity.
shareI didn't quite get the film... what confuses me the most is that the leader is actually Charles (Robert Pattison's character), so, is the leader really Charles? Or is it just a weird cast decision?
shareI watched the film twice over the weekend. I was most surprised to discover just now that the credits (far too small to read on a television screen) describe Robert Pattinson, not Tom Sweet, as the Leader. If this is so, how can the film be about the 'childhood' of the Leader, since Pattinson plays a journalist. No, his role is to become Prescott's protector and mentor - maybe the only one who understands him. The crowd are more excited to see the occupant, I think, of the first car in the parade - I take this to be Prescott. Pattinson is in the second car. With a film like this, though, the 'truth' of it is what you, the viewer, think the truth to be. I shall watch it a third time with Brady Corbet's commentary running, remembering though that the author of a novel can be reasonably 'out-voted' by its readers.
P.S. Having looked at some other comments on IMDB, it's not the viewer's fault if the director has decided to make the film's credits in a miniscule font. If I turn out to be 'wrong' not to read the legalistic small print, and consequently if I was too 'thick' to guess that Prescott (Robert Pattinson) was to turn miraculously into his own father after twenty or so years, I blame Brady Corbet for playing 'funny games' with me. After all, might Prescott have turned into simply being a pejorative 'bastard' (his childhood giving some hint of this) rather than a literal bastard? Our William the Conqueror was actually known in Normandy as 'William the Bastard' after all, his doubtful lineage (and therefore equally doubtful claim to the English throne) not necessarily proving his actions in 1066 to be tyrannical or egotistical.
No.... just no lol. The whole movie is an allegory. The boy is nothing more than a manifestation of the circumstances around him. And he grows up to be Robert Pattinson bc he was his actual father. Prescott the bastard... double entendre.
The symbol was a lion. Reminiscent of the fable he was taught about the lion and the mouse.
Killing the mom I’m not positive but could be representational of the suppression of women in that era. She never wanted to have him anyway. She wanted a career. In a way he was putting her out of her misery.