It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, and I loved the film, but was the ending really ambiguous? True we don’t know what he said, but I was under the impression he was going home and getting on with his life, and that was the ending. The unknown phrase didn’t make the ending ambiguous. Again, it’s been a while, so please correct me if I’m misremembering.
Because a sequel later came out, the ending was no longer ambiguous, but when The French Connection first came out, it wasn’t entirely clear what happened at the end. Gene Hackman’s Popeye Doyle was chasing drug kingpin Charnier, and the last sound you hear is a gunshot, with no explanation.
An epilog says that Charnier got away, which looks like studio tampering. Apparently in some TV prints, Doyle says that he’s “going to get Charnier if it takes the rest of my life”. There was much discussion at the time about what that fional shot meant (did someone else get shot? Was it frustration? Did he actually shoot Charnier and not tell anyone?)
Three yrears later The French Connection II came out, with Carnier definitely alive at the beginning. Doyle (Spoiler) did shoot him dead at the end, so I guess it didn’t take him the rest of his life.
What’s ambiguous about Memento?
I don’t get people arguing that Inception wasn’t ambiguous. Ok, so the point is that he doesn’t care whether or not he’s in reality. That doesn’t change a thing about whether it’s ambiguous. Even if it’s irrelevant whether or not the top falls, you don’t know if it did. Ambiguous.
The ending of American Beauty left a key point ambiguous.
Although a thread about endings, a Sopranos ending spoiler alert
The ending of The Sopranos was very ambiguous, prompting reactions that ranged from positive to extremely negative. I was okay with it, but not with the cut to static. Had they instead simply rolled the credits, the ambiguity would have been at least thought provoking, if not satisfying. The static, at a time of intense drama just took me out of the story, instantaneous first thought being WHAT HAPPENED TO THE TV?!? Second almost instantaneous thought was sabotage, until the credits rolling made me realize that was really the end.
A terrible and unnecessary distraction/interruption to one of the most highly anticipated finales ever.
Plenty.Was there really a Sammy Jankiss? Did Leonard really kill the “right” John G. a long time ago? How much of what Teddy said was the truth? Did Leonard kill his wife after the attack with insulin or was she actually killed during the attack like he thinks?
Sure it was… Did Bill Murray’s character really have a son or was it all a lie by a pissed off ex-girlfriend? The boy he meets at the end isn’t his kid, as he thinks he might be, but then we see another boy watching him from a car as it drives away. If he did have a kid, was that him?
The movie’s point isn’t about whether or not he actually has a kid but rather the journey he goes on when he thinks he might, so it doesn’t matter either way but we never really know.
Another TV series, One Foot in the Grave, which ran for several series in Britain. It’s about a retired couple, Victor Meldrew and his wife, who seem to be almost cursed. Victor’s reactions to his poor fortune made up most of the humor. The last episode begins after Victor has been killed by a hit-and-run driver. His widow is trying to cope with his death, joining a support group at her church, and we see flashbacks of Victor complaining about recent indignities he’s suffered, like being sprayed by the cut grass coming out of a lawnmower. At one point Margaret, the widow, confides in her minister that the one thought that keeps her going is the chance to murder the driver who killed Victor. As the episode ends, she’s visiting her new friend from the support group and discovers that she is the killer. Margaret has the perfect opportunity to poison her drink. And it ends like this.
One of the best series endings ever.
I have what most people would consider the absolute best example of a movie with an ambiguous ending.
Or do I…?
I haven’t seen all versions, but the Henry Fonda “Twelve Angry Men” had an ambiguous ending of sorts. We don’t know whether or not the suspect committed the crime, but the evidence was equivocal. I think that was a good example.
Other ones that would leave you scratching your head:
Planet of the Apes (2001)
The Quiet Earth (1985)
I think in both cases, they were just looking for some odd way to end the movie.
And just a great show. We loved it.
…American Psycho. I loved how things got more and more absurd: then that ending just threw me. Loved it: thought it worked well.
If you read the book, it’s not ambiguous at all. And the book was written after the movie, not before. Just FYI. It’s a good book, too, and not very long.
The title is Cast Away. Two words. Makes all the difference in the world in understanding it. I noticed right away when I first watched it.
Cache. A terrific flick, in my view. I actually didn’t like the ending when I saw it, but then I read Roger Ebert’s review. The review points out how to at least get an idea of what was going on. Armed with this information, I watched the ending again and felt it worked very well.
Do you mean the causes of the changes to Earth were unknown? In “POA” we can assume you blew it up, you bastards and in “QE” the last shot indicates a cosmic planetary shift. Neither is definitive, but they aren’t that ambiguous either.
I think the book and movie were written by Arthur C. Clarke simultaneously.
Could be. The point I was trying to make is that the movie was not based on an already published book, as is usually the case. And yes, ACC was the author of the book and the movie screenplay.
I could write a book after any movie that has an ambiguous ending to explain it all.
The difference is that the book was written by Arthur C. Clarke alone, but the screenplay was written by Cklarke and Kubrick, sand the film was made by Kubrick.
Clarke himself may be seen as somewhat “mystical”, but he generally has things rooted in a graspable reality. Kubrick was responsible for the film, and he was clearly pushing for a more mystical and ambiguous ending. I think that what Clarke had in mind might not be perfectly reconcilable with what Kubrick was trying to put on film.
FWIW, I think the book does make some things more clear. IIRC, Kubrick, too, intended those earth-orbiting atellites at the beginning to be understood to be weapons platforms (which makes the segue of “thrown-bone-into-satellite” appropriate), and considered showing them being blown up at the end (which didn’t happen in the film). But to interpret that as straightforward meani ng “Bowman becomes Star Child and blows up bombs” is to ignore any symbolic or metaphorical meaning Kubrick may have wanted to place on it (as in “Aliens push humans to next evolutionary level, and they get rid of space bombs”, to put it crudely).
Essentially, the film itself is Kubrick’s baby (Star Child?), and he’d want it to speak for itself, just as Clarke would want his book to stand alone. So, yeah, the film is more ambiguous than the novel.