Like hell it is.
YMMV
The film A CLOCKWORK ORANGE- I argue that indeed Alex was cured.
Naturally.
“Cured” as in “unrestricted”? I didn’t think that was supposed to be ambiguous (it certainly isn’t in the book).
I wouldn’t call the ending of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind ambiguous, it is a natural ending to the movie. IMHO it’s not “ambiguous” just because we don’t find out how their lives play out. You might as well say The Truman Show has an ambiguous ending, or Gone With The Wind.
I also like Total Recall, in part for the ambiguous ending. And I liked Blade Runner having that ambiguity about whether or not Deckard was himself a Replicant. (Until Ridley Scott basically came out and stated the truth of the matter in an interview, anyway… A good example of how ambiguity can add rather than detract from dramatic material.)
I’d suggest that with regard to A Clockwork Orange and other titles being discussed, there are a couple of different kinds of ambiguity. There’s narrative uncertainty, where the story ends in such a way that we aren’t exactly sure what really happened, or how the plot resolved; see Limbo. And then there’s moral uncertainty, where we know what happened, story-wise, but the movie (or book, or play, etc) leaves unspoken what this ending actually means – it’s morally (and/or thematically) ambiguous.
I think A Clockwork Orange fits more into the latter category than the former: Without question, Alex has been freed of his behavioral conditioning, and returned to his earlier condition; but whether this is supposed to be a happy ending (i.e. a “cure”) or a cause for horror is unclarified by the storytellers and left for the audience to ponder.
In other words, before anyone objects to one ending or another being ambiguous or not, you should make sure you’re not arguing something other than what was intended.
I realize that this is one of those “Third Rail” things on the Dope Board, but I still have to point out that I never heard anything about this supposed ambiguity unitl YEARS ater the movie came out. I was there in '82 (and reading the fan magazines) and don’t recall any mention that Deckard might be a replicant. The first time I encountered it was on this very Board, over 18 years later.
Cervaise - that was a very interesting response. I find that I can deal with moral/thematic ambiguity, as you called it. Makes for interesting discussions. What I absolutely don’t like is narrative ambiguity, wherein I finish a book (or film) and have entirely no idea what the ending meant because I have no idea what happened. and then someone has to come along and explain it to me. I don’t like art that makes me feel dumb.
There’s an extensive article in a current magazine out right now (“FILM” I think?) that has interviews with Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford, some of the writers, Rutger Hauer, etc. and discusses the ambiguous ending as well as the voice narration and how they were both hotly debated topics before the film was released.
Harrison hated the narration and loathed having to record it and thought the idea of Deckard as replicant ruined the film and took out any human aspect it had.
The supposedly “Director’s Cut” wasn’t really Ridley’s cut but a rehash thrown together by the studio that Ridly put his stamp of approval on.
Coming out in December will be “BladeRunner: The Final Cut” which has some reshot scenes, touchups, and the ending Ridley really wants.
Eternal Sunshine
Do they, in fact, get back together?
Clementine points out that even though they had a great begining, they ultimately didn’t work out because of her emotinal problems. JC simply says “I know”. Does that mean that he nows accepts her quirks and will not get crazy on her or does it mean that he knows it won’t work out again. You don’t know if they are getting back together or not.
Lost in Translation.
What the hell does he say to her? Does he give her his number in the states so they can continue or does he finish it once and for all?
Seems like it’s hard to nail down exactly what “abiguous” might mean. (That’s probably ironic, or something.) I’d argue that nearly everything is at least a little ambiguous. There’s a spectrum of ambiguity.
In any case, I generally dislike strongly ambiguous endings. There are some exceptions, however, such as the aforementioned “American Psycho”.
As to the finale of “The Sopranos”, I do not consider it very ambiguous. The audience is shown (on more than one occassion) a discussion about not hearing the shot that kills you. The audience is then shown a shot that kills someone who never heard it coming. (I.e., the guy dining with Silvio. The sound cuts, Silvio gets blood spattered on him, then sound cuts back in. Silvio later comments out loud to Tony about not hearing the shot until it had already killed the guy.) Add in a few other bits and pieces (the foreshadowing, the “Members Only” nametag, etc.) and I don’t think there’s really much abiguity at all.
See – this is what bothers me. In not one review of the movie or article about it that was contemporary with the film do I recall this possibility of Deckard being a Replicant ever being mentioned. It’s all well and good to write about it now. But I don’t recall a single thing written or spoken about it THEN.
Well if any of the movie reviewers were familar with the Philip K. Dick novella, they would have know that Deckard may have been a replicant.
“how they were both hotly debated topics before the film was released.”
Debated among the actors, producers, director before the film was released.
Yeah, but it’s brought up IN THE MOVIE ITSELF, when Rachel asks him point blank, “Have you ever taken that test yourself?”
And then later, we see Deckard’s apartment decorated with many pictures of people, many of them old and sepia-toned, yet seemingly unconnected – which was mentioned in one of the voiceovers as something Replicants did to fill some kind of emotional void.
Wow…I love Bladerunner but I also had never heard the replicant slant.
I agree with Harrison Ford. It is better that his character wasn’t a replicant. I’ll have to pick up the new version coming out and see if that will hold true on reviewing.
Well said, though that’s more of a moral dilemma than an ambiguity. The only thing that makes this remotely ambiguous is the knowledge that this is not how Burgess intended the story to end. Most of us probably know that the American publisher of A Clockwork Orange insisted that Burgess drop his final chapter and end the book with Alex’s sardonic “I was cured all right”–cured, that is, of the effects of his rehabilitation treatment, and ready to resume his career of rape and ultraviolence. This is the version of the story that Kubrick brought to the screen. Only if we read the original version of the book do we see the opposite sort of cure, with Alex being cured of his antisocial urges naturally.
Pretty much the end of Castaway. The last shot is Tom Hanks literally at a crossroads.
Sometimes I like ambiguity. Like in 12 Monkeys where you don’t know if the old lady has come back from the future or if it’s a colossal coincidence.
Ambiguous endings only seem to work when the ambiguity mirrors the protagonists uncertainty or ambiguity, a la Memento. That’s why The Sopranos stunk, it was ambiguous for the characters, we simply were not given all the information that they had.
Would these be considered ambiguous or just open ended?
2001: A Space Odyssey. We know that Bowman survives his trip through the Stargate and is transformed into the Star-Child. But what does he do when he returns to earth? The novel tells us he destroys the orbiting nuclear weapons, but after that? “…he would think of something.”
THX1138. We know that THX escapes his robotic pursuers and emerges on the surface. But now what?
Hey, you want ambiguous? This one time at breakfast, I cut the roof of my mouth with a Shreddie.
Oh, wait, that’s just ironic.