MovieChat Forums > Horace and Pete (2016) Discussion > The Ending

The Ending

posted 8 years ago by DrLyleEvans
39 replies | jump to latest

Wow. On the one hand, a terrifically dark twist. (And how great that they had Reg E. Cathey's baritone to sell it, as we see that the ending has already become the stuff of local legend). On the other hand, it's a shame that the ending plays into the cultural belief that mentally ill people are inherently dangerous (as Horace noted last episode, Pete had never hurt anyone in his long life, and the show had up until this point done a great job of depicting the horrors of being in Pete's position).

Still, what a terrific run of episodes. Perhaps this is obvious to most, but it took me a few minutes of processing - Pete in his confused state presumably came back to the bar to kill Horace Senior, and mistook Horace Jr. for the dad (as foreshadowed by the excellent, chilling flashback showing CK as a terrifying Horace Senior).

The real tragedy is that, now that Pete is in the criminal system, he'll finally get at least some minimal level of treatment/medication that was unavailable to him on the outside. And presumably at some point he'll be lucid enough to have to live with what he did. What an absolutely horrifying, stunning ending. What a beautiful series.

[–] budarc 8 years ago

Holy sh!t, what an ending.

I initially disliked the fact that Louis and Buscemi were portraying other characters, but now that you point out that Pete (in his deranged state) clearly mistook Horace for his father, it makes complete sense.

It's sad, because they could have just continued Pete on his medication. It's better to have a healthy mind than a healthy liver. And for a brief moment, you think Horace is going to bounce back from Sylvia's announcement and start a relationship with the new, eccentric waitress for hire.

What a heartbreaking, unpredictable way to end it. The fact that I had no idea that this was intended as the final episode packed an extra wallop. I'll be thinking about it for quite some time.

[–] Smurgledorf 8 years ago

It's sad, because they could have just continued Pete on his medication. It's better to have a healthy mind than a healthy liver.

The drug was fictional, and was being recalled. The implication is that selling it would have violated a law aimed to prevent people from sustaining fatal liver damage, as testing had revealed it was doing beyond the allowable limit.

[–] information_police 8 years ago

The drug was fictional, and was being recalled. The implication is that selling it would have violated a law aimed to prevent people from sustaining fatal liver damage, as testing had revealed it was doing beyond the allowable limit.

While this is a fictional situation, I think the closest situation in reality would be a drug in which an acceptable level of toxicity was found in clinical trials (such as something which could be clinically monitored and which was reversible if the patient were taken off the drug) but which was found to be either more serious (irreversible damage caused) or more prevalent once the drug was on the market. This is what is called post-marketing surveillance in the drug regulatory world. In such a case, the drug could be pulled from the market by the FDA.

Sometimes, some things come to light unexpectedly. In this show, there was an allusion to some known toxicity of the drug which turned out to be worse than they thought.

"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules. "
-Walter Sobchak

[–] Cinefilodough 7 years ago

The drug situation is really unrealistic, all anti-psychotics have pretty much the same mechanism, D1/2 receptor antagonists in mesocortical pathway. And a bunch of new ones would have come out in the time he was out of the hospital, once psychosis deemed treatable by medication they will try every dosage/combination before committing someone. There is really nothing realistic about this particular aspect of the show.

[–] information_police 7 years ago

Well, there are a lot of mechanisms beside D2 or D1 and yes there are a lot of different antipsychotic drugs. The reason there are so many is that not everyone responds to them. It can take a long time to find the right drug that treats someone's psychosis and doesn't give them intolerable side effects.

But, as was pointed out, this is fiction and Louis CK is not a psychiatrist. I heard him on is interview with Maron a while back saying that he DID show the scripts to a psychiatrist who told him, "well, this isn't exactly right but you're in the ball park," which was enough for CK.

"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules. "
-Walter Sobchak

[–] Cinefilodough 7 years ago

not really. There's D1, D2 receptor antagonism, minor pro-metabolism action, and a few other minor pathways (5ht2a), all with the target of dopamine reduction. All the first gen and atypicals work in essentially the same way the main difference being binding time to D2 receptor, and thus chance for EPS side effects.I am a PGY-1 psych resident now, and before med school worked for 4 years in a psych hospital. I would say, as a psychiatrist, this is not even close to the ball park. I have NEVER seen a patient only respond to one single drug, but rather a class of drugs (a lot of drugs are "me too" drugs, essentially the same, or similar drugs by different designers). You can't really name a drug with a standalone mechanism, or at least one that can't be recreated with a combination. The reason for switching or preference is in the vast majority of cases based on side effects, not efficacy, and doctor preference (hence massive marketing by pharma to doctors to create said preference). Plus this character has been on the drug for 10 years, during that time many atypicals came out.

At any rate if a patient was amenable to mesolimbic dopaminergic reduction (the only true end point for all positive symptom reducing antipsychotics) and was able to live symptom FREE w/o a huge daily extrapyramidal or negative symptom side effect burden, that patient would NEVER be recommitted w.o massive interventional experimentation, this is so rare and is the rare dream of any treating psychiatrist. There would be a concerted attempt to try every drug with a similar mechanism, alone, in combination, w/ adjuvants, etc. The stripping of a patient's agency is not something taken lightly by doctors nor judges. Even in a place w/ horrendous mental health care, the sheer resource burden would keep him out of the hospital w/o trying next to everything. If there was a patient in my old hospital who had the history: lived symptom free for 10 years on x drug (translation-dopamine reduction works for this patient!) it would be the most insane thing and outpatient doctors and intake reviewers would likely lose their jobs/license for not doing as I described above. It would be a major oversight. It simply would never ever ever be the case. At the very every far edge of possibility would be we need you to come to the hospital, if it's ok with you and your family, for a little while we try every psychopharm intervention on you, then release you immediately, so as to not get sued into oblivion for malpractice. But they wouldn't cancel a drug in the way depicted either.

I buy the suspending disbelief for the sake of the art, which I did, but there is literally no way to rationalize this aspect of the plot.

[–] information_police 7 years ago

Surely you know that compliance is a big problem with antipsychotic drugs, because of side effects. I can see your point that even if only one drug were acceptable to a patient and it got pulled from the market, the patient would not be left on his own without intervention. It is good to hear from you that a big effort would be made to help the patient. However, you have to admit that involuntary commitment is an issue if a patient really does not want to be in the hospital. Even if someone pushes for an involuntary commitment there is a court hearing after a few days. People do fall through the cracks in an overburdened system, especially when the family is itself dysfunctional and are incapable of acting as advocates, as is the case in this show.

Anyway,I'll admit there were liberties taken for the sake of drama. I have no problem with that in this case, but I can see how it would irritate you, knowing your background. I, myself, am a research pharmacologist (currently working on neurodegenerative diseases) and it drives me up a wall when bad science is portrayed in a lot of movies and TV shows.

Best wishes to you in your training. It's important stuff you do. I've had to deal with a family member undergoing a severe mental crisis with paranoid delusions and hallucinations as a result of undiagnosed bipolar disorder. It was the scariest thing I've ever seen. I had to make an involuntary commitment which was painful to do but I knew it had to be done. Thankfully, they got the person under control enough to agree to voluntary treatment before there needed to be a court hearing. They eventually came up with a treatment regimen that is stabilizing the condition.

"Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules. "
-Walter Sobchak

[–] kay_rock 7 years ago

While the medication scenario was contrived, it was contrived for a purpose. The entire show was filled with political discussions and observations on where the country has gone, as Sylvia said, "to hell in a handbag." Showing that the FDA could be so nonsensical as to leave someone's life ruined in favor of some bureaucratic decision was a commentary on how mindless the pharmaceutical industry has become. Pete would rather have died of liver failure in a few years than live his life like that. That choice was taken from him out of fear of good old fashioned American litigation.

I shouldn't be spitting bitterness, and really it was just one issue in a show that featured many issues against a dark and melancholy tapestry, but I just finished the last episode and my heart is too broken in the moment to process anything beyond the minutiae.

Movies are IQ tests; the IMDB boards are how people broadcast their score.

[–] SimpleIdea 8 years ago

Just want to say that I felt exactly the same way about the final episode. Had no idea that was going to be the finale. I'm beyond satisfied with this show.

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] o-l-s 8 years ago

Well last time his meds got low he attacked someone with a broom. Also he beat up his torettes girlfriend. He wouldn't have even known what he was doing if we're to believe how Pete has previously described it.

[–] WermhatsWormHat 8 years ago

How can a show that was so depressing throughout have an ending that's WAY MORE depressing? WTF LOUIS!? I remember some episodes ago it said END ACT 1, so I assumed that meant we'd see an act 2 and 3. Then all of a sudden that happens and it's just over? I don't know if I'm more upset about the way it ended or the fact that I wont get any more episodes when I thought I was going to get a lot more of them.

So what was the point of the show? I guess if you take anything from Horace's story it should be don't let your crappy family drag you down and live your life before it's too late?

[–] DrLyleEvans 8 years ago

I don't know that the series was necessarily meant to have a "point" in the sense that you're looking for one, but I guess it's somewhat about cycles of abuse over generations, changing/developing ideologies (the philosophies of Alda's character and the '70s flashbacks in the finale vs. the Trump-centric debates in the present day), and the effects of mental illness, depression, and alcoholism - and how all of those things relate. I think it's about realizing that you have to live every moment instead of just coasting (Horace described his life in one episode: "I'm trying to sleep as much as possible and wind it up quickly"). In Horace's situation, maybe making the most of his life would have meant letting go of his *beep* family, but that's not the message of the show.

Mostly, though, the show (like all great TV shows and plays) was about setting a mood, providing a glimpse of something, building character - all of which is did beautifully. The ending "twist" felt a little more "writerly" to me than the rest of the show, but I think it was a suitable payoff.

[–] WermhatsWormHat 8 years ago

That's pretty much exactly what I said. Guess I should have said theme instead of point, whateva Mr. English Professor. Let go of the past and live your life, that seems to be the main theme.

But yeah, I guess the POINT of the show was to do something new and different and unpredictable in this medium, which is tough to do at this point, and he nailed it. That ending was definitely way more impactful when you don't see it coming at all.

Another point might have been to traumatize his audience, because I feel icky now and can't shake it. This show gave me PTSD!

[–] mikesschilling 8 years ago

End Act 1 was at the end of episode 5, so in retrospect it makes sense: two acts of five episodes each.

Part of what made H&P special was, I think, not knowing what would come next: How many episodes would there be? Multiple seasons? A hiatus? Would it just stop? Someone starting it now and knowing there are ten episodes leading up to a climax won't have the same experience.

[–] glacier1982 7 years ago

Wormhat, I want to take a moment to thank you for not being a mindless fanboy who can watch this trash and turn around and say it's brilliant. **** this show. So unrelentingly depressing one can only conclude that this is Louis CK's attempt to laugh at his own fans. No one can like this show. It was meant to be unlikable. This isn't something you say you like because you don't want to look stupid. It really is just bad programming.

[–] DrLyleEvans 8 years ago

Also, I don't think anyone has mentioned the brilliant piece of stunt casting - Horace's son as seen in the final moments of the show is played by the actor who played the kid on 'Two and a Half Men.' (I hated that show, and never would have recognized him, but I recognized his name in the credits).

[–] Wood-20 8 years ago

Horace's son as seen in the final moments of the show is played by the actor who played the kid on 'Two and a Half Men.'

Thank you for mentioning that. I didn't recognise him, but I did wonder where they had found that actor.

[–] dvd123 8 years ago

Not to mention that he was Paulie in the Rocky films.

No offense, but Burt Young really isn't a "where do I know that guy from?" kind of an actor.

[–] peteyandjia 8 years ago

Good call on Pete probably mistaking Horace for Horace Senior. That makes sense.

[–] icetech 8 years ago

That was just brutal... i cried a little when Alda died.. but the ending is just horrific. And Sylvia got that she wanted in the end... i haven't hated a character so much in years which speaks volumes about Falco's acting... Anytime i REALLY hate someone on a show or in a movie i know it was acted well

[–] rozroz 8 years ago

the series was great.

but now thinking on the ending,
the sister and other people witnessed that horrible killing of Horace,
seem to be a little too nonchalant in the end.
i mean, even if she cries and breaks down.. it was a little unnatural imo.

[–] icetech 8 years ago

Well.. it might also have been 3 months later... we don't know the timeframe.. and different people deal with death differently. I never cried when my parents died. you just swallow that up and move on with life...

[–] squall6789 8 years ago

It's crazy how such a slow show can feel like an insane roller coaster ride.

I loved the break down at the end. As she lists off Horace's shortcomings I'm thinking "that's fair, maybe a little harsh" then I dunno, started wondering when she started thinking that then the image of the hopeful, smiling, young Horace from the flashback pops in my mind just as Sylvia looses it.

It's not like Louis CK was trying to say or imply that Syl was thinking back to when they were kids, rewatching it I don't know why I thought that on the first viewing, but it was a really cool little moment.

[–] alesisqs61 8 years ago

I agree that ending was just so tragic.

It certainly makes for something you may never EVER forget seeing.

Not many people saw it compared to most shows... but they should and they would be talking about it if they could just power thru the episodes like I did.

I just like Louie C.K.'s humor so I gave this a chance and even though it wasn't a comedy, I still saw his sinister way of comedy in this mini-series if that's what you want to call it. Hell.... it was really depressing but in a good way. Made me really feel something for these characters and that's rare for most television shows.

http://www.youtube.com/user/alphazoom
https://soundcloud.com/#carjet-penhorn

[–] tb-sch 8 years ago

And Sylvia got that she wanted in the end...

Just that was not what she wanted but what she wanted to avoid. She knows about the curse. At the end it seems that there is finally no Pete left and Horace is gone as well. Well, until the new Horace appears.

[–] haakonhr 8 years ago

I also disliked her intensely in until the last episode where here hate towards the bar and its traditions made a lot of sense.

[–] retalato 8 years ago

It was just fantastic. The whole show. Fantastic.

[–] nohero-02697 8 years ago

The death of the bar (and Horace) was changing the bar. They only ever served Budweiser and straight alcohol. In the last episode, Sylvia decides to add garnishes so she is cutting up limes and lemons. That is the only reason the knife is on the bar for Pete to grab.

[–] victorfraga1990 8 years ago

That's a great little touch about the knife.
But there's two sides of everything. I guess that's what the show is all about.

[–] themaxemum 8 years ago

Anybody realized the guy who changed the 20 into a 1 dollar bill was David Blaine? He is very famous for magic tricks. Nice cast. Absolutely fantastic show. Thank you Louie !!

[–] DizzySuicide 8 years ago

Well I did think that he looked familiar, and thought that he's propably one of those celebrity magicians.