MovieChat Forums > Nocturnal Animals (2016) Discussion > Just someone explain to me what was so g...

Just someone explain to me what was so great about this movie.

posted 7 years ago by Dreamcatcher9000
114 replies | jump to latest

(First, if you are bored to read this subject/questions again, save yourself some time from your life, and move on. The movie may have opened in the US for 2 months now, but it just opened to mine and others, so if you have discussed it so many times and you are bored with the repetition, why are you here?)

With films like "Mullholand Drive" (which "Nocturnal Animals seems to be inspired by at some points), it's possible that someone won't be excited about it because they won't understand it. Or, a more recent example, "Enemy", with Gyllenhaal again. If you haven't read some psychology and don't know that the spiders are a symbolism for, there's no way you're gonna understand that film. Which, in my opinion is wrong, a film should address to everybody, whether it has to do psychology or math or science. etc.. Because if they do, it's like the director says to our face "you're stupid". But it's a actually the opposite, he's the stupid one who didn't find a way to communicate with the audience.

So anyway, I watched "Nocturnal Animals", and for once more, I was in confusion. But my confusion was why was this film made, and what was so significant that it wanted to say. And then I came to the Internet, to see what the critics said, and literally everybody said it was a masterpiece. I watched 3 reviews on You Tube, and none of those critics said WHY they thought this movie was so good. They just said that the visual style is gorgeous, that Jaynson is creepy, that Shannon is terrific, that the narration style mixing these 3 stories is so cool, and generally they just DESCRIBED the film, they don't explain WHAT makes it a masterpiece.

So, I just want to check here what did I miss. I'm gonna say what I understood.

1) Susan is married with a business guy (because that's what he is in the whole movie, just a business guy, we never learn anything interesting about him). They're not happy, he's cheating on her.
She receives a new novel from her ex husband. She starts reading it.

Ok so far? Very simple, I think.

2)As she reads it, we see that it's a story of a guy (who as we learn later has the same face as her ex-husband) who seeks revenge for the death of his wife and daughter who were raped and killed by some hillbillies, with the help of a sheriff. They find the guys, and they kill them, and then this guy dies in the most stupid way someone could think of (they funny thing is that after he killed Ray, he was stumbling on his way out of the cabin, and I thought "wouldn't it be ridiculous if he stumbled and fell on his gun and shot himself?". And then he did.)

So, ok, we basically saw another movie within the movie, which could have been another typical revenge movie itself (which, again, we have seen 1,000 times before). Because it really felt like it was an 100% separate movie, and nobody can say otherwise. If you take from "Nocturnal Animals" all the scenes of the revenge story in Texas, it makes a completely separate movie.

3) And last, we see flashbacks of Susan's relationship with her ex-husband, Edward, how it started, how she cheated on him with her present husband (who cheats on her), how she had abortion of his child, how they broke up, etc.

And at the end, we see that Edward asks her to meet him for dinner, to talk about the book I suppose, and generally just catch up I guess, and she goes, and he doesn't come. And the movie ends there.

Ok, so, did we see the same movie? Isn't this the movie in a nutshell? Did I miss something? If not, then can someone tell me what was the significance of the story in the book with the relationship of Susan and Edward? People talk about "revenge". So, yeah, ok, she cheated on him and had abortion of his child. He got deeply hurt, and probably never got over it. So, what did he do? He wrote a book with "metaphors" of their relationship? Which were these metaphors? What, the cancer of the dying sheriff was a metaphor to their dying relationship? And what was the metaphor of these hillbillies stopping the car and kidnapping his wife and daughter and killing them? Nothing like that happened in their relationship. She cheated on him and had abortion of his baby. WTF does that chain-smoking sheriff and those hillbillies had to do with the whole story? And why did Tony's wife look like Susan? What did these two characters have in common, besides both being his wife, in real life and in fiction?

So, what I'm saying is that the story in the book had nothing to do with their relationship. It was a completely different story. If he wanted to get revenge from her and hurt her (besides that he stood her up in a fancy restaurant), she could write a story using a character very similar to her, and hurt her in the story. Or just write some things that clearly target against her and her feelings, just make her feel pain for cheating on him and all that.

And ok, even if I wasn't convinced by the whole thing, and even if Susan was really personally hurt from that book, and for him never showing up at the restaurant...does this make this movie a masterpiece? Best case scenario, it makes it an "ok" and/or "meh, ok, interesting..." movie. WTF is with all those critics who rate it with 9/10?

Closing, what it would really make it more interesting, would be if these things really did happen in Edward's life after he broke up with Susan. And he wrote them in a book, and sent it to her for her to feel something about him, or to say "all these happened because of you" or whatever. And of course, you'd have your twist there "oooh, so it wasn't just a book, these things did happen...". Whatever. But the movie as it is, I just don't get what was so dazzling about it. Please someone make me understand what was so significant about it.

p.s.: Can you also tell me what was the "symbolism" of the opening credits? Yes, the obese middle-aged women dancing. What did they have to do with the story. Nothing? Ok. Just another pointless thing to make fuss about.
(Yes, I got that they were part of Susan's exhibition, but was there any reason to be put at the opening credits of the movie, OTHER than to "shock" us?)

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

I didn't think the movie was a masterpiece or even close to it but individual performances of Jake and Michael were impressive. I thought Amy did a good job of playing two versions of her character- young idealistic, naive and ambitious and then as older more businesslike, lonely, cynical.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Adams was good, but unfortunately she was in the wrong movie.

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

Why do you say that?

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Because 70-80% of the movie was that Texas story that could be a completely different movie. They could have made a good movie with only the main story, and they screwed it. And she would have a better chance to give a really good (and bigger) performance, and take an Oscar nomination. Which she would lose, as always. :p

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

I think it was an okay role for Amy. The role was more of a dramatic challenge for her than the character she played in Arrival. And I felt that this movie was actually a better movie.

Why does every performance need to be award worthy? Sometimes actors (true actors) take roles that they are drawn to or can relate to. Sometimes they want a challenge or the opportunity to work with whomever in the industry: other actors or directors. Not always do they go into a role thinking that they will earn critical acclaim or the film be a blockbuster or get positive reviews.

I really don't think Amy has that much to prove. She's a solid actress. Not on the level of Streep, or old Hollywood stars like Betty Davis, Ingrid Berman, or 90s movie stars like Susan Sarandon, Nicole Kidman or any other Oscar winner. Or even among her peers like Jessica Chastain, Jennifer Lawrence, Ashley Judd, Natalie Portman or Bryce Dallas Howard.

I think the important thing is to play as many different types characters. Have fun with it. Be totally committed to playing a role that is completely against type where they change their appearance. Get an acting coach. The only gripe I have about Amy is that she always looks like Amy in every movie like her red hair is her trademark or something. That's not acting in my opinion.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

TerryGG

Well, just like brunette actresses has brunette hair in every movie, Adams is a red hair who has red hair in every movie! Yes, it's a rare color, but it's her color! Why change it?

I agree with what you say, no (serious) actor should have to win an Oscar in mind when they accept a role, and they shouldn't get obsessed about it if years go by and they don't win one. It's just an extra thing. Oscars don't define an actor's (or a director's, a composer's, etc.) career. Hitchcock and Kubrick never won one (for directing), and Ennio Morricone never won one until last year (which was more like a "career" Oscar, which is kind of unnecessary since...they had already given him a career Oscar in 2007!).

But anyway, just like DiCaprio, Adams is in that list of actors over a certain age with lots of nominations who have never won, and this year they didn't even nominate her for neither those 2 movies (many expected her to be nominated for Leading Actress in "Arrival" and for Supporting in "Nocturnal Animals" -which is considered a jinx, rarely one wins if they're nominated two times in one year-), so there's an issue about the Academy snubbing her, that's why I made the comment.

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

Well, just like brunette actresses has brunette hair in every movie, Adams is a red hair who has red hair in every movie! Yes, it's a rare color, but it's her color! Why change it?

Because that's part of acting. Not every character has the same hair color as the actor- red hair or brunette or whatever. Pick your color.
C'mon now. I feel like you're turning this into an argument. Arguments are for kids.

The bottom line is that Amy doesn't deserve a nomination this year and that is her own fault for choosing those roles. It's not the director's or writers fault. It's Amy's fault.

Better luck next time.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

C'mon now. I feel like you're turning this into an argument.

You state an opinion - a foolish one IMHO - somebody disagrees with you, and you complain they're starting an argument. See anything wrong here, Mr Passive-Aggressive?

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

Sorry but I think that your opinion is foolish. To understand what I'm talking about all one has to do is look at Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchet or Tilda Swinton to see how real actresses completely get into different characters. And yet their fans still know who they are.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

And now you're arguing with me, Mr Passive-Aggressive. When will the complaints begin about me starting arguments?
As for foolish - take a look at your silly comments about Ms A's red hair, which would be the director's decision. That's one of the dumbest comments I've ever seen on IMDB, and you have plenty of competition.
Bottom line - she's a very highly respected actor with a long list of excellent work. Meryl Streep, Cate Blanchet and Tilda Swinton have all made dreadful films in their time. Oscars are a nice treat for actors, but they're no measure of excellence - just look at who has won some of them. Why are you so obsessed with these awards?

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

I feel as though I am not arguing with you. I'm just having a discussion about this movie and the actor's performance. You're the one that started name calling. I think that's very immature of you.

I get that you like Amy Adams and you have limited knowledge on what constitutes a "quality" acting performance and an actor's range. You blame the director and writer for Amy not getting a nomination when the truth of the matter is that Amy didn't have to be in this movie. She chose to be in this movie and gave us a weak performance.

So I suppose we could agree to disagree. Although my opinion is based in reality whereas yours is from ignorance.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

C'mon now. I feel like you're turning this into an argument. Arguments are for kids.

I don't try to make an argument, I just say my opinion. It's not a big deal that most of her characters have red hair. Especially since it's her hair. People like to see most actors because they're beautiful, and Amy's hair is part of her beauty.
Joaquin Phoenix has a scar on his upper lip, and he carries it in every movie he plays. Does this also bother you? Should they erase it with CGI every time? It's part of his body. Jeez...
And you know what? I think red hair was the right choice for Amy's roles in "Nocturnal Animals", "Arrival", "American Hustle", as Lois Lane, etc.. It suits those characters. Whenever there is a reason to change her hair, they do it, like in "Big Eyes", in which they made it blonde because the real character was blonde. If you just don't agree with all that, then you don't agree, end of story. No argument here.

The bottom line is that Amy doesn't deserve a nomination this year and that is her own fault for choosing those roles. It's not the director's or writers fault. It's Amy's fault.

She's a good actress. And sometimes, people give a script to a good actress, she reads it, she sees some potential in it, she agrees to shoot the movie, and the result is not very good. If you give a very good screenplay to a bad director, he'll make a bad movie.

I guess she saw some interesting elements in those scripts/projects, but, for me, they didn't turn into interesting movies. The majority seems to disagree, every critic praised "Nocturnal Animals", and "Arrival" got 8 Oscar nominations, so she thinks that she made good choices. And even "American Hustle" which was mediocre to me, it got 10 nominations. And "The Master" was a total b/s* to me, and still, it got good reviews, and 3 Oscar nominations, from which one for her.

So, I guess she thinks her career is in a good path with all these "Oscar" films, but, me personally, I really don't see any great movies in her recent filmography. It's not really her fault, since this is the "best" out there. She works with some of the "best" directors available, what else can she do?
But yes, it is true that she could make better choices. But better according to who, me and you? We're the minority, the majority says that she has a great career, so, this is how it goes.

But if you ask me, no, I think the biggest fault is the directors', not hers. Ford and Villeneuve had interesting material, they could have done two really good movies with it, and they screwed it up. Villeneuve is a good director, I liked "Sicario" and "Prisoners", and Amy liked them too, so why not play in "Arrival", she trusted him. And I repeat, although the majority says it's an awesome movie, I just don't get what was so great about it. It was really nothing, and even ridiculous in many scenes.

*Pun with "Batman vs. Superman" not intended... :p

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

In my opinion the most critically acclaimed actors have all gone outside of their typical typecast/comfort zone to win prestigious awards. And history proves it. She can certainly have a successful career as a movie star but at this rate, don't expect Amy to win a coveted SAG or Cecile. B DeMille award.

Edit: Or if Amy can successfully master playing in a biopic about a famous red head like Lucille Ball or Rita Hayworth. The Academy adores biopics when done perfectly.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

In my opinion the most critically acclaimed actors have all gone outside of their typical typecast/comfort zone to win prestigious awards.

I don't think that Adams is typecast. Sure, she's not a chameleon like Meryl Streep, but she plays different roles. She has played comedy, musicals, drama, sci-fi, blockbusters, biopics... You can't say that she doesn't have variety in her films. She just hasn't found yet that movie that will give her the big chance to really prove that she's a great actress.

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

Omg you are really grasping at straws or trying to prolong this convo.

Amy Adams isn't a great actress, bottom line. Maybe she will be one day when she learns how to act.

And that's it.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

And that's it.

Just another pathetic internet nobody throwing shade and hoping to convince others he knows better than professional casting directors, producers, awards committees, critics and investors - and comprehensively failing to do so. That's what it is.

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

Correction: I don't think that I know more than anyone in the business. What I do know is what they have said in countless interviews. Sorry that your friend lost the argument. However the truth remains that real actors-the ones that win multiple awards and establish themselves as lengends in the business- they all are chameleons (their range) because they get into character rather than never changing their appearance or type. To name a few:

1. Robert DeNiro
2. Daniel Day Lewis
3. Cate Blanchet
4. Gene Hackman
5. Al Pacino
6. Bette Davis
7. Vivian Leigh
8. Susan Sarandon
9. Nicole Kidman
10. Tom Hanks
11. Sean Penn
12. Meryl Streep
13. Halle Berry
14. Viola Davis
15. Gary Oldman
16. Lawrence Olivier
17. Sally Field
18. Natalie Portman
19. Elizabeth Taylor
20. Katherine Hepburn
21. Michelle Pfeiffer
22. Jennifer Lawrence
23. Danzel Washington
24. Angelina Jolie

And they all have played leading roles so they aren't character actor.

Do I need to list their award nominations and wins for you too?

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Do I need to list their award nominations and wins for you too?

Sure, go ahead. Every single one, please.

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

If you were an actual movie buff or film geek you wouldn't need a list. Instead you are just a common obssessed Amy Adam's fanatic. People like you creep out us normal fans.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

What I do know is what they have said in countless interviews.

Please also identify who they are - and cite every single one of those "countless interviews".

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

Do your own work.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

I don't think that I know more than anyone in the business.

It's transparently clear you know next to nothing. You scoff at the decisions of professionals, draw up pointless lists like an imbecilic teenager and pontificate about the meaning of silly awards.

Instead you are just a common obssessed Amy Adam's fanatic.

Your lamentable grammar and spelling reveals your ignorance across a wide spectrum. I'm not the fan of any actor - they're simply vehicles for the screenwriter's ideas. OTOH I do have the wit to recognize talent, and when I see a jealous dullard carping at a consummate professional, I call it as I saw it.

[–] DavidVilla 7 years ago

No, that's not it.

Because here's you, TerryGG on iMDB message boards who nobody has heard of saying with some kind of arrogant assertiveness that Amy Adams "isn't a great actress" and that she needs to "learn how to act".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Amy_Adams

And here's an entire page dedicated to listing all 136 of her nominations for acting. Including five Academy Award nominations, six BAFTA nominations, seven Golden Globe nominations, of which she has won twice, four Screen Actors Guild (who you seemed to single out as being particularly prestigious so you clearly respect their view) nominations.

But yeah, sure, you know best.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

TerryGG on iMDB message boards who nobody has heard of . . .

How can you dismiss Terry in such a cavalier manner? He's a world famous critic - no doubt IMDB is re-configuring their Amy Adams page to correspond to his negative opinion of her.
I was even more impressed with her work on second viewing of the film. I knew she was widely respected but had no idea she'd received so many plaudits

[–] DavidVilla 7 years ago

I mean, I was already of the opinion that Amy Adams was a great actress, but I don't see how anyone could watch her in this and think of her as even remotely bad. She portrays two different versions of the same character and is believable in both. Not to mention that a lot of her scenes in the 'present' require her to simply act a lot with just her face and no dialogue and it's always very believable and clear what she's feeling. The scene where she's reading the moment Tony finds the bodies of his wife and daughter and her reaction to I think is a pretty good reflection of that and her reaction alone was powerful in and of itself.

Bizarre posts by ol' Terry.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Bizarre posts by ol' Terry.

If you can stand a little home-spun psycho-analysis, I suspect the venom directed at Adams is transference from the character she plays. Like many of us, Susan behaved poorly when she was younger, but she's clearly reflected on her actions in the interim. In the film we see how she judges herself fairly harshly and openly admits regret to her assistant.
I feel the hate directed at this character is inappropriate. Various posters have asserted she has been irrevocably 'crushed and destroyed' by Edward's dinner no-show, and that Susan's inescapable destiny is to spend her declining years in solitude and misery. It's disturbing how many drool with vindictive pleasure over this prospect. I think these sentiments are a reflection of our deeply misogynistic society.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

I think she's a decent actress too. I first saw her in Junebug (which I highly recommend) and can recall her in that movie with Christian Bale (I'm forgetting the title) and most recently this--all of which demonstrated her ability to play a range of roles with depth and nuance convincingly (perhaps least of all in Nocturnal Animals, though).

But there's something about her in this movie that just didn't sit right with me. I don't mind her trademark appearance (though I can see how that affects how viewers can 'allow' her to fit certain roles in their minds)--but I wonder how someone like, say, Nicole Kidman would have been received.

If Kidman were in this role, I think all allegiances would have gone to Edward straight away--but maybe that would have been an even worse decision. Amy has something more approachable about her; it's perhaps that she's less glamorous per se that allows us to be ambivalent about whether we like her character or not.

By the way, by way of comparison, Nicole Kidman is incredible in Birth. If you want to check that out and maybe compare the two roles, let me know what you think.

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

[–] TerryGG 7 years ago

If Kidman were in this role, I think all allegiances would have gone to Edward straight away--but maybe that would have been an even worse decision. Amy has something more approachable about her; it's perhaps that she's less glamorous per se that allows us to be ambivalent about whether we like her character or not.

By the way, by way of comparison, Nicole Kidman is incredible in Birth. If you want to check that out and maybe compare the two roles, let me know what you think.

Nicole is one of my favorite actresses! She is so talented. I have been a huge fan of Nicole Kidman since she starred in Dead Calm. I am so confident in her skill set that I would go see her in a movie if she played a homeless woman.
I think that Nicole's range could play any type of character and be convincing including as Susan.

That said, I have seen Birth. It's an okay film, not my favorite of hers.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

Birth gets lots of mixed reviews, and I'm in the camp that loves it. Glazer came pretty far from his days directing music videos, and I thoroughly enjoyed Sexy Beast and Birth (although I wish they had left it more ambiguous at the ending) and Under the Skin (which I consider a masterpiece.) That close-up scene of her at the opera was absolutely riveting.

I bring up Kidman because in a sense, her character in Birth and Susan in Nocturnal Animals are somewhat similar (socioeconomically, both in stifling circumstances given their stations/choices in life and dealing with some wildly out-of-the-ordinary situation) but Kidman, I feel, has so much more depth in that role and elicits far more empathy. Again, maybe it's the point that we're not supposed to feel all that sympathetic towards Susan, but I just thought the comparison might help us evaluate Amy Adams' performance.

"If they're gunning for you, boy...you've already won."

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brit1012000 7 years ago

Thank you for the synopsis, last night I walked out around the hour mark. However when I saw how highly rated it was here I thought I was missing something. Apparently not, thank you for the informative review.

[–] brit1012000 7 years ago

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Thanks, I appreciate it. You know, there is not even one movie in the history of cinema that ALL people like or ALL people hate, someone will dislike a masterpiece like "Citizen Kane" or like a crappy movie like "Return of the Killer Tomatoes" (and I liked it, because it was funny!), so we shouldn't expect from everyone to agree with out opinion about every movie. I mean I liked "Titanic" very much, but I'm totally fine if someone didn't like it and found it an overrated melodramatic blockbuster, and I didn't like the new "Ghostbusters", but I'm totally fine if someone liked it, who am I to tell them if they found it funny or not, but sometimes, I really don't get it. And this movie here is one of these times.

[–] Sundance-A-Kid 7 years ago

Well, this thread is very entertaining. You keep on attacking various people who explain very clearly and eloquently how the layers of the film work with the same tirade of how the two stories don't mix and that there is no meaning anywhere. Must be infuriating to have an argument with you about anything as it seems you have made up your mind and any kind of insight or fact washes off you in a glorious Trump fashion. I always find that when there is a film that is universally - or at least widely praised by critics then there has got to be something in there that they reacted to. If I don't see it then the chances are that I am the one who missed something - not them. Critics aren't just a bunch of pretentious elitists who attempt to make everyone else feel stupid. Some are, sure, but if you read reviews by established and respected critics you'll find that they tend to give very strong arguments for what they like, citing various entries into the cannon of cinema as their references. Have a read of the below reviews:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/nov/06/nocturnal-animals-review-tom-ford-amy-adams-jake-gyllenhaal
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/movies/nocturnal-animals-review-amy-adams-jake-gyllenhaal.html?_r=0

And you can get a nice slice of this and that here, including negative ones:

https://criticsroundup.com/film/nocturnal-animals/

Something no one enjoys is feeling like your opinion is grounded in something less astute than others. That the reason you didn't like something or that you didn't laugh at a joke was that you didn't get it. It's very embarrassing and demoralising. Clearly, from your various comments on this board, you are unwilling to recognise the layers and the symbolism and the depths that are present in this movie. And it seems that no matter what anyone tells you or how well and concisely they do so you will stick to your insistence that none of the things any of the critics - or Ford himself - have said is true. And the reasons you cite are related to not understanding what Ford was trying to do.

That is why you are getting people annoyed with you and then try, very hard, to explain how this film works. And sometimes they are condescending. That is not to say that you can't dislike this film - of course. Anyone can hate anything they want - but when they go on to a board and write a long tirade about how they hated something and then show, through their analysis, that they didn't understand the thing they were watching then - well, you kind of asked for it.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Sundance

I really came here because after watching the film, I thought that I missed something. That I was stupid and that I didn't get what it was about, just like I felt stupid the first time I saw "Mulholland Dr." (which is a quite similar film with this one). But at least the second was much more interesting as a film, no matter what you got from it.

I don't need to read ALL the reviews out there for "Nocturnal Animals" or any film. That was what was good about IMDB's boards, to come here and ask other people about something you didn't get, instead of reading 20 reviews (and still have questions).

I read the first review you attached, the one from The Guardian. I'm sorry, but it doesn't answer the question I have (or rather, had) for this movie. Which is what was so SIGNIFICANT about the parallelism of the fictional Texas story and the real LA story.

And as Susan reads, Ford visualises – conjuring a dramatised version of the novel in which Gyllenhaal doubles as self-loathing husband and father, Tony Hastings, while Isla Fisher (whom audiences have long confused with Adams) is very smartly cast as Susan’s barely disguised stand-in, Laura Hastings. Soon, this fictional world becomes more real than Susan’s waking-dream existence, with Michael Shannon breathing tangible, rasping life into Detective Andes, an end-of-the-line chain-smoker with a hacking cough and little patience for the niceties of law enforcement. Meanwhile, flashbacks of Susan and Edward’s former life (a third story strand) find Laura Linney nearly stealing the show as the conservative mother from hell who taunts Susan about how alike they are, and who prophetically insists that “the things you love about [Edward] now are the things you’ll hate in a few years…”

Yes, thank you very much, that's what I saw in the movie. But this critic doesn't decode the symbolisms of the film (probably because it doesn't have any), or explain what was the importance of this concept, to make a movie about a guy who has his family kidnapped, raped and killed by some hillbillies, and goes for revenge with the help of a sheriff, within a movie about a guy who supposedly tries to get in touch again with his ex-wife, but for some reason he doesn't appear on their date at the end. I don't see a SIGNIFICANT connection. And as you saw, some other people here didn't either.

Let's go to the NY Times review. This one does a better job:

There’s trouble in paradise: Hutton is unfaithful, distant and on a steep financial downslide. Susan tries to reach out to him, but it’s impossible, so she keeps turning to the novel instead, escaping in its violence, tension and suspense.

That's a good observation, but it would be better if this book she was reading was a "random" book she found somewhere, and she feels a connection with the writer, and wants to find and meet him after she finishes it. And you could unveil a very interesting story from there. For me, that would be a better story, and it would make much more sense. Don't you agree?

Tom Ford (“A Single Man”) handles the transitions between Susan’s story and Tony’s smoothly. Some of the shifts are fairly blunt, as Mr. Ford abruptly cuts back and forth between the two stories. Over time, though, as Tony’s situation becomes increasingly dire, Susan’s responses grow more emotionally fraught. Like any invested reader (or moviegoer), she begins to care about this fictional character, to worry and weep. Edward may be a fine writer, but a series of flashbacks to Susan’s life with him suggests another reason for her tears: Tony looks like Edward.

Again, I saw all these in the movie.

Edward’s novel shocks her back to life, only to destroy her.

How did it destroy her? By not showing up at the restaurant? We didn't see the outcome of this whole story, because Mr. Ford thought it was cool to let us wonder. I'm fine with open endings, but sometimes, they're just cheap ways to escape making a real ending.

Susan’s world, for instance, comes across as far more artificial than Tony’s does, with its cruelties, dust and blood. She looks as if she stepped out of a Pedro Almodóvar fantasia, while Tony ends up clawing through a Jim Thompson pulp novel (one featuring a great Michael Shannon).

All these are fine observations, but I got them when I saw the movie. I understood the differences between the LA "art" atmosphere and the Texas roughness and all that. But, hoping you will understand what I'm saying, and what this whole thread (which will be gone in a few days) is about, is that, nevertheless of all the above, what I saw was another typical revenge story in the wild west that really, really, said nothing new that we haven't seen. And it was like at least 70% of the whole movie that is called "Nocturnal Animals". So yes, it had some parallelisms with what happened with Edward and Susan. Yes, whatever, the death of Tony's daughter symbolized the death of their unborn child, and the dying sheriff symbolized the death of their long relationship. But I didn't care, because none of this characters was interesting to me. Susan COULD have been a very interesting character, if the whole movie was based on her. And the same with Edward, a character that we really never saw except for a few flashbacks, so why the f--k should I care about him and his feelings? Who was he?

Last, in this whole message of yours, you write NOTHING about what YOU thought about the movie. Unless all you do is copy/paste links of "professional" reviews to whoever didn't get a movie. But you don't have to say anything really, because you won't say anything different that I haven't already read.

And again, the reason I did this thread was because I wondered if I missed something (it happens sometimes to everyone I think), but after ALL these replies (and the reviews from the professionals), I understood that I perfectly understood the film, and I saw what everybody else saw, but the thing is that it didn't say anything to me, because it was non-substantial, pretentious, and it had indifferent characters. 3 simple but very important reasons to dislike a film.

[–] Sundance-A-Kid 7 years ago

Well, the reviews don't ever go into the exact details of all the strands as not to spoil the story but anyway - my point was that your complaint about the film inspired others to get frustrated with you because you claim to see what Ford was doing then revert to stating things that show you didn't.

So for example. This comment:

How did it destroy her? By not showing up at the restaurant? We didn't see the outcome of this whole story, because Mr. Ford thought it was cool to let us wonder. I'm fine with open endings, but sometimes, they're just cheap ways to escape making a real ending.

Ford did not think it was 'cool to let us wonder'. The ending is't open at all in the sense that it brings her character full circle. The image of her sitting there, alone, at a table very similar to where we have seen them before, with her 'sad eyes' is the logical conclusion to her journey through understanding her past actions. Edward has, in a sense, helped her to get to this point where her life makes sense and her regret over her actions and who she has become has reached its nadir. Until that moment the story she read seemed to her to be a way for him to make her understand so that she could see him and say sorry and perhaps redeem this horrible thing she did. But by not coming it becomes clear that the story was not about him as much as it was about her. Edward's intention was not reconciliation but catharsis - for him and, once it was finished, for her too. Because clearly he cares about her deeply. Deeply enough to to allow her to read this journey he went on to understand why she did what she did to him. But her reward for understanding him and herself is not forgiveness and reconciliation - it's catharsis and perhaps epiphany. It's a very profound and daring ending. An image that speaks not through words but through image loaded with meaning.

But you don't see this:

But this critic doesn't decode the symbolisms of the film (probably because it doesn't have any), or explain what was the importance of this concept, to make a movie about a guy who has his family kidnapped, raped and killed by some hillbillies, and goes for revenge with the help of a sheriff, within a movie about a guy who supposedly tries to get in touch again with his ex-wife, but for some reason he doesn't appear on their date at the end. I don't see a SIGNIFICANT connection.

No. You don't. And that is your problem in understanding this film. Edward's purpose in writing his novel is to understand her. The confusion and devastation he feels over what she did to him - leaving him and aborting his child - will have lead to him searching his soul for what he did wrong. But when he finds that he didn't really do anything wrong he then tries to comprehend her, what about her made her act so callously towards him when he clearly didn't deserve it. So he creates a scenario that parallels her actions in a world that is gritty and raw and full of real, unavoidable emotions. In this world actions have immediate and brutal consequences and there is nowhere to hide. And in this world he presents her with an emotional journey that is both his and hers. 'Hers' when Tony hides from confronting his wife and daughter's potential killers. 'His' when Tony screams at Ray to explain what it felt like to kill them. It's what he wanted to do when standing in the rain and seeing the truth sitting in the car. Andes, the sheriff, is like his guide through trying to understand how it all happened - and like a conscience. The angel and the devil on the shoulders telling you what to do as the horrific truths slowly unravel.

People have varying interpretations of exactly how the aspects of the story parallel the real journey, which will depend on your experiences of dealing with grief and devastation. But they all lead to the same understanding - that the story is Edward's journey through understanding his grief and her ability to inflict it. He is most definitely not simply trying to 'get in touch with his ex-wife'.

Then this:

Susan COULD have been a very interesting character, if the whole movie was based on her. And the same with Edward, a character that we really never saw except for a few flashbacks, so why the f--k should I care about him and his feelings? Who was he?

But the whole film, as I have said above, is about her. And your conclusion that because we never meet Edward in the present we don't know him shows that you just didn't understand that the novel shows us exactly who he is. His comments to her, when they are younger - his belief in her, the beauty he sees in her, the hope he has for them and the love he knows they feel - these show us that he believes in emotional truth. His analysis of her in the restaurant shows us that he is attentive, perceptive. 'Don't throw people away'. That is his moral. They found something beautiful. Something worth believing in. But she threw it away and his novel is the process of understanding why that happened and how it felt and how those feelings will shape a person forever. But he is still hopeful. He sends her the novel hoping that maybe she can use it to rediscover that person he once found and believed in. Not to come back to him - because he has moved on now - but for herself. It's a beautiful thing to do for someone.

Now, you can choose to be unmoved by this journey, of course. But blaming it on the fact that there is nothing significant and that the crime thriller bears no actual relevance to Susan and Edward's lives and then saying that you see everything everyone else is trying to explain to you is denial and everyone who did see these connections will try to get you to see them because they care enough to help you find the profundity and beauty in something that touched them. It is exactly what Edward was trying to do for Susan. And thankfully Susan understood what Edward was saying without him having to spell it out for her.

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Wow, s--t dude, I owe you an apology! That was a damn good analysis! Much better than those critics' or any other I read here. You understood the film perfectly. And in my opinion, a good critic can do a good analysis on a film without spoiling (much). Those reviews you sent me were just dimly describing the film's meanings, but what you wrote above is a real thorough dive inside it. After 108 (!!) replies in this thread (the biggest thread in this board!), you managed to answer my question of what did I not get in this film.

Everything you say in your explanation about the ending made me understand it better. Especially when you say:

Edward has, in a sense, helped her to get to this point where her life makes sense and her regret over her actions and who she has become has reached its nadir.

And later on, when you say:

Edward's purpose in writing his novel is to understand her. This is the truth for every (good) writer. What they basically do is to understand the characters they're writing about (whether they're fictional or real persons, or both!).

And also:

'His' when Tony screams at Ray to explain what it felt like to kill them. It's what he wanted to do when standing in the rain and seeing the truth sitting in the car.

It's really funny that you mention this. Because I watched the BAFTA's last night, and they showed the clip from that scene (I think when they announced Gyllenhaal's nomination), and I thought about it. It became clearer to me that it was actually him screaming to Susan. I just didn't get it the first time, sorry! :p

Andes, the sheriff, is like his guide through trying to understand how it all happened - and like a conscience. The angel and the devil on the shoulders telling you what to do as the horrific truths slowly unravel.

Well, again, s--t dude, you got it right. Most people were saying that the sheriff dying from cancer was a metaphor for their relationship, which didn't convince me. But, you got it, he was his conscience. If I'm not mistaken, when the sheriff tells to Tony that there's nothing (legal) they can do about those murderers, he brings him the dilemma of what he wants to do with them. Just let it go (angel), or have his revenge (devil)?

He sends her the novel hoping that maybe she can use it to rediscover that person he once found and believed in. Not to come back to him - because he has moved on now - but for herself. It's a beautiful thing to do for someone.

And this alone explains the film 100%. Even if you hadn't told me anything else, you would have bought me with this simple explanation. What you said here is the whole film. I have nothing else to say about it.
And yes, if Edward showed up at the restaurant, it would destroy the film. Not showing up makes much more sense now.

So, ok, mission accomplished. Congrats, you convinced me. I'm not a jerk to deny EVERY opinion told here. It's not why I came here, to ask a question and deny every explanation. I was reading mostly descriptions of the film, I didn't want that, I wanted a real re-interpretation, and you gave it to me (or maybe you used the right words!). That said though, no, it doesn't mean that I'm gonna like the film better now. Understanding it better is different than liking it better. You said: "Now, you can choose to be unmoved by this journey, of course.". No, no one can choose if they're gonna be moved or unmoved by something. It just happens or it doesn't. I still don't have warm feelings about this film. Yes, like I said, Ford's vision became clearer to me now, or actually, YOUR vision made me see clearer the film, because it's possible that Ford has a slightly different point of view than you. Sometimes a viewer can understand a film even better than the director! Sometimes artists don't really know what they do, they're mediators between an inspiration which comes from nowhere, and the making of a painting or a film. And people ask them "what do you want to say with this?", and they respond "I don't really know". And someone pops up and gives their interpretation, and the artist says "damn, you're right, that's what I wanted to say!".

But I didn't come here to ask from people "please make me like this film", I asked a question, and it, eventually, got an answer that convinced me. And that's what was the point of the IMDB message boards, and those idiots are closing them down. Communication, exchanging opinions, points of views. Now IMDB is gonna be an empty, cold place of "dry" INFORMATION, and updates about the latest mindless blockbuster or whatever, and nothing else. The posts about this film here, your opinions, mine, everyone's, are gonna vanish, and this movie's page is gonna be just an empty place of information, without people's opinions. Well, f--k you Col Needham.

Anyway, thank you sir (or madame?). Now I'm gonna see "A Single Man". ;)

p.s.: "But you don't have to say anything really, because you won't say anything different that I haven't already read."
Well, okaaay, I feel so embarrassed now... I take it back! :p

p.s.2: Oh, any interpretation about the opening credits sequence??

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Edward's purpose in writing his novel is to understand her.

Not really - you don't write fiction to understand another person - especially 20 years after you last saw them. In any case, the novel is all about his own emotions - how their separation felt to HIM - devastation, feelings of impotence, self-recrimination etc. The wife plays a minimal, passive role in the events.

[–] zcarface86 7 years ago

Wow pathetic. You just jealous cause no one agrees with your'Edward has cancer' theory. Here the man just gave the most beautiful explanation one you couldn't even dream of conceiving. Yet you have the audacity to antagonize the man to stoop to your level. Hahaha you have no shame. I hope snobbish trolls like yourself starve to death when imdb shuts down so you won't have any platform to draw attention to yourself.

[–] nkavy71488 7 years ago

Malibu, California
Pacific Palisades, California
Rustic Canyon, Los Angeles, CA
Brentwood, Los Angeles, CA
Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles, CA
Westwood, Los Angeles, CA
Holmby Hills, Los Angeles, CA
Beverly Hills, California
West Hollywood, California
Bel Air, Los Angeles, CA
Beverly Glen, Los Angeles, CA
Benedict Canyon, Los Angeles, CA
Beverly Park, Los Angeles, CA
Coldwater Canyon, Los Angeles, CA
Laurel Canyon, Los Angeles, CA
Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles, CA
Hollywood Hills West, Los Angeles, CA
Larchmont Village, Los Angeles, CA
Silver Lake, Los Angeles, CA
Hancock Park, Los Angeles, CA
Beverly Grove, Los Angeles, CA
Santa Monica, California
Ocean Park, Los Angeles, CA
West Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA
Manhattan Beach, California
Hermosa Beach, California
Century City, Los Angeles, CA
Cheviot Hills, Los Angeles, CA
Rancho Park, Los Angeles, CA
Mar Vista, Los Angeles, CA

[–] zinabaggins 7 years ago

I agree with everything you said. Also, the dialogue in the restaurant where Adams's character describes her parents made me puke. It's the reason why Trump became president. The liberal elites keep pushing this disgusting, hypocritical agenda and they don't realise they're the reason why Trump won.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

. . . they don't realise they're the reason why Trump won.

#1 Trump didn't win the votes of the majority.
#2 He won the electoral college (maybe?) because there are too many voters who are too ignorant to recognize a severe personality disorder

[–] Dreamcatcher9000 7 years ago

Also, the dialogue in the restaurant where Adams's character describes her parents made me puke. It's the reason why Trump became president. The liberal elites keep pushing this disgusting, hypocritical agenda and they don't realise they're the reason why Trump won.

I don't remember the dialogue, can you remind me?

[–] tgclark2 7 years ago

Dreamcatcher9000....You summed this movie up completely. I read some of the posts here and you were totally spot on. This movie was like two completely separate movies, as you stated. The whole large females dancing at the beginning was like a carnival scene and , I am sorry, it was disgusting. I do not care what symbolism was supposed to be communicated, all it did was confuse the hell out of me. The whole revenge date/stand up thing at the end was just flat, ridiculous, and not even shocking. The way Tony/Edward shot himself and died...I laughed out loud at the stupidity of it all. This movie was full of talent and fell flat , sorry is was awful . I could not believe I wasted 2 hours of my life and my money on this convoluted mess.

Much ado about nothing....

[–] FullMetalZero (1) 7 years ago

DreamCatcher must be very intelligent, with an Every Day Average Man like Quality.. and Probably good looking as well.. Because I came on here to Post the EXACT same post that he did.. Almost WORD for Word, It was kind of Strange.. My view point usually clashes with most other people. DreamCatcher is EXACTLY RIGHT on this one. The only difference between what he said and what I was going to say.. Was that I kept getting interrupted while watching it and had to pause and Play a few times. I wasn't really paying attention to how far along in the movie I was.. So I'm watching and he finally caught up to the last guy in the trailer. Kills him, but gets knocked unconscious after he puts the last bullet in the guys chest. Wakes up hours later after the Sun has come up. He is Stumbling around at first, You think well maybe he has a Concussion from the blow to the head. Then he seems to be Feeling his way around with his hands, like he is Blind now or something. Kicks the dead guy in the head on the way out, stumbles, and trips out of the front door onto the ground. Gets back up, Stumbles forward a little bit more, then seems to fire the gun off as some sort of signal for help or something. Now, when I watched it. As soon as he fires the gun, He hits the ground immediately afterwards. I didn't see the gun go off again. I just didn't see that, So I was so confused on how his heartbeat slowly fades out and he dies. From a head wound. Anyway, To keep this as short as possible. She gets the message on her phone. Then she goes to the Fancy Restaurant to meet him. She waits there all night and ends up getting stood up. Then the Movie ended. First of all, I didn't think the movie was anywhere close to ending, Not paying attention to how much time was remaining until the credits. I swear I was expecting at least another 30 minutes of movie. The Main Issue though, which DreamCather put Perfectly. When the movie ended, I immediately assumed I MUST OF MISSED SOMETHING IMPORTANT. NOPE!