The ending


Anyone feel like the ending didn't belong in the movie? I thought it was a little weak. Anyone else?

reply

I have a question about the ending that I haven't seen addressed--Was Myra's death out-and-out murder? Because despite what they showed us (twice!), Lily has no bruises or marks at all on her neck as a result of Myra's "attack". And we see a lot of her, quite close up, in the last scene. Did Myra actually attack LIly, or did she simply break in and get shot?

reply

I thought the ending was perfect as was Huston's acting in it. One shot where she was weeping over him created the most grotesque impression for me. It was shot from behind her and the way her body was moving, it seemed as if she were a predatory beast feeding on him. Not suggesting that any such symbolism was the intent of the director but it certainly shook me up.

reply

Me too. This is one of my favorite movie endings of all time. Brilliantly grim, bleak and noirish, the perfect finish to this film. It left a strong impact on me for a long time afterwards. Bravo to them for not going for a more conventional thriller climax.

reply

As has already been mentioned; the ending (like most of the film), is straight from Jim Thompson's novel.
The only twist is that Huston's Lilly, after switching back into survival mode, remains shattered by the accident; whereas in the book - Lilly turns suddenly cold and leaves the apartment with an unaffected smirk.

In the book, Thompson's Lilly Dillon may well survive.
However, the film's Lilly is softer, and as she drives off into the L.A. city night; we know she is doomed.

reply

[deleted]

"..., Lily has no bruises or marks at all on her neck..."
"Did Myra actually attack Lily, or did she simply break in and get shot?



When we last see Myra alive, she is on top of Lilly - choking her.
We next see Lilly after a few days have presumably passed, and she is wearing Myra's scarf around her neck.

reply

I would like other opinions on this----if you watch the ending again, you will notice that when she originally puts the money in the suitcase, then Cusack starts to bleed, she goes to get a drink of water, the money in the suitcase has changed (you can see a bill sticking out, and then you cant)---i think its possible she was grifted, and that he staged his blood and death

Please look again and respond if i'm way off base

thanks

reply

First of all, leypra, my compliments on your powers of imagination. Sometimes writers/directors invite us to draw conclusions about stuff that happens off screen. Sometimes those conclusions are more obvious than others and there's not a heck of a lot of options for the assumptions we make. Sometimes it's more ambiguous and invites a lot more possible or likely interpretations. Yours is among the most fantastical I have ever read for any movie. First of all it seems unlikely that the storytellers intended for us to arrive at that conclusion. There's next to no evidence for it. And... in terms of likelihood, he would have to attach a very sophisticated blood squirting apparatus to himself, a bit of a stretch in itself. He would have to know that Lilly was going to slug him with the briefcase at the precise moment he lifted his drink to his face. He would have to ascertain that the glass he held was not made of glass but a less dangerous material. He would have to know that the briefcase would fly open on impact, he wouldn't get away with opening it himself when he's faking being dead. He would have to know that Lilly would leave to get a drink of water. I'm sure there are more unlikelihoods but I'm tiring out. So IMO... yup, you're way off base all right. :-). Feel free to take issue with any of this, nothing like a good debate.

reply

1...no reason to be pedantic ("most fantastical I have ever read for any movie)---thats a little much

2...he's a grifter for goodness sakes, and a very talented one at that---he can't pull off a fake blood disception?...the other points you mentioned are valid, although obnoxiously----check out the ending again and then give me your opinion---notice the bill sticking out that wasnt there before---it could just be a mistake, but this is a clever movie

reply

"yours is among the most fantastical I have ever read for any movie"... that's pedantic?..Not really. I'm also surprised, with all the petty insults that fly around these boards, that you would find me obnoxious. Oh well.

A talented grifter? I thought he was depicted as a fairly average one at best. In fact I thought he was in over his head when in the company of Lilly or Myra.
A "fake blood deception"? As Rickmeister pointed out she was looking right into the wound and probably touching it. Yes, it is a clever movie, so clever in fact that they wouldn't resort to a cheap twist like the one you described. It looks like I've already blown my chance to present myself as someone who is courteous in a debate situation, so I'm going to stop mincing my words and replace "unlikely" with "absurd".

reply

I have to concur with Byzantine15. Good imagination, but no dice.

Roy enters his apartment just as Lilly has 'packed' the briefcase; the two of them talk; Lilly leaves for the kitchen, while Roy considers what is happening;
Lilly returns with two glasses of water; the two talk some more; a trusting Roy turns away to take a sip of the water; Lilly grabs the briefcase, smacking Roy in the head with it - in an attempt to knock him unconscious; her aim turns fatal and Roy bleeds to death;
Crying, Lilly stuffs the bloodied money back into the case and begins heaving; she staggers back to the kitchen sink, cleans herself up and then leaves the apartment with the re-packed money.

The variations of what cash we see, and don't see, sticking out of the closed briefcase - is a continuity error that slipped past the filmakers. It's a goof, that's all.
It's cool that you put so much thought into your suspicions though. Some on this board dismissed the ending altogether.

reply

I've got a confession. I didn't watch the final scene, I just tried to go from memory. From your description, leypra, I thought you meant that Lily went to get the water AFTER Roy's injury. I got it wrong and that means a few of my 'unlikelihoods' didn't make sense. So I'm assuming you meant that he helped himself to some of the dough while she was getting the water? Then why would he want to fake his death, why not just let her leave with the much reduced amount of money. So now it's his motivation that seems inconsistent with the 'final grift' theory. Please respond, we're not going to drag you over the coals.

reply

Roy's definitely dead. Lily obviously didn't mean to kill him, just knock him out - disable him, so she could make off with the cash.

And her still packing up the money and leaving with it, even in her grief in losing probably the one person she actually loved, showed what a desperate and pathetic person she is.

I think that it also shows the difference between Roy and Lily, and the level that she was willing to sink to.

reply

not at all---i'm thinking that he staged his own death, and there is no money left in the briefcase----please review the ending again....i may be wrong and it could be a continuity issue, but not sure

reply

After the hit, when Roy slumps to the floor and Lilly sees what has happened, she rushes over and actually works her fingers into the throat wound, presumably to stop the bleeding. That's pretty real.
Also, while Lilly did turn her back to go into the kitchen afterward - any activity from Roy in the next room would have been noticed, and certainly Lilly would notice picking up an empty briefcase that she had just re-packed with the money moments earlier.

Another factor in your suspected scenario are Roy's morals; he simply would not have done that to Lilly.

reply

I can't even believe that we're debating this. It must be because of all of the trick endings of so many movies over the years, that we're sitting, waiting to "figure out" what really happened.

I agree with you, that Roy wouldn't, or couldn't have done that to Lily. He was obviously a sucker for her, and probably for women in general.

reply

I thought the ending was brilliant and actually redeemed all of the movie's flaws, such as: Cusack's miscasting; Huston's whory bleach job (which looks like crap on her and is an obvious attempt to make her look like Bening, for plot reasons); the stupid scene w/ the Texan, etc.
I espec liked spotting all of the vampire allusions: Bening's old partner in the asylum, obsessed w/ flies like Renfield; Angelica coming back from the "dead" and telling Cusack "I'm thirsty," just before tearing his throat open and absconding w/ his life's blood (the $); and others which I can't recall right now. Good metaphor for these shady, blood-sucking characters.

reply

"Cusack's miscasting"???

I don't see that.

reply

Don't get me wrong, Cusack's a fine actor, but I think he's the wrong type for this role. At least, viewing this after reading the novel, he struck me as seedy, untrustworthy. Like Jack Nicholson, he can't do much about the sly smile and shifty eyes. Whileas Roy in the book looked like an open-faced Boy Scout, which explained his success at the short-con. River Phoenix would have been good.

reply

OK. I'm jumping in. I came to this site to look for illumination on the ending. Things I noticed: the car coming around the corner after Lily drives off...I immediately shifted into reverse and was compelled to see the ending again. As I watched the Cusack corpse, I noticed breathing and "imagined" a smirk on his face. Now you all have to watch the ending again and tell me I'm wrong, wrong, wrong! The fact that this conversation has continued indicates to me that the director wanted the viewer to wonder and speculate. That's the reason for ambiguity in all literature.

reply

[deleted]

Hmm... maybe it takes someone more than a few seconds to die from a neck wound. Perhaps, just maybe... he was still dying and that's why he was breathing?

reply

I though the ending was perfect. If you didn't I think you missed the point of the movie. Please see my post about the deeper meaning of the movie.

reply

I was just about to respond with the same point. It's not a caper or a heist movie. It's a character-driven movie about 3 really messed up people trying to survive. With that in mind, the ending is nothing but brilliant.

reply

Agreed.

reply

it is interesting though. and the thing is....WHO WOULD ROY HAVE LEARNED SUCH A GREAT GRIFT MOVE FROM??? remember? remember? who told him about the fake blood pouch and faking her death and the person who is conned running away out of fear? hmmmm? hmmm?? ohhh!! myra told him about that with cole. she pretended to really get shot with her fake blood. so lilly may have never known about this particular con but roy sure did. myra told roy in that con, she and cole made out with $180,000 or something close to that. i think roy really did die. but i love your imagination here. and if the filmmakers did mean to imply this somewhat, it's not that farfetched considering roy could have used the technique myra told him in detail about with the same results. lilly gets the hell out of there not even taking all the money but only probably half of it.

reply

Please, no.

I'd have been pretty pissed if that happened. The whole movie is about the characters, who happen to be grifters - not a movie about a particular grift or score. It would've been a cheap twist, robbing the scene of some real emotion and shock.

Having him live would've been a bit of a joke.

The ending shows that Lilly was right, that Roy didn't have the stomach for being a grifter - and it showed that she did. Even after she causes her son's death, she's on the floor picking up his blood-soaked bills, and even drives off in his car.








(as an aside, I don't really understand why she took Roy's car - since the police will be looking for it, after his body is discovered. Myra's car would've been safer, since no one even knows that she's dead.)

reply

phil-brown807 said...

l thought the ending was a let down,a bit flat after such a good film.
l rewound it to see if ld missed something.Its like the film fizzled out.


that pretty much sums up my thoughts.

because while i basically liked the film as a whole the ending was like 'wtf?' as it leaves you with a empty 'is that it?' feeling. (i just got done seeing it a few moments ago for the first time)

but i was reading some other peoples posts on here about how they interpreted the film and it makes me look at it in a different way but my initial viewing the ending i pretty much did not like at all which dulled down the otherwise 'good' (not great) film. but as is i got to give it a 6/10, had the ending been better with at least 'something' i might have went a 7/10. but this 'could' be one of those films that gets better with repeated viewings.

It's not a caper or a heist movie. It's a character-driven movie about 3 really messed up people trying to survive. With that in mind, the ending is nothing but brilliant.


i think that's my main problem is that i went into it sorta expecting something like a heist movie as that's the way it looks like it's presented by looking at the basic plot outline etc etc.



---
My Vote History ... http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11026826
---

reply

I've always wondered about the ending to this film. Was Lily crying only about her sons accidental death or did she realise that she had also blown her cover.

As she said the cops might have bought the frame but Bobo would spend real money to find her. Now Bobo and who ever else was looking for her would have the death of her son to investigate as a possible clue that she was still alive and kicking. The lady may have survived but for how much longer was now definitely in doubt.

reply

I would say her emotional response was certainly toward Roy.
Lilly had the long drive back to LA to contemplate her shaky future. She did not have time to contemplate the sudden killing of her own son.
No amount of street-smarts prepared Lilly for that.



reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

no, and in hi def it is not a 'dark figure of a man', it's just a man, and there are also other pedestrians that walk on the sidewalks in the same shot

there are also multiple cars, so references to the 'car entering the frame' or whatever, are inane. it's a mildly trafficed street, that's it

reply

[deleted]

wrong, there are other pedestrians in the shot. they come onto the screen after the man has crossed the street. it is on netflix streaming in hi def - watch it yourself if you're delusional.

the car entering the frame comment is in response to other posts in this thread, not yours. others have imputed significance to, i believe, the final car that enters the bottom of the frame and drives up the street near the end of the final shot

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I've been wondering about the man who runs across the street in the end. Does anyone think this could be Roy? I kept rewinding it and I think it might be him.

reply

Ummh, No i don't think it's Roy running across the street, u know why?

Coz he died in the hotel room. Remember the red liquid coming out of his throat? Well it was blood.


"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs"

reply

ha ha

reply

The ending was brilliant, like a baseball bat in the stomach to the viewer. Did they ever say how much money it was exactly? You'd think Lilly could've done with only a portion of it, make a compromise, but Roy didn't seem like he would've parted with one cent and she was certainly desperate for the entire amount.

reply

Yeah I agree, the ending was really really weak and irrational, like the whole flick: disappointing.
Especially after i started so good with the scene in the bar...

Yeah, 5/10 for me.

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs"

reply

I don't buy the Roy faking his own death scenario, because nobody's come up with an answer to this question: WHY would he do it? Why would he fake his own death? It's his money, after all - it's not as though he's conning Lilly out of anything. He would have had to have anticipated an awful lot in order to have a blood packet in exactly the right place when she hits him - and there isn't a single shred of evidence to support any con on his part beyond vague inconsistencies that are no more than continuity glitches. How long is she out of the room running the cold water? A few seconds? Enough time for him to grab the briefcase, empty it, hide the banknotes (where?), close the briefcase and then take up the same prone position - when he wouldn't even know whether she was going to leave the room at all, or for how long, or whether she might take the case into the kitchen with her anyway? The car at the end MIGHT have been following her (in the which case, it's Bobo's men, not Roy's) or it might simply have been a random car using the same road - and why anyone crossing the street should be seen as being significant is beyond me. People do, after all...

No, there is no planning involved in this final scene. These characters are all strictly small time. Myra relied on her former partner (Cole?) for her money previously and has been reduced to prostitution to pay her bills, Lilly has been siphoning off money from Bobo - and gets caught, while Roy gets beaten up when his money switch is spotted and, basically, knows his own limitations - he does not want to get involved in long term cons because they're too dangerous. None of them have the brains (or the desire) to pull off any kind of complicated con, no matter what Myra thinks - and they are all out of their depth in one way or another. As others have said, this is a character driven movie, dealing with three linked individuals who are basically losers and where, to put it crudely, s**t happens.

reply

[deleted]