Not movie TV, but thought it was good.
Law & Order SVU
Guy is accused of rape, at the beginning Olivia believes (can’t remember guy or girl, but one of them), Elliott believe the other one - half way through - they switch sides. Very unsure who to believe.
“We the jury, find the defendant…”
And you never hear the rest
Now I feel like I want to rewatch 12 monkeys
Re: One Foot in the Grave
The show was very character-driven. There were entire episodes that were just Victor and his wife waiting at the airport, or stuck in traffic, talking. He would rail against the indignities of life, but he also seemed almost cursed to suffer them endlessly. He was a bit like Basil Fawlty or Archie Bunker, simultaneously crotchety and sympathetic. You could laugh at whatever absurd predicament he was in, feel sorry for him, and also cringe at his overreaction to it. There’s no one to take revenge on when the fates are fucking with you. His wife would listen patiently; agreeing with his frustration but equally powerless to do anything about it.
I just watched the episode again on youtube and started to write up a description, but it doesn’t do it justice. It’s just a brilliant blend of comedy and tragedy. Victor couldn’t have a happy ending; I gather his death was known about even before the show aired. Margaret meets a woman who seems to have the same bizarre things befall her, and whose husband died at about the same time. It may be the first kindred spirit she’s ever known, and the only one who brings her any happiness. Then she finds out that her new friend is the one who killed Victor. She was rushing to the hospital to see her husband one last time before he died. It was clearly an accident, she couldn’t have done anything, and is haunted by the memory.
Did Margaret finally find a target to strike back against and poison the friend’s drink, or did she break the cycle of endless frustrations and find peace and forgiveness? We don’t know. And then there’s the montage where we see all the things Victor had been complaining about, and a song with the perfect touch of happy fatalism.
Gutsy way to end a comedy series.
Have you seen the sequel, “Fay Grim”? It’s even better.
Tsotsi.
“The Graduate” …after alienating their families (perhaps forever), screwing up their lives, and causing a riot, the two lovers? …sit staring at eachother, as if they are thinking of divorce.
Yes, people will argue the point forever, but only because they don’t like BR’s dark, unambigous ending. Ridley Scott himself has stated that the whole point of the unicorn (dream and origami) was to establish that Deckard was a replicant.
Blade Runner being an exception. In Dick’s original story, Deckard is definitely not a replicant. In Scott’s film he definitely is one.
I remember that episode. Got the impression was that it ended that way because the verdict didn’t matter. Whether the victim was the girl or the guy, both of them ended up suffering through the justice system and the smear campaigns of the press, and the verdict would not necessarily represent the truth of what really happened.
The episode was supposed to act as a kind of indictment to the gaps in the legal system regarding rape, particularly for rape survivors who try to prosecute against the rapists.
I had no idea there was such a thing. It goes on the list!
And thanks, Robot Arm, for the explanation.
I once saw an interview with Geena Davis where she said that since they never showed the TBird hitting the canyon floor - they could do a sequel.
So, Thelma and Louise.
(They only dropped a few feet to a ledge, I guess)
(I do realize that this message board, like many, has rules about posting in threads older than a certain number of days. But I’ve very interested in this topic and didn’t want to begin a new thread; this one isn’t overly long and does have some valuable posts.)
A few movies with successful ambiguous endings, I think (and not yet mentioned):
The Shining (1980)-- Supernatural events? Or the hallucinations of a disturbed mind? (Or of a few disturbed minds.)
Barton Fink (1991)-- the picture on the wall is manifested in ‘reality’…or is it?
eXistenZ (1999)-- “are we still in the game?”
One obviously-unsuccessful example:
Prometheus (2012)-- I’m thinking here not of the many “unanswered questions” about the Engineers that were clearly set up to drive demand for a second movie (hah!), but about the question “was Shaw being strengthened/protected/led by a supernatural being, namely, her Christian god?” That, I think, actually was intended by Scott and Lindelof as a Deliberate Ambiguity that (guessing, here) would NOT have been resolved in the second movie they hoped to be asked to make.
The Outlaw Josey Wales - How badly is he wounded? Does he survive?
Well, there IS a sequel…both in book and movie.
I know but I prefer to pretend they (or the movie anyway) don’t exist - it is pretty terrible. I never could bring myself to read the book after seeing it.
Regarding Lost In Translation, they’ve revealed what Bill Murray whispered in Scarlett’s ear. From the imdb trivia page:
For years, no one other than Bill Murray, Scarlett Johansson and Sofia Coppola knew what Bob whispered to Charlotte in the final scene, but on October 28, 2009, a youtube video surfaced containing a slightly enhanced audio of this part of the film with subtitles where more than 20 thousand visitors had a chance to find out that Bob whispered to Charlotte: ‘When John is ready for his next business trip, go up to that man and tell him the truth, okay?’
One of the things I liked about The Shining (1980) was that up to the point where he was locked into the walk-in fridge, everything could be explained as Jack going crazy. Then the Outlook let him out. I’d have really preferred him getting out on his own, the rest of the movie playing out as it did, then that picture at the end would REALLY have been an ambiguous ending.
I agree. Though I’ve seen attempts to ‘prove’ that the opening-of-the-fridge-door need NOT have been through supernatural means; for example, the idea that Wendy came back and quietly unlocked it, or the idea that when she locked it, she didn’t quite get it right, and vibrations caused it to come unlocked. That sort of thing. (Need I have ‘spoilered’ this? …)
There’s also the question of the last shot of the movie, which doesn’t seem to be through anyone’s eyes but our own (and thus isn’t explainable as a hallucination of the viewpoint character). That argues “supernatural,” perhaps. Not that Kubrick was really interested in claiming that belief in the supernatural is a Wonderful Thing (as compared with someone like M. Night Shyamalan, who doesn’t seem interested in anything BUT making that case). Of course the original material was written by a believer, so Kubrick may have wanted to respect that viewpoint.
What key point was that? I don’t remember anything ambiguous.
Nope. Only the director thinks so. There’s no evidence the author does so.
In the film Blade Runner, Deckard is a replicant.
Only in the last directors cut.