What is everyone's take on the ending (1972)? My first impression was that once he obtained what he was trying to get (the girl) he realized that what he had before was actually what he wanted. Or maybe he was a narcissist and it was time to move on. LOL.
I may be way off here but what do you think??
A narcissist is exactly what Leonard is; a well socialized sociopath, as it were.
Unable to experience anything, on an emotional level, his lifelong companion, boredom, has overtaken him once again and, as you suggested: it is "time to move on", in search of the kind of fulfillment that he sees all around him, which, sadly, he will never find.
toolate8 you must have been watching a different film then me.
Leonard got exactly what he was looking for and the end scene shows him finally at peace and knowing for the first time in his life that he's finally on the right track.
He got the ultmate girl and am sure the father inlaw will set in up in very high end job. Case closed or would you prefer him to stay with the milky way eatng cow of a first wife and end up with kids and alomony payments for the rest of his life, and lets not forget, a dead end career selling sportings goods.
[deleted]
did you miss that this is a comedy?
it sounds like you're reviewing "american psycho"
I agree with you Cool. When I saw that movie (many times) at the end, when he's just sitting there looking around, I got the impression he was supposed to be asking himself what had he gotten himself into? He just appeared to be out of his league.
shareHow can anyone come to the conclusion that the first wife is what he really wanted lol The whole point of the first half of the film was to show how repulsive she was in every way. Eating milky way bars in bed, egg salad all over the face and lets not forget she was terrible in bed. The sunburn gave poor leanard a chance to get the hell away from her.
The posters on this must be all women lol because knowone in their right mind would think that the end scene would mean that he was out of his league or what he really wanted was the first wife lol
He got the girl of dreams and now he going to get the job of his dreams.
lets be honest and not forget that this was a comedy. It's not even close to REALITY!!!!!!!!!!
The chances that you would drop your new wife and meet the girl of your dreams on your honeymoon is science fiction. Especially when you look like leanard. I mean come on, a hot girl is going to come on to an unattractive guy like that and shes from a high society, wealthy, wasp family and he's jewish! no chance! but it works great as a Neal Simon comedy lol.
he realizes he's "out of his league"
exactly.
You know, I've been reading everyone else's impression and I agree with most all of them. The ending was meant to be ambiguous I think. Even though it was a romantic comedy, the characters were not one dimensional and the situations relatively realistic (even Lenny being with Kelly! Obviously, she was playing around in Miami but was powerfully flattered by his overtures.) The ending suggested some narcissism on Lenny's part, the thrill of the conquest being gone. And his repetitive b/sing in the closing scene shows that the sale was made yet he was still selling with the same lines. Now comes the drudgery of reality- something we all have to deal with but maybe is particularly tough for Lenny. Multiple dimensions are there- that's what makes it a great film! It was maybe too great a film for it's genre (Ben Stiller to the rescue!) The best thing is- presently, finding this film is, well, easy as pecan pie.
share
Lenny wasn't really sure what he wanted out of his life and i definitely dont think that he had second thoughts about his first wife.
From one *beep* he runned to another and looks like he was not mature enough for any relationship at that time.
[deleted]
"he looks rather unfulfilled at the end" Sorry but he's the luckiest guy in the world!!!! The end showed that he was so stunned by his reversal of fortunes that he just has to set back and take it all in. I really don't get how viewers of this film can think that when Leonard is setting all alone on the coach, that he's thinking that he's doesn't really won't Kelly and that he may wont to get back with the first wife lol This type of thinking is way they have to dumb down the films of today. Most of you need to be spoon feed the most simplistic films. The Heartbreak Kid isn't rocket science to understand lol.
"yes maybe it would cross his mind that he should've stayed with the first wife" Sorry but you must have missed the scene when kelly takes off her clothes and Leonard said the classic line "Thank you god! I see your masterpiece and I thank you for it" lol Are those the words of a man thats looking to go back to a fat cow?
BTW did you see the scene which takes place after he has sex with the first wife for the first time. He just setting in a chair looking at her as she still asleep. Do you know what Leonard is thinking at this moment? He's thinking that he just made the biggest mistake of his life! Since most of you idiots think you know what Leonard is thinking, please explain it to me lol Do you think his expression is the expression of a man that just went throw a night of multiple orgasms with the Playboy Playmate of the year.
[deleted]
"I'm excited to hear your response"
I bet you're, but how can on respond to someone who takes a Neil Simon written comedy and tries to spin a whole bunch of BS on people that doesn't even happen in the context of the film. You keep mentioning you're looking deeper into the film but I don't need to do that because I see exactly what Mr Simon is trying to get across in his screenplay.
You know you remind me of one of those wood stock flower children from the 60's. You know the type? They usually work in the vitamin section of a health food store. They have all the answers, but they look like death and they always tell you how to live and what to eat.
"If audiences just assume that movies don't contain deeper messages or meanings that what they see on the surface, then studios will cater to those people by making movies that don't have deeper meaning what is seen on the surface" Classic quote by someone who is clearly in need of psychiatric help. Are you waiting for a bus that says on the front, One way trip to the TWILIGHT ZONE LOL.
BTW your going by the name SEMIRETARD. END OF STORY!
Some other people nailed it already. This is as much a happy fulfilling ending as the movie is a light romantic comedy. Leonard is a completely unsympathetic putz with sociopathic tendencies (but sure fun to watch) and to play the story out to its logical conclusion there's no way he'll live happily ever after with Kelly for 40-50 years as he stated. He's humming the song that was so closely identified with his first wife/wedding at the end, so she's in his mind, but while I don't think he's necessarily moving back that direction he's certainly going to find something comparable in Kelly to be unhappy about. It signals that the cycle is beginning anew and even sooner than before. He's only at the reception and he's starting to drift.
The things in Lila that Leonad found deplorable were minor, the results of his own expectations letting him down. It's complete immaturity. Now that he's traded up, at least superficially, he'll find that he's absolutely as full of *beep* as the father in law knows he is. He won't be able to stay, content, in Minneapolis - that's just the first possible breaking point. He's out of his element, he's already ostracized and isolated, more and more, even during the reception. And as things turn he'll quite definitely become the "Lila" of his new relationship, as Kelly's perception of him rounds out to the dimensions that marraige alters and creates. His willingness, his need to get married, his devotion, the fact that he seems only to live for being with her, the blatant assuming of the very qualities Lila had that turned him off (his 40 year goal, the song he hums at the end) - coupled with his broken record lines about putting back into the soil (presumably, just for starters), etc, will paint him as increasingly unattractive and boring. He's the neurotic, slovenly wife now. So that goes full circle as well.
But I think a big key is in the second to last scene, the negotiation, when Leonard says "I want Kelly" and her father says "So do I" -- it smash cuts to the wedding. The father knows that if he puts up more resistance that it's the fight that's keeping Leonard passionate. The quickest, cheapest way to dispose of Lenny Cantrow is to allow him to marry his daughter and repeat his behavior patterns all over again. The father watches him during the entire reception, and lo and behold - the malaise, the boredom, the unsatisfied, unfulfilled reality of the situation, it actually hits Leonard right before his eyes. The wheels are in motion and he's already on his way out, via any combination of aforementioned scenarios. So Kelly's dad does win here, or at least will.
And if that's not (at least part of) the correct reading it's a shallow and immature film. To say it's about a guy escaping a horrifying situation and finally winning against all odds and getting the girl of his dreams is such a narrow and kind of scary viewpoint. That's only what Leonard thinks has happened. But between Neil Simon and especially Elaine May - ain't nothing conventionally upbeat and happy about this story.
Dr. Freud, Leaonard wasn't starting to drift, he was just kicking back and relaxing and the song he was humming had nothing to do with his first wife. It's very interesting how the mentally challenged can see things in a film that the average movie goer some how misses in translation.
"the things in Lilia that Leonard found deplorable were minor" LOL what drugs are you taking? She was replusive in every way. I'm not even going to waste my time to explain all of her negative attributes. If you really believe that it's all minor stuff, then maybe you need to get aboard the same bus that the SEMIRETARD is on and get to the Twilight Zone ASAP.
Dr. Freud you have many issues to discuss with a good phychiatrist. Your last paragraph really sinks your ship sir, or should I call you Dr. lol.
"the correct reading is a shallow and immature film. To say it's about a guy escaping from a horrifying situation and finally winning against all odds and getting the girl of his dreams, is such a narrow and scary viewpoint"
It's not scary, it's a Neil Simon comedy you MORON, and you turned into the crime of the century. You did, in all your stupidity explain what Simon was going for. A man that gets out of a horrifying situation and gets a lucky break, but somewhere in your sick demented mind you had to ruin a simple movie like the Heartbreak Kid and turn into a psych experiment gone bad lol.
One last quote of yours Dr. Freud lol "Neil Simon and especially Elaine May - ain't nothing conventionally upbeat and happy about this story"
In the words of the great tennis legend, John McEnRoe, YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!!!
The Heartbreak Kid is one of Neil Simons great comedic works and you sick twisted people have managed to find a why to turn a comedy into a tragedy. SAD, VERY SAD, but I have to hand it to you, some of your moronic responses have provided better comedy then what was in the film lol.
You are so incredibly dense it's not even funny. It's Neil Simon so automatically the film's IQ is low? If that was Simon's intention - to make a simple, weak, straight-forward, immature film (because he's done it before and since) - how someone can't see that Elaine May (not a simplistic filmmaker) completely deviated from it and perverted it to her own ends is beyond ridiculous. I suppose you think the end of The Graduate is happy also. The cold fact is, the finished film doesn't even adhere 100 % strictly to Simon's script. His input and intention is not the end-all-be-all, but I give him more credit than to be as stupid as to pen this movie with a straight face.
I'm sorry you're unable to look at this for what it clearly is, thus you must truly identify with the main character and his viewpoints and that's just sad, man. Either that or you're 14 years old and have zero life experience. I mean, even Leonard gets a little self-aware at the end. Your opinion IS the minority - if you look at most of the writing and legit criticism regarding this film. This movie would have no lasting power if it were actually validating Leonard's behavior. You're caught up in the apparent, and faulty, logic lines of Leonard's character rather than what the movie is actually trying to say. You call me a moron, but brother, you can barely form a thought. Semiretard may be halfway there, but you're full on. I'll presume you're lost and are looking for the boards for the Stiller/Farrelly remake.
Oh, and the song has NOTHING to do with his first wife? It was the song during their first dance and they sing it together on the trip to Miami. Did you miss the beginning? It's not lightly dropped or coincidental. It signifies either that she's in his thoughts, which I don't necessarily subscribe to - or that he's now assuming the Lila role, inadvertently, and the cycle is starting again. Participate in a little intellectual experiment and actually watch the movie again with all of these things in mind and see what happens.
"Participate in a little intellectual experiment and actually watch the movie with all of these things in mind and see what happens"
Translation, watch the 1972 version of The Heartbreak Kid, and after you watch it put an intellectual twist to everything you observed, and then try to give an opinion that is so liberal and left wing that know one whose not on a bad acid trip from the 60's could understand.
I'm not lost and I do know the difference between the original Heartbreak Kid (1972) and that piece of crap remake that Stiller made LOL. Nice try though Dr. Freud.
BTW I found the ending to The Graduate very funny, but on the other hand I did find the ending to Midnight Cowboy very sad.
Take care Dr. Freud, and I guess will have to agree to disagree on this.
It's not an "intellectual twist" - IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE SURFACE! There's no decoding or projecting or reading deeper into this, it's what the movie is about, plain and simple. And you've convinced me I'm 100 % accurate. And please, stop "lol"ing - you sound ridiculous and lose any shred of credibility you might otherwise have regarding this very simple approach to this truly uncomplicated movie. For most.
shareDr. Freud you really sound like a nut case. I just told you we will have to agree to disagree and you keep going on with more stupidity and "it's not right there on the surface" It maybe in your sick twisted mind though.
The problem with people like you is you only live for people to give you the big thumbs up on all your opinions. God forbid anyone shouldn't see what you're seeing and disagree with you. Lets be real honest here, where two individuals having a talk about a film that was released in 1972, you have an opinion and I have an opinion. Lets just respect each others opinion and agree to disagree like two gentlemen.
Please let it go already and move on to some new business. As much as I think you're out to lunch I really don't see the point in continuing this discussion anymore. One way or another who really gives a crap about this.
I am a nut case. Big time. Doesn't make me any less right. And clearly WE give a crap about this, you and I. I don't need you to validate my opinion, dude. All I was trying to do was have some healthy debate, some rational discourse. Too much to ask, I know. I guess I would agree to disagree if you had anything from the movie to back up your claims. Otherwise, it's blanket statements and put-downs. The people who don't see it your way are twisted, retarded or need therapy - which is apparently your answer for everything. You're the one who moved it into the realm of insults and namecalling - and granted, I followed, but despite all that it sounds like you have a lot of growing up to do. More than me, at least. Watch the movie again when you're of legal drinking age. I tell you, it's a whole other ballgame. My big issue was that this is a great movie - on that I think we can agree - I was just personally offended at your reading of it and your total, unprovoked belittling of anyone who dared to disagree with you and try and put a deeper level of thought into it than simply interpreting it as the fully endorsed manifesto of Lenny Cantrow's bizarre philosophy. My fault entirely for attempting to treat the film as a smart piece of work. Now I know better.
shareFreud how old are you?
I would respond to you again, but that would just continue the cycle of stupidity by you. Whats really scary about you is you well only agree to disagree if I post something that well backup my opinion. Frued I already did that in my previous posts, sorry but am not going over it all again. Knowing you, you would just reply with something that a escaped mental patient would post, so whats the point? Go away already and get a life.
One last piece of advice, don't use the word DUDE when trying to have an intellectual conversation of thought with someone. It makes you look like an idiot.
"My fault entirely for attempting to treat the film like a smart piece of work. Now I know better"
Once again you have taken a Neil Simon comedy and tried to make into something that it's not. There is know hidden meaning to it. It's just a very funny film and the character of Leonard was never meant to be taken serious and studied and analyzed to death like you have done. You sir are the typical putz that can't handle the truth. You know what would be really sad but funny? If you actually got to meet the director or Neil Simon and brought up all your stupidity. I would love to see that happen. You would get your ass handed to you. You see idiots like you are why people have body guards.
You know you really need to see a good phychiatrist!
BTW I well know longer be responding to this topic or anything else your involved in. My parting wish for you is that you get the therapy that you are so disparately in need of.
THE END
As per our "intellectual conversation of thought," the word is will, not well - as in, I will only agree to disagree if you back up your opinion, which we will well see wasn't true. And it's no, not know - as in, there is no hidden meaning to it. And we already know I'm not debating there being no hidden meaning - it's right out in front. You've actually brought me around, I'm quite enjoying this now, you know? No? LOL dude ... LOL.
But to sum up - since you asked questions and made answerable assertions in your last communique, which was actually 2 replies to 1 message, one which I thought was actually a rather nice olive branch. Weird. Anyway: I'm 26; I've actually spoken to Charles Grodin at some length on the topic (as well as about The Lonely Guy, another Neil Simonized comedy) and there was only appropriate, requisite assplay; I would love speak to Neil Simon or Elaine May about their work (in a safe environment, don't worry) if only to be torn a new one by two such legends, though I'd rather discuss Murder by Death with Simon. Oh well. Moving on: I recently revisited the film in question and found the message very obvious, as has EVERYONE ELSE talking about it but you - yet we all know the sane man is the one who thinks the world is wrong and he's right; you need to get a new insult other than psychiatry jokes (circa 1965 Woody Allen wants you to stop stealing his bit, or at least do it so it's still funny - although "phyciatry" might be something totally different, I don't know); and I look forward to your next last word on the subject. I'll be abstaining from this point forth though, as the terms of my institutionalization allow for only limited bandwidth use. However, my shrink is going to love reading this. Check for a PM, I'll invite you to group. We could all benefit from your expertise and generally rosy disposition.
Dr Freud, i think your reading of the movie is perfect. I'm tired of people treating comedies as though they have nothing of worth to say. This comedy is most certainly a tragedy about a fickle man who will never be satisfied.
"This sounds like a dialogue from our script!"
Completely agree - after all, this was based on a Bruce Jay Friedman short story. It was meant to be an over-the-top, outrageous farce. I hated it for its view of Jewish women, but think it's worth acknowledging that there are Jewish men who feel that way about us, and this is part of the character's problem. However, I still think it's hilarious and meaningful. That other jerk's opinion is what led to the disastrous remake by the Farrelly Brothers, who thought this was just a stupid romcom.
You shouldn't bother replying to trolls like that (see under: "Oh, I guess dead men do bleed!"). Or should I say, You shoodn bathr rplyng to trols lick tat.
Judging from balboa's other posts on this board, it is clear that he identifies with Lenny and that's why he thinks it is a happy ending. Completely ignoring the fact that after they get married, he doesn't talk to Kelly at all. They are on opposite sides of the room the whole time. The groom is sitting by himself at his own reception. Married to a woman whose father despises every molecule of him. What a happy ending!
The only reason Lenny married Lila was to have sex with her. It wasn't a societal pressure of getting married like another poster suggested. After he had sex with her, he got what he wanted and he was done with her. It was too easy. Then, along comes a better looking woman with a worse personality to have sex with. The more Kelly pushed him away, the more outlandish his pursuit became. So why did he still marry her after he had sex with her? To win the battle of wills over her father. Just as with Kelly, the more her father expressed that he wanted Lenny gone, the harder Lenny tried to convince him. In his mind, he won all three battles of wills against Lila, Kelly, and her father. That is classic narcissistic behavior.
George Carlin: It's all bullsh-t and it's bad for ya.
Yea... I never do this, but reviving a *6* year old post to say I just watched the film for the first time and had the same thoughts about Grodin's character at the end. It seemed fairly obvious that he was doomed to be unhappy and continue to repeat the cycle.
The musical cues throughout the film were also used brilliantly. It's rare that a musical cue can make me laugh, but in a film like this and Being There, the person scoring it nailed the scenes perfectly.
I guess I'm crazy too. I already thought I was. Oh well!!!
It's not the end. Freud COMPLETELY destroyed YOUR arguments and YOU KNOW IT. You just cannot admit losing. You're the "semi-retard" here, pal. You probably feel related to the main character (who is a big time jerk) and cannot see what is right in front of you. Grow up, pal. You're very emotionally immature.
share"Watch the movie again when you're of legal drinking age"
exactly dude,i was so enthusiastic about this movie when i was twelwe and watched for the first time and thought it was happyending but now i see it as a very sad ending.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Thank you. Your explanation helped me understand the ending. I was just puzzled why he was unhappy at the end and you cleared it up for me.
shareI am not really a fan of films made in the sixties and seventies because I prefer the story arc of films made in the 30's and 40's. My first reaction to this movie was that it was quite good, but the ending was too abrupt. But reading your comments I see how the abrupt cut to the wedding from Albert's study after he declares that he, too, wants his daughter illustrates his purpose. I really appreciated how you drew all of the elements together to explain Grodin's character and his looming fate. One thing you didn't mention was a snippet of dialog between Albert and the first guest at the reception that we see him talking to. The guest is standing with his back to the camera, and we never see his face. But I overheard Albert say something about $20,000 (or possibly $25,000). I could not make it out clearly, but maybe you know what is being said. The gradual descent of Grodin into conversation with two kids who even get bored with his "return something to the earth" schtick (without getting your hands dirty by actually planting something, no less!) is really pathetic. Humming the tune from his first wedding to himself is the perfect announcement that the shoe is on the other foot as he enters this new cycle of self-imposed disillusionment. Thanks for the very good insights you shared.
John 3:16
I just saw the film for the first time, and My God, man (woman?) you nailed it! Your post is dead on the mark. Thanks for the great writing, much appreciated.
shareAgreed. It didn't look like a happy ending for Lenny at all.
share"Movies do not have to strictly adhere to one genre, you know. Just because a movie is labeled a comedy, it can still have tragedy in it, and vice versa"
Very true semiretard and very good points, but I still think you need to get on that bus which has a direct destination to the TWILIGHT ZONE. Please remember and be courteous and save a window seat for Dr. Freud lol.
Take care semiretard and please don't take everything so serious in the future. Good day.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I just saw this film for the first time and I don't think it could have been any clearer that Leonard will never be happy and he did become Lila in this new marriage! There really is no room for debate in this. Even though he presumably got what he wanted the tables were turned and he became the "loser" because frankly he will not be able to keep up with his new bride and the traditional mid western life style; the kids getting up and walking away from him in the final scene said all it needed to say.
shareI don't believe he was a narcissist in the least nor a bs artist. He married his first wife by going through the motions because he thought that's what life was about. People getting married. That's why I believe so little time is dedicated to that aspect of it. When he gets to Florida, I think that for the first time in his life, he get's a glimpse at what life may be about. That age old question. I believe he saw the meaning of life in Kelly (or so he though). His relentless pursuit of her was probably the only thing meaningful he had ever done (at least in his mind).
At the end, after he had successfully obtained and married Kelly, I think he came to the sudden realization that this did not single-handedly give his mind and desires complete peace, as he thought it would have. I don't think we can draw any conclusions about what he will do next, or that he has some weird proclivity toward always trying to find the better wife. I think that the final scene shows Grodin representing U2's famous song, "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For." The only question that remains in this movie is whether he comes to the realization that he'll never find it or whether he will go on an endless search for it.
I'm amazed how many people are able to read Lenny's thoughts in the final scene. I thought it was a fantastic ending and an ambiguous one. After that incessant *beep* with the guests it was almost touching to see him looking sort of exhausted by his own efforts. And before that even trying his act out on the children. You suddenly see him as a more vulnerable, or at least a more human, figure.
The ending did make me immediately ask - what's going to happen this time? There is a suggestion that his restless need to conquer another doubter hasn't gone away. But I couldn't see any implication that he wanted out of his second marriage (and there is certainly no reason to believe he is pining for his first wife). The scene definitely exposes the emptiness of the sales patter at the core of his nature, and maybe that final moment where he falls silent is the closest he can get to some insight into himself. We ultimately don't know what he is thinking when he is finally alone and silent: maybe some new restlessness, maybe contentment and a realisation that he doesn't need to try so hard now, but he definitely looks tired.
[deleted]
OP I think he wanted Lila back. Remember Close to you was their song and that is what was playing at the end of movie when Lenny got melancholy.
share