MovieChat Forums > Hardcore (1979) Discussion > Thoughts on the ending, anyone? SPOILERS

Thoughts on the ending, anyone? SPOILERS

posted 18 years ago by fentress
42 replies | jump to latest

WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD

I understand that Schrader wanted Kristen to have turned out to be killed in a car crash and then George C. Scott goes home. According to IMDB, Schrader regrets that he caved in to studio pressure to end it this way.

I have mixed feelings about the ending. Usually I would root for a courageous bleak ending over a studio-favored "happy ending". But in this case, I think the ending that is actually used in Hardcore is more interesting than Schrader's desired ending would have been. The fact that George C. Scott finds his daughter and at first she doesn't want to go back with him was quite interesting.

That being said, however, there are some problems with this ending. It left me wanting more. I wanted to know more about the characters of Jake and Kristen, and of what their father-daughter relationship was like, to understand why this previously nice midwestern girl would have wanted to leave all that for a sleazy life as an underage porn actress. Maybe Jake as a father was inattentive and distant or overly strict. But how bad could that be? He wasn't portrayed as being abusive. Would the street porn life really be more attractive to Kristen?

Then on top of that, Kristen hated her father enough to initially prefer the sleazy street life. But then after a short period of reconsidering she changes her mind? What is up with that?

But even so, this is still more interesting than Schrader's ending would have been. Here we've watched an entire movie of this man searching for his daughter. Then, under Shrader's ending, it would have turned out her fate had no direct connection to all the searching through the sleazy porn world we had to watch George C. Scott do. Sounds pretty anti-climatic to me.

Thoughts, anyone?

[–] Dylan-o 13 years ago

She doesn't "change her mind" - she doesn't want to go back home. She lets herself be guided home because she's weak; that's what the character is, she's lost and has lived so caged-in a life that she's swept away by almost anything that presents itself, be it pimps, producers, or her own father. Or maybe she returns to a world she despises (or has been telling herself that she despises) because she knows she's "got" her father and hopes for their relationship to change in the light of the film's events. Maybe she just likes the excitement of that, having thrived off of her youthful unpredictability in the recent months of her life.

As for the studio/director thing, I think a lot of geniuses (like Schrader, who is in my mind one of the greatest minds to ever spill over onto celluloid) need to be directed sometimes. The ending in the film as it is is infinitely more interesting than the one Schrader would've wanted. Less bold, maybe, but tenfold more complex.

I take roles that are fried chicken and turn them into filet mignon.
- Viola Davis.

[–] pablo-taylor 12 years ago

franzkabuki wrote: American Gigolo has a similarly idiotic upbeat ending... and at the end of Affliction there´s a long preachy voiceover... so I´m kinda beginning to doubt someone was forcing that stuff on Schrader.

The three films are as different from one another as are the circumstances under which they were made and have no bearing on one another:-

1) The ending of Hardcore was studio suggested, rather than imposed; it's true that Schrader originally had notions about a car crash but due to extensive rewrites when Warren Beaty was attached to the project had lost sight of the material by this point and not being able to come up with a viable alternative went with it - he's reportedly never been happy with the entire second half of the film feeling that he came to wallow in the sleaze of it all, thus undermining his own original intentions as well as the damage done and time wasted pandering to star's ego.

2) American Gigolo is meant to be a redemptive story; if you find the ending "idiotic" it's because you simply don't get it.

3) The closing narration of Affliction is in keeping with that of the original novel and isn't at all "preachy" - it sumarises the key themes of the film which (besides masculine, generational violence) are those of subjectivity and unreliable memory; Dafoe's character calls himself an "historian" but narrates events he can't possibly have been witness to, encourages his brothers' delusions of uncovering a murder/conspiracy and throughout the film characters call into question the veracity of other peoples memories - again you've misunderstood it.

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

"Had lost sight of the material by this point and not being able to come up with a viable alternative went with it".

And it sure as hell shows. I wouldn´t mind a happier sort of ending as long as it feels organic and is artistically well handled. This film´s climax isn´t.

"American Gigolo is meant to be a redemptive story ; if you find the ending "idiotic" it´s because you simply don´t get it".

Yeah, sure, I don´t "get" that the ending is meant to be redemptive; whatever you say lad.

"The closing narration of Affliction is in keeping with that of the original novel and isn´t at all "preachy"".

It practically defines preachy, redundant didacticism. All the film´s points were already well enough made through the drama... as well as the voiceover monologues by Dafoe that felt somewhat tacked-on and clumsy, but made a certain point as you mention and generally just about remained on the tolerable side... and yet suddenly Schrader still finds that he needs to lay it on the viewer once more, in the most obvious, literalistic manner possible. The problem is that Schrader is more a moralist than an artist and his cinematic instincts appear to fail him time and time again when it matters most. I´m sure if he´d handed the directorial job over to someone truly visually gifted, like Scorsese or, say, Abel Ferrara, Affliction could have been a masterpiece.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] balthazar_bee 8 years ago

It practically defines preachy, redundant didacticism.

I can't defend the conclusions of Hardcore (though I wish a camera had been on me so that I could replay the hefty smack I gave myself in the head -- "Oh, The Searchers!") or American Gigolo, but I do think Affliction's ending works. I also think it's Schrader's best film generally, one that largely leaves off the preaching, except insofar as it serves an ironic purpose.

Now, you're right about Dafoe's narration being thuddingly obvious and literal, but I think that was the point. Dafoe's younger brother character is himself an unreliable narrator -- he perceives himself as being once removed from the titular affliction of "that man's violence" (meaning his father's), eliciting Nolte's laughing reply, "That's what you think."

Dafoe can affect all detachment he wants; he can posture about being the disinterested English professor/de facto narrator and say that "this is how the story ends", but frankly, I think the we're meant to be sceptical about all this.

Although he's the only one left to tell the story at the end, the beast may still be germinating in him, and even if it's not, the legacy of family violence is never as pat or simple as he suggests. At the very least we know he may be misremembering his own past in certain important ways. He's cast himself in a particular role in the saga of his family, and now no one remains to contradict him. Which is also fitting because, given his field of study, he probably has a bit of an obsession with matters of narrative.

I also think The Walker, although an undeniable retread of AG, shows that Schrader's technique has improved, particularly in regards to understated sourness of that ending. I read that Woody Harrelson wasn't happy with his performance, and actually took steps to see the movie was "shelved", but I think he's great.

[–] franzkabuki 8 years ago

I'm starting to feel the purpose and nature of Dafoe's narration in Affliction may be something to which I haven't really given sufficient thought; could it indeed be offering another kind of (flawed) male perspective instead of serving as a sober voice (over)explaining things to viewer (well, I guess it could be both in a way...)? The next time I watch, I'll try to be alert. Schrader certainly knows the territory very well there otherwise. However, what bothered me the most, was the very final recap announcing how countless wives/mothers have lived those "lives of quiet desperation"... unnecessary, based on what we'd just seen, utterly jarring.

I tend to find Schrader's films interesting and quite compelling to a significant degree, but there's always, like, something missing in the end (for one thing, he certainly isn't much of a visual mind). Affliction is the closest to truly "coming together".

"facts are stupid things" Ronald Reagan

[–] balthazar_bee 8 years ago

I know exactly what you mean about his films being compelling, yet lacking. At his worst, he can be maddening, because there are almost always aspects of his films that are worth attention, but it's hard to ignore things like, say, the leaden pace of Dominion, or the yawn-inducing exercise in plotting-while-we-wait-for-Lohan-to-take-off-her-top in The Canyons.

And about the "visual mind" thing -- on the recently-recorded Hardcore commentary track, he frequently bemoans how static the camera is, and gets almost giddy when he sees a tracking shot. I guess the old dog's trying, anyway. Hell, he hired Vitorio Storaro to shoot his Exorcist sequel, so at least he's taking steps to compensate for his own deficiencies.

Frankly, I'm interested in seeing his most recent collaboration with Nicolas Cage and Dafoe, because I still think there's at least one great film left in him (Affliction being the only real predecessor on that score).

[–] Rex16 10 years ago

fentress:

I understand that Schrader wanted Kristen to have turned out to be killed in a car crash and then George C. Scott goes home.

I would have disliked this ending. It would have made the film's exploration of the adult subculture entirely pointless. The only reason Jake and the audience make this "journey" into the sex industry is because Jake's daughter - the emotional stake in this film - has landed herself in that world. Jake's daughter is the primary reason that Jake or the audience even begin to try to understand or humanise sex workers. If she never entered the world, then the entire humanising process would have been on a false premise.

Worse, it would have sidestepped the conflict that Jake faces at the end. It's one thing for a religious man to want to rescue his daughter when she has been forced to become a sex worker, but what if she has chosen to be a sex worker instead? Jake's desperation to have his daughter back even after he learns that it is her choice is highly revealing of his innermost psychological makeup. Whatever his religious convictions and personal standards, it's his instincts as a father that drive him the most. It's this revelation that changes the audience's perception of him from a hardcore fundamentalist to a man who is ultimately vulnerable and dependent on those closest to him, no matter what his stance is about his former wife.

The ending that is actually used in Hardcore is more interesting than Schrader's desired ending would have been.

I agree. Kristen's revelation that she chose to join the pornographic world is a moral curveball. It means that Jake's attempts to rescue his daughter cannot be seen as a rescue in a "physical" sense. The daughter is where she wants to be and doesn't need a physical rescuing.

Instead, Jake's wish to rescue her becomes a rescue in a moral sense - he has to save her from herself. Unlike a physical rescue, this is highly paternalistic and far more morally ambiguous. We can assume that if he had done his duty as a father from Kristen's childhood, she would never have felt the need to run away into this kind of a life. Given that Jake failed at that basic level, does he have any right as a father to morally "rescue" her now?

That being said, however, there are some problems with this ending. It left me wanting more.

Absolutely. The film should have given more effort in the early scenes to establish the relationship between Jake and his daughter. As other posters have pointed out, there could be a number of reasons why Kristen felt as oppressed by her father as she did - Jake's refusal to acknowledge her mother's existence, his disapproval of her friends, his tendency to impose his views on her (just as he did with his employee over the colour scheme for the advertisement), and so on.

But then after a short period of reconsidering she changes her mind? What is up with that?

Again, I think the film suffers from its earlier neglect in developing Kristen's character. If the early scenes had established that Kristen was harbouring a grudge against her father, as she later claims, then her choices in the film would have made more sense. As it is, it isn't even clear why she chose to join the adult industry. However, assuming that she was motivated by rebellion against her father - due to her belief that he was unloving and controlling - then Jake's genuine grief at the end might well have convinced her to return to him.

[–] zappalover 10 years ago

The ending was practically absurd and meaningless. An unthreatened PI would not have shot a suspect running away in the back, not even in 1979. Additionally, the lack of any character development of the daughter allows the "luxury" of the superficial reconciliation with her father, when any other ending would have been just as plausible, and just as unsatisfying. Hardcore is a significantly flawed film notwithstanding some fine acting by Scott and Hubley. I expected more from Schrader's writing, particularly after the excellent Taxi Driver.

Life is a state of mind.

[–] ciprianl 10 years ago

I didn't feel that Jake's daughter was any kind of emotional stake. Lacking any character development besides the basic fact that she came from a fundamentalist calvinist family (connected with Jake's attempt to explain the basic dogma of calvinism to Niki) - and that her mother has left them - is not enough to humanize her. She's more of a macguffin device for Jake.

The alternate ending would have been more suitable if the film was meant to have a more critical meaning. What would have been the impact on Jake's faith if, after all the ordeals both of them went through (at least in his opinion) she were to die in a meaningless car accident? Do not forget that calvinists are strong supporters of predestination. As it stands now, she can always play the part of the prodigal son (daughter in this case).

On the other hand, there is another character who was more developed than the daughter, who also was affected by the ending, and who seems to go unnoticed on the board here. I'm talking about Niki, who was certain that Jake would take care of her after all was over. More so than Kristen, she was the character that could have played a role structurally similar with that of Jodie Foster from Taxi Driver. The fact that he was to take care of his own daughter is altogether socially accepted in his middle class background (and hence also in his mind, for he is nothing if not a representative of his class).

I'm feeling that there was no humanizing process at all, with regards to Jake. He didn't try to understand sex workers. When Niki tried to tell him about the troubles with her pimp, she refused to listen. And at the end, he just asks her if she would accept some money as compensation for her troubles...

[–] IceboxMovies 9 years ago

The film's ending is a bit rushed, but I like when Jake says to Kristen, "Take me home." That part makes me weep and is a nice tribute to the ending of The Searchers.

[–] Devans00 8 years ago

fentress

I understand that Schrader wanted Kristen to have turned out to be killed in a car crash and then George C. Scott goes home. According to IMDB, Schrader regrets that he caved in to studio pressure to end it this way.

I have mixed feelings about the ending. Usually I would root for a courageous bleak ending over a studio-favored "happy ending". But in this case, I think the ending that is actually used in Hardcore is more interesting than Schrader's desired ending would have been. The fact that George C. Scott finds his daughter and at first she doesn't want to go back with him was quite interesting.

That being said, however, there are some problems with this ending. It left me wanting more. I wanted to know more about the characters of Jake and Kristen, and of what their father-daughter relationship was like, to understand why this previously nice midwestern girl would have wanted to leave all that for a sleazy life as an underage porn actress. Maybe Jake as a father was inattentive and distant or overly strict. But how bad could that be? He wasn't portrayed as being abusive. Would the street porn life really be more attractive to Kristen?

Then on top of that, Kristen hated her father enough to initially prefer the sleazy street life. But then after a short period of reconsidering she changes her mind? What is up with that?

But even so, this is still more interesting than Schrader's ending would have been. Here we've watched an entire movie of this man searching for his daughter. Then, under Shrader's ending, it would have turned out her fate had no direct connection to all the searching through the sleazy porn world we had to watch George C. Scott do. Sounds pretty anti-climatic to me.

Thoughts, anyone?

To me, the ending between Jake and his daughter Kristen makes sense. I've seen the move multiple times over the years. At different ages I have different perceptions of the film since my life experience has changed.

When they were back home, Jake's ego didn't allow him to be a kind and loving father. Being a child, Kristen took it personally. Thought that her father's coldness meant he didn't love her and she didn't know how to get the affection she needed.

At first Kristen rejected his invitation to go back home because she didn't want to return to things the way they were. Jake's breakdown in the wine cellar showed her that he may have changed. So she's willing to give him another chance.

If things didn't work out, she knew she could always go back to California. She knew people in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco.

I hate movies where a main character dies. That always seems like the easy way out. Hardcore would have be a pointless movie with that ending. I doubt people would still be interested to watch it almost 40 years later with Kristen dying before Jake found her.

It's more complicated and interesting to have them live. How do they figure out to make things work? Do things work out for the better?

It may be interesting to have Kristen's granddaughter get caught up the same 1970s porn/sex industry lifestyle she did. 2016 style.

No two persons ever watch the same movie.

[–] Jones70 (6534) 3 years ago

It was pretty effective imo.