Help with Ending!!!
Just saw The Swimmer, I liked it however I couldn't understand what the ending was all about and what it had to do with the rest of the film. Does anyone out there know?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > The Swimmer (1968) Discussion > Help with Ending!!!
_______________________________
Just saw The Swimmer, I liked it however I couldn't understand what the ending was all about and what it had to do with the rest of the film. Does anyone out there know?
_______________________________
The ending was: the climax, the end of the film. It tied up the ends and closed the picture.
As with most yet not all films, the ending is the chronological finality of the story and, as, per the dictionary definition of the word 'end', results in a conclusion.
In the closing scene, we see Ned arriving at his 'previous?' residence as the rain pours down. His imagining the sound of his daughters playing tennis slowly fades and the handle of the dilapidated property no longer opens the locked door. Reality finally hits Ned and his regret and despair culminate iin his dropping to his knees.
In addition to the enigmatic ending, there is also the strange beginning. Ned just "appears" at the first pool, after coming out of the woods. No clothing to be discarded, no mention of or reference to any starting point. Like the intro to the Mr. Bean series with Rowan Atkinson, he seems to have just "dropped in" from out of nowhere. After all, he's miles away from his home, and in just his swim trunks. How he ended up was important, but any interpretation must consider the unlikely circumstances of his beginning in this film.
I have several theories about this movie, both of which have been very nicely articulated by previous posts here. But I'd also like to add the theory that Ned may be in the last few moments of DYING. The film may be an allegory of the final moments of Ned's life, after he commits suicide. The departure of his wife and daughters may have led him to take his own life, Ned's self-inflicted "journey home" being an allegory for his self-inflicted death.
In his last few moments, Ned's "life" flashes before him in vignettes (the pools), some illustrating his good side, but others revealing to him the desperation and hollowness that brought him to the "end."
At his last dying moment, Ned tries hard to deny the event (being abandoned by his wife and daughters) that may have fomented all this, but is unsuccessful (he can't enter the house). The storm and dilapidated condition of the house reminding the viewer of the isolation and permanence of death.
This is just an idea. This movie is one that I will have to watch over and over and over, to get the most out of it.
vmwrites
Look at it this way: any drama - even one of Jean-Claude Van Damme's - starts at the point where the protagonist has lost, or is about to lose, the balance of his life, otherwise dramas would be dullsville. Any worthwhile story is about restoring that equilibrium, or a different one, again. This applies to any story from Citizen Kane to Deliverance or The Truman Show, insert your own.
In The Swimmer, Ned Merrill appears to be in equilibrium, but it soon becomes clear he is actually behaving strangely. He is going to swim home in order to resolve some imbalance we don't know about, but it's obviously pretty important to him.
It transpires that he, the big man who lives on the hill, has not been a very nice person on his way up, and as he 'swims home', he follows the same patterns he always did: he uses people without asking and crashes parties, he attempts to seduce women whether married, half his age, or old flames, he borrows money with no intention of paying it back (even from children), and in the end he has to face the fact that he has lost everything he owned or held dear. In the public pool, he has no more status than anyone else that 50c will buy.
That's the bones of the story: you can read it as happening in Ned's head as he 'explores' what he has done to his life, you can read it literally as if he has escaped from the nuthouse, or you can read it as pure fable, the 'Aesop moment' being to say 'be nice to people on your way up, you might need 'em on your way down'.
The drama is that Ned finds he has deceived himself all along. Anybody who thought he was the hero of the movie finds that he was (1968-speak) the heel. And that's what it's about.
Wow! What a great thread, entertaining and informative from start to finish, a real befitting tribute to Cheever's short story and the subsequent screenplay. Kudos to Jim, for his thoroughness; and Hoyk, I believe, with the River Styx analogy. Great insights all around, especially this last post right above me from justin, who was still able to bring something new and fresh to the board after 4 pages.
That said, here's my all time favorite exchange on this topic...
by sawyertom (Thu Jul 6 2006 11:13:08 )
let's face it, this sis the story about some dumb bastard who had it all and blew it, then went nuts.
by spope2 (Fri Apr 13 2007 13:16:04 )
you ignorant twat
It just doesn't get any better than that!
I like to think of Ned Merrill as being the character Lancaster played in The Sweet Smell Of Success getting his comeuppance and losing everything because of the way he acted.
shareThe only way this movie makes any kind of sense to me is to treat it as a giant feature-length "Twilight Zone" episode. All that's missing is appropriate set-up and closing Rod Serling style narration. ("Submitted for your approval, Mr. Ned Merrill....")
share[deleted]
Great thread!
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is that towards the end he was feeling cold and was becoming weaker and struggled to get out of one of the last pools, and this was on a hot sunny day when everyone was in swimming costumes.
Feeling cold and clammy is a common precursor to a heart attack. So the movie may have been his reflections on his life and realisation of the way he'd blown everything, while having a fatal heart attack in the nuthouse (or wherever he was).
The implication in both the film and the published story as well seems to be that time passes, and the seasons change, faster than the character realizes; for example, marigolds blooming in late spring instead of early summer, etc.
shareThe last scene is Ned's bitter realization that he can never go home again – and doesn't have a home to go to. He destroyed himself and his relationships with drinking and carelessness, and his world has finally collapsed.
shareThis thread, along with a few others, has placed a heavy emphasis on drinking phobia. Considering the movie was made in the 60's, where drinking and smoking were not only considered acceptable, but also healthy in a way, just because Ned has a drink doesn't necessarily make him an alcoholic.
Was it part of his downfall, probably. But more in a manner that he was the quintessential child, unable to cope with an adult world after his natural ease no longer worked.
It's dangerous to place current dogma to understand past mannerisms.
Ned's immaturity and unreliability were certainly part of his downfall, but alcoholism was not a foreign concept in 1968, and I think there's plenty of evidence here that he had a problem controlling his drinking, just as the subject was addressed in earlier movies such as "The Days of Wine and Roses" and "The Lost Weekend."
shareThe aforementioned films plots centered around alcoholism. The Swimmer does not. There's a backdrop of social drinking, but so can be said of many films.
I was an adult in 1968, and most social settings involved alcohol. Few of the people involved were or became alcoholics.
My sense is that most adapting the "Ned was an alcoholic" stance, weren't around in '68 or live a very cocooned lifestyle.
Or perhaps those who think Ned was an alcoholic just have different perspectives than you. Nothing wrong with that.
share@surrey I have to agree. The alcoholism angle is off the mark. Everyone of legal age is drinking in this film, and very few are drunk. And Ned isn't either.
I guess every film that shows characters consuming alcohol, is about alcoholism and the problems it causes.
This is what I consider the best of imdb.com. Lots of posts and responses are just bitching. This is great getting other people's perspective on the film. With a film like this, no one is necessarily right or wrong.
I saw this on TV when I was very young and I didn't get it. I didn't even watch it to the ENDING. I thought it was just a tedious story about a crazy guy with a buncha nasty neighbors!
Now that I am older and watched the entire movie twice to the end, I love it!
It's interesting how viewers try to make this film more complicated than it is. This is a pretty straightforward story. There's many interpretations of what the story means, but the events that occur, and Ned's life are not that hard to understand.
The story is in real time. It's not a hallucination, nor does it occur in an afterlife.
You have to listen closely to the dialog, to understand Ned's story.
Ned worked in advertising as a high level executive. He was ousted from his position, when the firm put younger employees in Ned's place.
There is no indication that Ned's wife had money. Ned and his family's affluent lifestyle was derived from Ned's income.
Ned's wife and family put up with his infidelity and other personality flaws, because he provided a high standard of living. When he lost his job and income, it was easy for the wife and his daughters to leave him.
With the exception of the teen party and the little boy with the drained pool, alcohol is present at every pool Ned visits. The characters at these pools are all indulging in various alcoholic beverages. There's no indication that Ned is anything other than a social drinker. Alcohol is not the cause of Ned's delusional state.
The exact locale where Ned arrives from at the beginning of the film is irrelevant. He could have escaped from a nuthouse, been living with relatives or friends in another town, or living on the street. Neither of these options changes anything. The point is that Ned in his unstable mental state, decided to go back to his old neighborhood and reenter his social structure. Perhaps because of his enjoyment of swimming, he decided to use that as a means to ease back in with his old friends and neighbors. He could have just as well walked or ridden a bicycle.
As for the condition of the house. It is as presented. Maybe it was subject to vandalism. Many things are not shown as being poorly maintained, as much as they're broken or damaged. It is also necessary for the home to be in this condition, to express the sentiment of Ned's fate. If the home was maintained in pristine condition for sale by realtors, the closing scene would have much less impact.
I think there's probably more than one reason why Cheever chose to have Ned swimming his way back to his old home, rather than running or some other activity. Swimming can be seen as an allegory for an attempted cleansing of Ned's psyche and character.
My real name is Jeff
Well put, eelb53.
I must admit though, I do love to read other people's comments about how THEY view this movie. Especially the part about the "Loss of the American Dream", & the symbolism of the swimming pool, etc.
I really enjoyed this movie so much. Just watched it for the first time on CABLE TV this month.
~~
~~~~
~~~~~~