MovieChat Forums > Sea of Love (1989) Discussion > On the film's crossing of genres and the...

On the film's crossing of genres and the ending (SPOILERS, of course)

posted 8 years ago by mattjoes (53)
2 replies | jump to latest

I recently watched this film for the first time, and loved it, for the most part. One of the things I appreciated was how it started as a straight police mystery/thriller and became a romantic drama halfway through, so that the hunt for the serial killer took a backseat to the relationship between the protagonists. As others have pointed out, the scene with Frank and Helen arguing on the street, after Frank confesses the date was police work, felt like a scene straight out of the second act of a romantic comedy.

In regards to the climactic scene, and the resolution of the mystery, Roger Ebert pointed out "the ending of Sea of Love cheats by bringing in a character from left field at the last moment. Part of the fun in a movie like this is guessing the identity of the killer, and part of the problem with Sea of Love is that the audience is not fairly treated. Technically, I suppose, the plot can be justified. But I felt cheated. I had good feelings for the characters and their relationships, but I walked out feeling the plot played fast and loose with the rules of whodunits."

Ebert is not talking without reason. I feel his complaint is thoroughly justified when one looks at the film as a mystery/thriller: the character of Terry is presented early on and has a part in shaping the film's plot, by providing a red herring, so he feels reasonably well integrated into the structure of the story, but beyond the initial stake-out idea, Frank barely has any agency in finding out he is the killer. He just happens to get involved with his ex-wife. Once again, from a mystery/thriller point of view, this is a clear weakness. We expect Frank to pursue the leads and do the work to catch the guy... yet he doesn't have to: he comes to him. (Continues...)

[–] mattjoes (53) 8 years ago

(Continued.) On the other hand, looking at the movie as a romantic film, the overly simple solution to the mystery seems to make slightly more sense. The means by which the identity of the killer is discovered are not necessarily relevant to the relationship between the main characters, and its development. What's more important is, first, the fact that the woman could be the killer, and later, that the killer is, in fact, the ex-husband of the woman.

I think the ending is justified to a fairly reasonable extent when taking into account the crossing of genres of the film. It almost seems like a statement: this is not a straight police thriller. It works, and I like it. Despite this, for me, there remains a very slight tinge of weakness in the resolution of the story, from the thriller standpoint. The unconventional nature of the story seems to almost validate this ending, however.

Do you think solving the mystery like this was intentional, and does it feel like it was? Was it a reflection of the crossing of genres? At any rate, do you feel it works?

[–] Drooch (5333) 4 years ago

I thought it worked fine and that the twist was not a cheat at all. It was airtight (unlike a lot of twists which don’t make sense when you think back through the events) and very plausible. Perhaps it would have added some dimensions to have known more about Rooker’s character before the reveal.

I like cozy little thrillers like this, with good actors and a decent script, that don’t aim any higher than to entertain for a couple of hours. This is the kind of unambitious but satisfying, mid-budget movie with a great cast that Hollywood simply doesn’t make any more, sadly.