poignant ending


very underrated film indeed, as has been noted.

I have seen it 3 or 4 times now, and I wouldn't pretend that I "understood" the ending -but, a good 50 years after the works of Barthes and co, who would still assume that a work of art has "one meaning" to offer anyway!- so this is how i am tempted to interepret it...

the "I was only making movie" scene (crucially right before the final one) could reveal Monroe's realisation that he has been so engrossed in fiction (producing films) that he has passed by "real life" (the post-modern angle: i.e. people devote more energy, care , love and attention to fiction than to real life).
The girl he truly loves is gone, and he is left with an empty film set (into which he disappears, by the way). "I don't want to lose you", he utters to a ghost-town, not dissimilar to his own never-to-be-finished house. Only emptiness remains. In the last shots, he's all alone.


...then again, let's re-examine the final scene: to whom or to what does he say "I don't want to lose you"? The evidence is before our eyes: the film set, precisely.


I like his final enigmatic smile, which of course reminded me of the one the great man also has at the end of "once upon a time in america".

reply

in fact, I've just realised, the theme of endings runs throughout the film; does Monroe really seek an ending?
cf. his unfinished house and that scene once more ("I was only making movies": when his unseen partner (voice sounds remarkably like the great D. Pleasance's) asks him how it ends, he admits he doesn't know, as in: he's only interested in the process, in setting up a situation, but he doesn't have a grand master plan.)

What the (gorgeous) girl brings with her, on the other way, is the reality of endings: she is going to get married. And will "never see (him) again" (can't get any more final than that!). Which certainly clashes with his modus operandi.
You will also note that when they, er, "get together", she is the one who takes the initiative to go all the way (in the car: "let's go back to your house") whereas he initiates their relationship.

True, he does asks for a rewrite of the final scene starring J. Moreau (!!) and T. Curtis (!!!) and he is paid to make decisions by his employers, the studios. At which he is shown to be failing, when confronted with the writers' union rep.

reply

I think you have captured the essence of what S. Fitzgerald was trying to convey in terms of the empty victory of attaining the mythical "American Dream" .... a reflection of Fitzgerald's take on his own life, attaining fame and fortune and yet not really being able to enjoy it and realizing how transient these were. It was also meant to be an "expose" of the studio system that Fitzgeral was forced to work for to make a living. Monroe Stahr seemingly had everything and yet he was lonely and yearned for things that would never be his. In contrast, the things he did have control over - symbolized by the unfinished house - seem to always be a work in progress never reaching completion. The unfinished house symbolizes both the potential and failure of a man and/or his dream.

Comments welcome.

reply

Huh.
You're spot on!
Thank you.

reply

That's all fine and dandy, but in the end the film is a failure because it fails to fully realize those ideas and concepts through Pinter's cold and emotionless script and Kazan's stagey direction.
The performances, sans Jack, are all pretty cardboard, and I blame this all on Kazan.
Too bad, the film had a lot of potential, like the Deniro/Nicholson scenes which were pretty electric.

reply

I think that's all fine too, but i think you forget to realize that the man at the end with the girl is Robert Mitchum. It's Mitchum's character that plans the whole thing with the girl that resembles the star to brig Monroe down.

reply


POIGNANT-memorably so

reply

If you've ever read any of Fitzgerald's novels . . ..he was a man of few words, sort of like Hemingway. I like that. And, the words they wrote were enough to convey the meaning of what they wanted to say to the reader. However, I agree that Pinter narrowed down the wording even more, and I'm not sure that was really necessary. Still, I'm glad I found this film! I didn't realize that it existed!!! And, as a long time R.D.N fan I'm thrilled!!!

reply

[deleted]