Questions I still have. (contains spoilers)

1. Dunno, and not sure I care.

2. I believe that horse was someone she was with previously.

3. Once again, dunno. This movie made no sense. It was also stupid, cruel and fascistic. 4/10. Awful.

I think he chickened out and bailed, which is why she talks about him in a past tense manner.

Like another said, I think he bailed on her hence the past tense narrative.

However, I was annoyed that the writers didn't feel like completing the story. Did he die, did they get caught, turned into lobsters, did he run away? I usually don't mind open-ended endings, but this one seemed to bother me. Maybe I've just watched a string of movies that don't have a complete story and this one stings a little more than usual.

Personally I see absolutely no reason to assume or suspect he died. His character development made it clear that he was a callow and self centered sort. To me it was obvious that he was no longer in love with Rachel Weisz's character, couldn't go through with blinding himself, and abandoned her at the restaurant.

Naturally I can't say that is absolutely what actually happened, because it was deliberately left ambiguous. Yet it was obvious to me due to how David had been painted up to that point as a character. If there is anything specific you can point out to indicate anything to contradict my conclusion, by all means, I'll hear it out.

You're getting weird answers from people that didn't understand that the film was not supposed to satisfy reality or give anybody closure. It was basically a film filled with the allegories of stupid things society does with relationships:

a) you need to be married
b) if you fail that, you're a loner that's put on trail and have a certain amount of time to resolve that to stay in good standing
c) you need to always find someone like you (right down to the eyesight)
d) any new relationships are on trail, which you can fail at
e) in real life, a lot of people have kids because they mistakenly believe it will "fix" their relationship (hence the child that the nose-bleeders were assigned)
f) to find people who accept you as a loner, you need to join a lonely out-cast clan. Get yourself off all you want, but no real flirting or sex with someone else, because then you wouldn't belong with the loners anymore.
g) pretend happy relationships with the parents back in the city
h) so many couples are shams, the headkeeper that would rather shoot his wife, the man who pretends to be a nosebleeder.
i) might as well dig your grave now, because if you're part of the loner clan, we get busy dying soon

etc. etc., I think you see where I'm going with this. I still have yet to reconcile certain scenes in my mind, but I'm relatively certain they fit in this framework

As for your questions, here's my take:

1) I think he abandoned her, couldn't go through with it. His devotion / commitment wasn't enough. But then, it's a farce that he needed to be blind to continue a relationship with her anyway.
2) Good question on the horse/donkey. Probably someone she knew -- just an animal now (and people turning into animals is yet just another allegory of the sorry existence some of us have).
3) too literal, it doesn't matter. See point e) above.

More questions:

4) what's the significance of the yachts?
5) why are the shooting each other with tranqs?


Eh?