MovieChat Forums > Nocturnal Animals (2016) Discussion > The End

The End

posted 7 years ago by DHfilmfan
44 replies | jump to latest

Imagine you sent your ex a novel you wrote after she told you you'd never amount to much, that you were merely a dreamer, and that you wrote too much from your own experience.

And this novel is a gritty Western genre piece that serves as a metaphor, with themes and characters blended so that a direct correspondence between these aspects, and the experiences and people they're supposed to represent in real life, is somewhat difficult--but one that nevertheless registers on an emotional level with your ex.

Now imagine your ex is dissatisfied with the life she left you for--the same life that she chose which placed you in the turmoil that was the genesis of your novel. And...now she wants to have dinner with you after she's finished reading it.

Your ex sends you an email. She apparently hasn't understood that after all that she's done to you, after all the rage and pain, leaving you like the broken protagonist who dies in the novel you wrote, that you wouldn't be open to meeting with her. Your ex doesn't get that you sent her your manuscript because you wanted her to understand what she put you through--that sending her your manuscript was your message. Not only that, but your ex thinks that she can just leave the life which she left YOU for and that you two can start again.

For most of us, we'd just never respond to the email.

But THAT would be a real non-ending--because, after all, this is a movie.

So that's why Edward agrees to a meeting, and we see Susan getting dolled up, leaving her wedding ring, only to get stood up at the end.

It's not a non-ending. There's just really nothing more to say, Susan.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

Exactly.

Now tell us how Susan felt as she sat there for hours...

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

It's not a non-ending.

If NA is a story about revenge - which it isn't - it is absolutely a non-ending. Yesterday I asked my girlfriend whether a woman like Susan would be crushed, destroyed or even much much perturbed by this dinner no-show, if she thought it was some kind of revenge.
She laughed - like myself, she's acquainted with women like Susan, and knows she'd be over it by morning, just like she'll get over Hutton in very short order. Susan is an amalgam of women like Mary Boone, Anna Wintour and Tina Brown - all of whom Ford would have likely met in his fashion career. All of them have demonstrated utter ruthlessness in their self-interest.
Susan is beautiful, respected in her field, has powerful, rich friends and an interesting career, even if she is somewhat disillusioned with it. In short, she has a life - this supposed revenge would be a pitiful ending.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

That whole 'girlfriend' thing is a nice beard, but wearing thin.

Btw, did your 'girlfriend' throw away her first love?

Anyone who rates Gone Girl a 1/10 does not understand women.

[–] Oldguy69 7 years ago

Considering how big a deal is made out of telling the audience that Susan is unhappy, does not sleep etc. I'm not really sure about what you're saying here. The point about Susan seems to be that she betrayed her own ideals back in the days.

Also she is in her late 40ies, and some of what she's feeling may be specific to her age like empty nest syndrome, loss of purpose, old age approaching, husband screwing younger women and so forth. Ford has said in interviews that A single man was partly about his own mid life crisis, so it makes sense that he would keep that ball rolling.

Finally regarding her success, it's stated explicitly that it's staring to fall apart and she also questions her own exhibition and talent in the early scenes.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

You can't questions Angelfish's theories. He confirmed them with his 'girlfriend'.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

. . some of what she's feeling may be specific to her age like empty nest syndrome, . .

Precisely. Just suppose the dinner no-show is revenge from the guy she dumped 20 years earlier, the next morning it's going to be submerged by more important mid-life crisis business. When the revenge isn't a blip on the victim's radar, it's not very effective revenge - either in real life or drama.

. . she also questions her own exhibition and talent in the early scenes.

Who doesn't do that? OTOH people are still fawning over her and she's on museum boards. Are you really so naive to think this kind of woman is going to collapse over being stood up for dinner?

Try to imagine this - a guy in a bar, some obscure Texas schoolteacher, informs you his ex-wife dismissed his writing, cuckolded him, aborted his child, divorced him, became a high-end art dealer in LA and has been living high on the hog in Beverly Hills with a venture capitalist for the last 20 years. Now he tells you how he's avenged himself big time by standing her up for dinner. Wouldn't you think he was kind of delusional and pathetic?

I'm not really sure about what you're saying here.

It's what I've been saying all along. This avenging Edward is hardly Iago, is he? Therefore he doesn't exist except in the minds of those who swallow red herrings whole.

[–] Oldguy69 7 years ago

some obscure Texas schoolteacher

Edward is not some obscure Texas schoolteacher and that's where I think you miss the mark. He is an important part of Susan's past and identity. She may have forgotten about him when she was on a roll, but the thing is, at some point people often start to think differently about their past and it comes back.

Who doesn't do that? OTOH people are still fawning over her and she's on museum boards. Are you really so naive to think this kind of woman is going to collapse over being stood up for dinner?

Do you think that people just erase their past because they have success? The thing is, she is not just being stood up, there's more to it.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Edward is not some obscure Texas schoolteacher . .

I wasn't talking about Susan's POV - please refer at the context of this comment. He's an obscure schoolteacher from the POV of the person listening to him in a bar.

Do you think that people just erase their past because they have success? The thing is, she is not just being stood up, there's more to it.

She's being stood up by somebody who hasn't been part of her life for twenty years. No doubt she's reflected on their time together while she's been reading the novel, but that's only the last couple of days. Bottom line - he's not important to her current life. In addition, Susan has no idea if he hasn't turned into a 300lb fast food-loving loser wearing Dallas Cowboys polyester who no-showed after he saw her sitting in the expensive restaurant.
I don't think much about the girl with whom I lived in my 20s. I might want to meet her if she contacted me asking my opinion on some surprisingly good fiction she'd written about the emotional impact of our break-up. If she didn't show up for our meeting, I'd be curious to know the reason, but I wouldn't go into a terminal collapse, as some have suggested for Susan. Would you under those circumstances?

[–] Oldguy69 7 years ago

She falls in love with Edward again and turns her back on her life with Hutton. At least that's Tom Ford's own interpretation:

.....because she falls in love with him again through reading [the novel]. She is liberated, by the way, at the end. This has been painful. She’s taken those rings off. She’s wiped off that lipstick, and she is not going back to that life. We don’t know what the next chapter is for her, but [the previous] chapter is over.

That would turn Edward's no-show into a bit of a bummer for her.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

That would turn Edward's no-show into a bit of a bummer for her.

That's also what I've been saying all along. He's dead or dying - and she's understandably very sad about it.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

Dude, or whatever you may be, you have no clue how the world works and works on you.

If life were so easy. lol

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

The glaring logical flaw to me in Tigerfish's arguments is the appeal to consequences.

His argument is that Edward couldn't be taking revenge, because that would make the story weak, or Edward would be shown as pathetic, or Susan would be too strong and unperturbed (which again would make the story weak.)

What Tigerfish doesn't realize is that these could actually be legitimate problems with the film--and not improbable "red herrings" thrown in (by whom, exactly?) that detract from such a great film as Nocturnal Animals. Oh no.

Maybe those things Tigerfish explains away as impossible given that this must be a good film are really just evidence that it's a rather uncompelling and unconvincing one.

Consider, if we accept everything that Tigerfish says about Susan being ruthless and not bothered by Edward's no-show, and Edward having moved on and expressing gratitude (!) through his manuscript, then what was even the point of the majority of the film? Why all of this hullabaloo and "rape-murder-revenge red herrings" about two people who DON'T CARE AND HAVE NO EFFECT ON EACH OTHER?

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

What Tigerfish doesn't realize is that these could actually be legitimate problems with the film . . .

I'm far from an uncritical admirer of the film, and have described the interior narrative as thin on several occasions. OTOH I don't believe Tom Ford is a simpleton who would make those kinds of elementary dramatic mistakes.

Consider, if we accept everything that Tigerfish says about Susan being ruthless and not bothered by Edward's no-show, and Edward having moved on . . .

It seems you have no understanding how psychological self-defense mechanisms operate. I've said numerous times if Susan regards the no-show as revenge, her ruthlessness immediately chimes in, and the pathetic attempt at revenge becomes totally ineffective. How can you believe in a totally ineffective revenge? Or do you, like feeble-minded FartyKat, invent feverish fantasies about Susan going into meltdown mode?
By contrast, the film points firmly in the direction these two characters do have compassion for one another. The revenge aspect is nothing more than Tom Ford's basic conjuring trick which successfully fooled so many of the village idiots who gather here.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

It seems you have no understanding how psychological self-defense mechanisms operate. I've said numerous times if Susan regards the no-show as revenge, her ruthlessness immediately chimes in, and the pathetic attempt at revenge becomes totally ineffective. How can you believe in a totally ineffective revenge?"

But we're not saying different things. Just because it was an ineffective or petty revenge, given Susan's shallowness and sour grapes defense mechanism, doesn't mean that that was NOT what we're supposed to interpret it as: an ineffective and petty standing-up. For me, and others, and even you, this narrative manuever fails, because who cares about this shallow woman and her petty ex?

But I wouldn't say that his not showing up (after he replied to the email to ask where or when) categorically DOES NOT have a tinge of malice, as you do. Why would you say I have no sense of defense mechanisms (none of which were pictured in the last moments, while what we did see is her disintegration just like the ice cubes in her whiskey), while you couldn't possibly imagine that Edward's fake-out no-show was a spiteful move? If it were, then the film seems to me more thematically and emotionally consistent regarding the character of Edward. The tables had been turned.

Again, the crux of the film and the scene in question is not revenge per se, but more a sense of "now you see how I feel." That people desperately want this to be a vulgar "in your face" moment is neither here nor there.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Again, the crux of the film and the scene in question is not revenge per se, but more a sense of "now you see how I feel."

Perhaps we've been disagreeing about nuance. That's easy enough to do face-to-face - in fact I exchanged emails on that subject with my GF this morning - and a forum makes communication even more difficult.
IMO both characters are fundamentally decent but flawed people struggling to deal with their emotions, insecurities and attachments - and making mistakes as we all do. In a sense, the ending is a mirror - different for each person. I see death - and an absence of malice. I consider that something to aim for in life.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

Totally agree. From fishyfish's POV there was no reason to make the film or write the story. It was like a non event, which then obviously proves he is wrong and that no one can abstain from the human experience.

Every writer writes from the same POV, the view of the human experience. We can say and do things to people in film and expect certain results, even if they aren't fully explained. That's actually the whole point of this film.

Fishy's conclusions are somewhat fishy. Maybe Fish can brush things off so easily, but humans have a soul and there's no getting away from that. A person can only be so shallow. If Susan was as shallow as Fishy believes she never would have married Edward in the first place. The point of the film is Susan made a mistake and is now paying for it, not brushing it off like last night's crumbs.

[–] Oldguy69 7 years ago

This is not ammo for the turf war, but here's what Ford has said himself:

....because she falls in love with him again through reading [the novel]. She is liberated, by the way, at the end. This has been painful. She’s taken those rings off. She’s wiped off that lipstick, and she is not going back to that life. We don’t know what the next chapter is for her, but [the previous] chapter is over.

Seems like she has a heart (which to me was fairly obvious all along)

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

Yeah, this is pretty consistent with how i read the ending and the film.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Seems like she has a heart (which to me was fairly obvious all along)

That's what I've been saying too. It doesn't seem very likely this kind of transformation would follow an attempt at revenge. And it doesn't much sound like she's destroyed. If it was revenge, it kind of back-fired - liberation is generally considered something positive.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

yes, she has a heart, like we all do, and when it's stepped on it hurts. It's something you can just forget about. It can eat at you, for a very long time, which is exactly what happened to Edward. His heart was stepped on and it hurt him for a very long time. How long? We don't really know that, but we know that something came from that hurt. His work, his novel, had meaning behind it. He gave it to the person who hurt him and she fell in love with him all over again, as women can do.

And then he stepped all over her heart.

and that is exactly why this film is so good.

It's not about sunshine and roses, it's about how love and life can hurt, so very much.

[–] christmastiger-16003 7 years ago

He gave it to the person who hurt him and she fell in love with him all over again, as women can do.

What? I think this kind of logic only flies in movies, reading a book by your ex doesn't usually make you fall in love with them. Maybe in the improbable movie situation where you just so happen to be unhappy with your life at that particular moment in time, but as OP and others have said: How would Edward even know she was unhappy? She called him once? People like to keep up with each other, especially if it's been 20 years. Otherwise he was taking a HUGE shot in the dark, nobody other than Susan's friend had figured out what was going on with their expenses.

Also, did he write the book with the intention of making her fall back in love with him so he could stand her up? He knew that would work? Honestly, I don't really see much in that story that would have made me fall back in love with him, but that's just me.

Or did he write the book just for himself and sent it to her to be like, "Look, I wrote a book!" and didn't give a care what she thought? If so, why was it dedicated to her and basically about her? I genuinely don't understand Edward's motives.

He really had no reason to think that Susan wanting to see him had anything to with falling back in love with him. He wrote her and her daughter as characters who were raped and murdered, I would have honestly been more creeped out by Ed than amorous.

It also seems to follow more realistic logic that she just wanted to meet him to give him feedback on the book, as that's why it appears he sent it to her in the first place.

I'm definitely with OP in that there are a lot of unanswered questions and confusing directions taken in this movie, coupled with the non-ending it felt wholly underwhelming.

She was unhappy with Edward, so I don't really know what it was about the book that made her want to go back to him. Seriously, Susan, find a new guy or learn to be single and happy with yourself because you're obviously not going to be happy with the people you've chosen so far.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

She's rolling around in bed, swooning at her ex's magnificent manuscript...her shower scenes mirror Tony's...she defends a protégé (that her colleagues want to replace) out of a new-found sense of commitment...she gets all pretty and hopeful and removes her ring to meet Edward.

And for Edward, who knows NOTHING of Susan's dissatisfaction, and with NO INTENTION of winning Susan back, the manuscript was all he had to say.

There's no grand and elaborate revenge, because Edward has no such intentions either. After all, HE DIDN'T KNOW that Susan was miserable and that she would see him as a way out. It's not like Edward was sitting next to us watching this film, people.

He just stands her up at the end, because as a film, it needed closure, some scene, for us to realize that the tables had been turned--not a non-response to an email.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

He just stands her up at the end, because as a film we needed closure, . .

There's also the small matter he's likely dead or dying by the film's end.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

Ugh, whatever. Believe what you like if it enhances your experience of the film.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

Even FartyKat figured that out.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

If Edward died right after sending Susan an email asking where and when to meet, then Nocturnal Animals has the biggest non sequitor ending of all time.

[–] Farshnoshket 7 years ago

And for Edward, who knows NOTHING of Susan's dissatisfaction

Well I would say there was very little in the film to make us, the audience, think otherwise, except for 2 things:

1. We see Edward personally deliver the novel to Susan's house, and

2. Susan admits calling Edward 2 years ago and Edward did not take the call.

Is this enough for the audience to question just how much Edward knows about Susan's current life? except...

The elevator man in New York was Edward's younger brother!!

Bravo! Bravo!

and curtain.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

Lol

[–] Gus-69 7 years ago

The big painting in which is written "revenge" foreshadows the ending. It's a revenge.

--------------------------------------
http://letterboxd.com/cremildo/

[–] simbob4000 7 years ago

I could see how someone could miss that it's a revenge movie. After all, there was only that scene at the art gallery that was way too on the nose, you know, the one that explained exactly what the movie was about for anyone too dumb to get it, where the word REVENGE was literally in giant letters hanging on the wall.

[–] songod-95003 7 years ago

I was waiting for her to exit the restaurant and be gunned down by a hit man Edward hired!

Bu that would not be the artsy "Academy Award" ending we got.

Loved it till then. Expected so much more from the end. The build up... everything was great. The acting spot on... and then...s**t.

This trend is dreadful. The Non-Ending. It is everywhere. Indie films use it. Cheapo D grade horror films use it. Now more and more the A list star driven films use it. With the cheapies I often feel the makers simply ran out of money! They had to stop shooting and tag on the credits! IN something like this?? It is infuriating.

[–] Gus-69 7 years ago

What bollocks. Oscar-winning movies generally have happy and obvious closures.

--------------------------------------
http://letterboxd.com/cremildo/

[–] fifthquartile 7 years ago

That is an excellent explanation DHfilmfan. Good job.

[–] bektaskonca 7 years ago

it was simple, she did not value him and his work, he loved her and her opinion about him and his work was very important, she tossed him away like he was nothing because as her mother said you are just like me, she was a very cold person had not much feeling in her souls, her heart never raced, she never felt nor shoved emotions, reading the book she felt all that , he gave her what she did not have and confirmed by date he made the last move by not turning up so she can go back to her miserable life back, so it was a revenge motive with both players being sour and sorrow person, i mean carrying such bitterness and sorrow for 20 years ?? i personally get cancer if i felt like that from a relationship well i suppose they had to make up such story to keep audience interested after all in real life this could never happen.

[–] DHfilmfan 7 years ago

so it was a revenge motive with both players being sour and sorrow person, i mean carrying such bitterness and sorrow for 20 years ?? i personally get cancer if i felt like that from a relationship

Agreed. I think that's why at the end of the story, people are like, "That's it?" I think they get what happened (which you nicely summarized), but then they reevaluate whether or not they care. And given two sour and sorrowful people, one of whom hurt the other, and the other responding with a manuscript, I can't imagine too many people giving a *beep*

From what I understand, the novel the film was based on was really more about the power of narrative and how it invades our thoughts and experiences in real life. It was a very self-conscious and perhaps literary novel about...novels. All the revenge aspects and relationship aspects are just window-dressing. So I think trying to make such a literary book (about reading) into a "thriller" (rather than a prosaic story that contains a thriller) leaves the audience with a sense that some things just don't fit, or that it's trying too hard to make us care without giving us the appropriate signs for whom or what to care about.

[–] woodmakesitgood 7 years ago

Based on Ford's comments, and the minimal description of current Tony in the film, it seems we are to care mostly about Susan. She's apparently moving on in many different ways now. Great.

It doesn't really matter if Tony is sick, or dying, or if he got a bad Uber driver, is out for revenge, or just chickened out of dinner.
My guess is revenge, but that's just a guess, which like all of these guesses is pointless to the other major points of the story.
Plot points and continuity issues aren't really relevant here.

[–] FabioPirovano 7 years ago

Simply Edward due his blindness did not find the restaurant...

"To photograph: it is to put on the same line of sight the head, the eye and the heart."HCB

[–] SideEyedChloe 7 years ago

IMO, he send her novel, dedicated to her, as she were the one, who didn't believe in him. Called him mediocre, told him not to write about himself. Left him for "the real man" in "the real world" and aborted his child.

Well novel was, about his life, she is haunted by the words in it, enchanted in so many ways that she ask him for meeting.

Maybe only thing that she didn't realized that plot was one huge allegory for their former life. She was in many ways Ray, as she killed every opportunity for Edward to have family with her, loving wife and child (daughter). She was Ray in a way that old Susan was dead, and new, non-creative, ready "for real world" Susan was born when she decided to leave.

Edward was both, Tony and Bobby. Tony-broken figure unable to do ANYTHING to save his child, and save his wife (in a way that he didn't prevent abortion and Susan's leaving), and Bobby, even though terminally ill, still hungry for justice, revenge and will to make things right once for all - he took all his strength, wrote hauntingly powerful novel ABOUT HIS LIFE, in which in a many ways he killed his old self - full of regret, but before that he said goodbye to Susan once for all knowing that justice was served.

Susan, as she was waiting at the table in the restaurant finally understood that. He never showed up as it wasn't his agenda in the first place. He just wanted her to understand what she did to his life, what she did to her own life and that she live to regret it. She lived to regret it.

I'm gonna live forever or die in attempt.

[–] tigerfish50 7 years ago

He never showed up as it wasn't his agenda in the first place.

Then why did he agree to meet with her? You think he's a dishonest or cowardly person?

IMO, he send her novel, dedicated to her, . . .

Novelists dedicate their novels to people whom they regard highly - not somebody whom they despise.

[–] mirwais-orbit 7 years ago

I think that the ending is exactly like that: no more words to say... the end is finally the end.

It's sad, it's terrifying said. Excruciatingly! And only will get it those ones that lived the same situation at least once in life.

Believe me.

[–] twominds79 7 years ago

Does Edward agree to the meeting ( dinner ) ? . As she waits and he doesn't show , it's open for interruptation but I think he stands her up .