MovieChat Forums > Anon (2018) Discussion > Let's discuss that final line...( SPOLIE...

Let's discuss that final line...( SPOLIERS )


no need to be here if you haven't watched it, and plan to.

because this final line pretty much will destroy the whole point behind it.

therefore, you will not understand it anyway outside the context of what the film presents.

sorry i am being lazy and not capitalizing the start of sentances.

i'm just wasting time so people will not read the spoiler so fast.


so you watched it, and the film pretty much comes down to her final line:
"It's not that I have something to hide. I have nothing I want you to see."

I get why she feels that way in the movie and is the drive for all of that. I know what the words mean and the way that character feels.

How do YOU guys and gals feel about that statement? What does it mean, or do, for you?

We live in the age where giving up "privacy" can get us more out of life in many ways. Society is evolving to match the technology that enables us to do and live more. In way, 100 times more than ever before.

So, someone has my blood type? Knows my address? Knows I like foootball? I say, "Who cares!!" And I am a pretty old guy and should be shaking my flip phone at these "Damn kids, with their rock and roll 8-track smart phones" (I have a smart phone FYI) ;)

So, here statement, and pretty much the entire premise here is not "I have something to hide", it's SIMPLY "I don't have anything I want to show you". Or maybe, I like the human right to NOT show you stuff. Fair enough.

However, to me (and I don't normally see things globally like the rest), I really didn't care about her ideal there, and it didn't affect me in any way. I simply didn't care about her perspective in relation to the whole cyber security fear mongering that is shoved at us all time.

After all, everyone that is so paranoid about "Privacy" now days is old enough to remember, and be proud of the fact that their PHONE NUMBER and HOME ADDRESS, attached to THEIR NAME, used to be published on paper, for nationwide access in the public phone books every year.

Also, I read the writer director interview where he is all paranoid about social media (paraphrasing) and based the movie on that ending statement: I have nothing i want you to see.

I enjoyed the movie, it was well made and thought provoking.
Just curious what others FEEL about the ending "point", as it were.



Privacy vs complete disclosure - that's tough.

We do live in an era where privacy is nearly non-existent. Furthermore, there are many individuals that revel in publicity. In fact, there are some people whose sole existence is based on their fame - and there are people who are famous for being famous and who make money off that fame for being famous (a ridiculous notion, but here we are).

At the end of the day, I think it's reasonable for people to want to be asked if they want their info to be shared or disclosed to anyone else. Yet, we live in the world where that question is no longer being asked.

You've mentioned 'cyber security fear mongering that is shoved at us all time', but there's an equal amount of fear mongering from the government and anti-terrorism organizations which state that privacy is dangerous as it allows the terrorists/criminals to do as they wish. Yet, we can clearly observe how in today's world our information is actually being sold for profit without our consent. That's not OK. Keep in mind, the same information, when sold to terrorists/criminals can make our lives become substantially more dangerous, which counters the argument 'lack of privacy=safety'.

You said, 'Society is evolving to match the technology that enables us to do and live more. In way, 100 times more than ever before.' Meanwhile, I'm seeing our society devolving - people no longer use their memory and their communication skills are also deteriorating. We are turning to dependent on technology and it's causing a loss of basic skills.

In the end - as I've mentioned earlier - there are people who want publicity and there are people who do not. People should be allowed to choose.


great reply and thank you.

DEFINITELY agree people are shunting their own abilities BIG TIME (smart phones make you dumber has been proven), yet at the same time I see equal and opposite benefits as well: Childrens safety with a phone in pocket, Amber alerts that go to everyone, all the way down to me standing inside a store faced with several options of a product and being able to research variety of reviews within seconds, GPS maps, weather for doing outside activities... a bunch of new stuff that lets us live better. Things like that.

Still, I am very much against all this tech I use daily - is here, could barely live without it in OUR time frame, like a car that chokes pollution all day long so I can keep my job... very little choice. I'd prefer we all went AMISH but doubt that will happen.

I've beaten the "sold without consent" part. ALL of that, all of it, is to make money: MARKETING. I never watch TV, never listen to radio, never see ads online - all the targeting they are trying is simply IGNORED and AVOIDED by me, so it doesn't work. Wow, in a way, I guess I am invisible to the network like the GIRL in this film! Sweeet!
It's still our choice to avoid ADS that are paid for to be targeted at our demographic.


Using tech is one thing, and we are free to ignore the marketing, but being targeted by fraudsters is another. However, it looks like the US presidential election results were changed by surgically targeting the electoral college, based on personal information that was illegally sold. Almost 3 million more voters wanted the other candidate.


You might want to acquaint yourself with how and why the electoral college works.


It was an interesting line. I felt the meaning was simply that her business was her own and no one else's. Not sure if what she was doing should have been considered criminal -- she was basically just a PR fixer. Unethical, certainly, because she was covering up for people so they could lie to others, but we certainly have no lack of that in this day and age. Since she wasn't stealing or hurting others physically, even though she could have easily, her job really wasn't anyone else's business, let alone her private life.


I'm pretty sure hacking a global, protected communications system, that runs everything and every one, is very much against the law here.

Although (MORE SPOILERS) SHE wasn't the killer, she pretty much was going to kill the leading guy with the train stunt. And mussed with his life files and precious memories quite a lot.

You are not wrong, but she wasn't a Sunday School Teacher about things. :D


She said she could change files, but not memories. It was the bad guy erasing memories, or so I thought. Maybe it was memory files she was erasing, but our detective acted like he had no other memories. Apparently the bad guy could erase people's actual knowledge that anything in particular had happened. Not sure. It was a bit confusing.


I see. Yes, things get confusing a bit. I thought SHE was erasing his recordings (I called them his memories) after he pissed her off. I may watch it again, knowing what I know about the ending now.


This^, lemner, thank you.

Be nice if this feeble site would link clicks on a post’s Reply button to the post receiving the reply, but noooooo.

Well, we get what we pay for, and this place is free.


This site was the best replacement I could find when Imdb disposed of all the chat threads. I was pleasantly surprised at how much of the original was saved -- that had to be a lot of work. However, I agree that replies should go right where they are placed, instead of at the bottom of the thread.


It is what it is, and it’s okay, if at times disappointing. I’m glad you found my reply! Cheers!