MovieChat Forums > Joe Versus the Volcano (1990) Discussion > Bringing up the ending again.

Bringing up the ending again.

posted 18 years ago by joe-england
43 replies | jump to latest

This is a bit of a rant. I apologize, but I felt like ranting and this seemed like the best place to do it. Now, I don't like this movie much on the whole, so perhaps my being one of the people who doesn't "get it" is coloring my point of view. But that ending... I can't believe my distaste for that is merely a matter of opinion.
So. I know this has been mentioned before, but... seriously. Why isn't it mentioned more?? That was the most insanely dissatisfying ending ever. Flaws in logic aside... sure is lucky how the volcano somehow spit them out without burning them to death and they landed in the water and somehow weren't injured by the fall and the island didn't pull them under with it and the luggage (which fortunately wasn't tethered or obstructed or stored in a hut and somehow was the only thing to come up from the island even when all those airtight soda cans and boats and loose wood and corpses and light debris didn't) came up right next to them despite most likely having been stored a fair distance away from where they must have landed in order to have been far enough away to survive the catastrophe... well, what about the Waponis? What ABOUT the Waponis?? What about all those nice men, women and children who put their faith in Joe to deliver them from their final doom? Wasn't the whole point of everything to save the natives?? I mean sure, there's also Joe experiencing life for the first time in the face of death and so on, I'm very happy that he managed to overcome his issues and become a better man and live happily ever after. That's great for him. Patricia too. But hey, an entire island civilization died. Do we see them rowing to safety, like in the original screenplay? Do we see them waving goodbye? No, we see them running and screaming as horrible destruction claims them all. They don't live happily ever after.
I mean, I guess they weren't the bravest people in the world. And their devotion to soda symbolizes how they lost their souls, or something. But did they all deserve to die?? By those standards, 96% of the American population should be euthanized! And what about the children? This is a horrible, horrible tragedy! Couldn't Joe and Patricia at least... I don't know, have had a minute of silence? Sure they're happy to be alive, who wouldn't be, but I just can't feel happy for two people who ride off into the ocean smirking whimsically after HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE JUST DIED. Do they even mention them? They mention the island sinking. Boy, that's sad. But what kind of creeps must they be to just completely FORGET about the friendly race of people who were ON THE ISLAND who did their best to make them feel welcome and who were counting on them to make sure they DIDN'T DIE? What, was it all about Joe? Is that it? Is precious Joe and his personal development the only thing we should really be concerned with? Sure he's the main character, and yes, as such the world in the movie sort of does revolve around him. But GEEZ, protagonists tend to be likable because they care about people BESIDES THEMSELVES (and their love interests). I like Tom Hanks, don't get me wrong, but my God. Joe's kind of a jerk! And I never liked Meg Ryan, anyway. This movie has a cult following, but I ain't in it.
Or I don't know, maybe they had a bit of a cry after the "Happily Ever After" went up. I hope so, I really do.

[–] Daidria 18 years ago

It's a comedy, don't take it so seriously.

"Time is the best author. It always writes the perfect ending."

[–] jay-huhn 18 years ago

stop crying about a COMEDY MOVIE. You're some sort of loser aren't you?

[–] joe-england 17 years ago

Aha, touche! Well met, my friend. With scathing and canny observation you have put me in my place. It is plain to see that I am, indeed, the loser of this particular battle of wits. I jauntily tip my hat to you!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joe-england 17 years ago

That's certainly fair enough, though it's not exactly what I meant to address. I can see fairly well certain lessons that this movie is trying to teach, but on a more immediate level I can't abide the apparent selfishness of the characters in their seeming disregard of a vast tragedy.
I mean, they could've at least said "Too bad no one else made it." Would that have been too much trouble to script? Sheesh. I dunno, it just bugs me, is all.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] joe-england 17 years ago

Yeah, there you go.

[–] docfox 17 years ago

Meh, when was the last time a white couple really cared about indigenous peoples? It's a comedy, therefor the Waponis' deaths were funny.

Also, you have to take into account that none of the Waponis was willing to sacrifice themselves for the good of the others. They were afraid to die. There was no hero among them. They deserved to die.

[–] joe-england 17 years ago

Um... wow. That's somewhat harsh. But yes, I got all that, about the Waponis being spiritually bereft or something. I did. I still don't think that was particularly fair to them... choosing to live is not universally shameful... but I do get what the film-makers were trying to say. What I'm specifically objecting to is how the two main characters react with an absolute lack of consideration for them. Even if every man, woman and child on that island did somehow deserve to die, that doesn't mean they don't deserve to be mourned.
Ironically, this makes the main characters seem far more bereft of empathy and soul than the Waponi people ever were. Joe was only going into the volcano because he thought he had nothing to lose and wanted to imbue his death with meaning, and Patricia was going because she loved him. Neither of them were really motivated by the needs of the island folk. And neither of them show any signs of having cared.
Perhaps the Waponi weren't heroic, but at least they acknowledged the significance of Joe's sacrifice. At least they were thankful. And it could even be said that in the end the Waponi were sacrificed for Joe and Patricia... two people who really don't seem to give a crap at all.
There wasn't a hero amongst them, either.

[–] saledgele 17 years ago

My take is that the demise of the Waponi civilization was entirely congruous with the moral points of the story. Yes, this doesn't address the lack of emotion that the main characters expressed in the ending, but when I imagine interjecting some passing dialogue in the final scene regarding this, I can't imagine a way to approach it without sounding trite and awkward. The closing sequence is all about "what next", and even as it is, the lines are so expositive as to be distracting. Bringing up the Waponis could do nothing for closure, and I think that it's assumed that after Joe and Patricia get their bearings after being saved from certain death, they would have used a good bit of their time afloat to reflect on the tragedy - but they didn't bring it about themselves. The Wapnoi civilization did, with their "$300 dollars a week" orange soda, and bargaining to get someone else to do their fighting. They marginalized themselves and were unable or unwilling to take the leap, and were existentially dead already.

But yeah, Patricia is still a beotch for not taking the time to mourn her lost crew before her day at the Waponi spa.

[–] Franco_Zed 17 years ago

it's a fable or a fairy tale. And a goofy one at that. You can take it seriously, but even its fans can't take it literally.

Where the hell did I put my damn Horcruxes?!

[–] KrustytheDude 17 years ago

Well what did you want Hanks and Ryan to do? Commit suicide? And you don't know that any of the islanders died. They didn't show anyone dying. They had boats remember? They could have prepared for a possible disaster and just sailed to another island. But why explain this when it's a comedy!! And one that I loved.

[–] joe-england 17 years ago

I don't think I'm asking for an unreasonable reaction. I just wanted them to show emotion for the Waponis. Even if they did somehow survive, Joe and Patricia could have at least demonstrated some concern. They did just lose their whole island, and that's a pretty catastrophic thing for an island-dwelling culture to deal with. Though I am pretty certain that they died. If they had an escape plan then that should've been established at some point. Or at least shown at the end. As it is, there's really no reason not to believe that many if not all of the Waponis were killed. There's no sign of them anywhere in the water. In any case, if there's doubt then we in the audience aren't informed of their fates. The movie itself doesn't seem to care about them.
Now, I've heard several times something akin to "It's a comedy! Who cares? Don't question it so much!" Well, with respect, let me just say that comedy is not an excuse for poor characterization. A good story takes into account all elements needed for that story to be told well, regardless of genre.
Seriously. Floating on their luggage there, don't they seem just a bit overly nonchalant?

[–] rgleaves 17 years ago

It's not a comedy -- it's an extremely witty and often beautiful treatise on existential philosophy. As in Brazil, it has a real ending (tragedy) masked by a subsequent extended dream sequence: in this case, the boat sank, everyone on board died, and the remainder of the film is Joe's dying fantasy as presaged by the imagery on his old office lamp. All those incongruities make perfect sense as dream logic. But who cares, since they also give Shanley a chance to cut loose with Blazing Saddles-style absurdist humor which is a joy to behold. Peche, peche, on the flesh indeed.

God bless this film. And Georges Delerue.

[–] KrustytheDude 17 years ago

Well didn't Hanks or Ryan make a brief, somewhat sympathetic comment about the island? One of them said, "There goes Waponi-woo..." So it's not like they just completely ignored the scene and wasn't this before the luggage appeared so they were worried about drowning too. But we weren't supposed to care that much about the Waponis because they were presented as this silly primitive child-like happy-go-lucky tribe of islanders that love orange soda with Abe Vigoda as the ridiculous chief who was obviously making up that Waponi languge! C'mon!

[–] joe-england 17 years ago

I dunno, man. The Ewoks were silly and primitive and child-like too. Heck, I didn't even like them that much. Friggin' comic relief. But still, I would've felt kind of bad if they all died at the end of "Return of the Jedi." And I would've expected the main characters to, too. In the context of a film which takes itself even mildly seriously (and many perfectly good films don't), the passing of life is meant to have significance.
I'm sorry Krustydude, but my feelings aren't going to change on this. I think I've made my case, and if you still disagree then that's certainly your prerogative. You enjoy the movie, and that's great. I can't fault you on that. But for my part, I perceive a flaw in this film and am going to continue to support my judgment of it.
Though it is just a movie, after all. To each their own.

[–] rickhavoc1 17 years ago

Maybe you should read the original screenplay, which had a different ending, and a bit more detail which filled some of the holes in the plot. I sense the Spielberg touch there (cut the ending down, and some details, or the movie'll be too long. It's only a comedy, after all). Patricia did show some remorse when Joe told her about the boat going down, but she had been unconcious for several days, so it wasn't immediate for her. Also, the way I see it is in the end, they were so overwhelmed by their own survival when they had expected to die that they were temporarily incapable of feeling remorse. Finally, like someone else said, just because the movie didn't SHOW any of the Waponis escaping the island in their canoes doesn't mean they didn't. It did show them running toward the shore, after all. I think we're supposed to infer that at least some of them escaped. The movie didn't explain either the origin of the Waponi's love for orange soda or where they got it from, as well. Or why Samuel Graynamore couldn't have just traded a large, ongoing supply of it for the mineral rights. Here's the link to the Joe Versus the Volcano fan site where you can find a recreation of the original screenplay:

http://www.mindspring.com/~waponi/

Click on miscellaneous over to the left, then scroll to the bottom.

A closed mind gathers no knowledge

Never underestimate the power of human stupidity - Robert Heinlein

[–] LetheL 10 years ago

Yeah, right, rgleaves. And Squall actually died at the end of the first disc and the other 60 hours were just his dying dreams.

Sheesh.

YOU are the person this movie is trying to reach with its message!

Lethe

[–] beeryusa 17 years ago

It's a movie with a very dark sense of humour. People die horribly all the time, but you've got to laugh. That's the point. I like to watch it together with 'After Hours' - they both share a dark and mordant sense of humour.

I mean the volcano just erupted! Sure hundreds of people died, but that was hardly the two main characters' fault, now was it? I mean what would you have them do - whine and sniffle away the hours after they'd been miraculously saved? Give them a break!

And to say they didn't show any feeling for the Waponis when Joe was willing to jump into the volcano to save them? Jeez! Again, give them a break for crying out loud!

Finally, it's a movie, it's not real life. It's not even supposed to be seen as realistic. Half the stuff that happens in the movie couldn't have happened in real life. No one died. Stop taking it so seriously.

[–] diswiz 17 years ago

I don't know if this has already been stated, but here's an answer to at least one of your questions Joe.

... The volcano spat them both out because they were not whom was meant to be sacrificed. The tradition called for a brave 'native' of the island to throw himself in so that the others could live. But because not a SINGLE individual in this paradise was willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good, the pact wasn't kept and the island sunk itself...

You can even sense how tainted these villagers have become, now dealing with a 20th century billionaire, providing a massive industry with a rare commodity that only this island holds. It's pure greed.

I don't think that Joe has very much to do with the island's actual self destruction. He's just not what was asked for... He isn't saved by the volcano, he's spat out in disgust! A little ironic, in my opinion. But this is, at least, my take on the story.

And let's think about Joe's perspective and his lack of remorse. These were the people, in fact, who asked him to kill himself in the first place, for their personal paradise. He's just happy to be alive.

Ah, and on a side note... I LOVE THE LAMP musical underscore... He manifested his own adventure. PERFECT foreshadowing and one of my favorite films of all time.

[–] joe-england 17 years ago

As I say, Diswiz, I don't blame Joe for the island sinking. I do understand the mystical implications. All I'm really saying is that his and Patricia's reactions seemed insensitive. Again, I don't expect them not to be happy to be alive, but I would have appreciated some recognition of all those men, women and children dying. It's just... you know, the sort of human reaction you expect after a tragedy. And it is a tragedy. I don't care how morally bankrupt the Waponis had become, there were men, women and children on that island who played with and welcomed Joe and Patricia, who seemed like good folks, and who in any case at least deserve to be mourned. Maybe Joe and Patty did, after the fact. But the movie gave no indication of tragedy.

[–] LetheL 10 years ago

Joe-england, so let me get this straight. What you're saying is, in a movie meant to be a fable, where magical luggage repeatedly saves its owner, where the hand of fate, shaped like the walkway up to the main character's soul-sucking job, continuously disrupts his attempts to stay on the path he believes to be his lot in life, and almost everything that happens makes little or no realistic sense, but DOES support the moral, you are asking the principal characters to emote as if they have just wandered in from the set of Band of Brothers.

I mean, just so I know where you're coming from.

If you haven't gotten my snarky message yet, I guess I'm saying that you need to keep your genres straight! If what you want is a story about the tragedy of the sinking of the island of Waponi Woo after the Big Woo erupts and spits out Joe, Patricia, and the previously mentioned magical luggage, this is NOT the movie you are looking for.

Even shorter version: It's a FABLE. That crow that lost his cheese to the fox did not spend years in analysis trying to reason through his vanity. Well, maybe he did, but IT WASN"T PART OF THE STORY.

^_^

Lethe

[–] joe-england 17 years ago

Beeryusa, I'm not blaming Joe and Patricia for the island sinking, I'm just saying that they didn't seem to appreciate the gravity of the situation. It's the attitude of the film itself, really. The "happily ever after" thing comes up, the moon is all pretty, the leads are cuddly, the music is serene... it just... it seems to ignore the horrific, tragic element to the film's climax. Of course they're happy to be alive, I don't argue with that, but there's no real acknowledgment of a deeply unfortunate plot turn. And no, I don't think that Joe was jumping into the volcano to save the Waponis. If that was the point, then surely there would have been some implied negative reaction to his having utterly failed to do so. Joe was jumping into the volcano to complete a personal journey. What he did was brave and awesome, but it was not strictly selfless.
I'm sorry that I'm being so terribly hard on poor Joe and Patricia. Perhaps I should give them a break, for crying out loud. But is my reaction really so unreasonable? Am going too far, to persistently criticize what I perceive to be a flaw in a work of art? I watched the movie, I watched the Waponis, they didn't seem like such bad folks, and I show regret that they died. And that's more than the main characters did. So, I gripe.
And I hate to be brusque, but I swear, if one more person tells me not to take this movie seriously... well, I'll become somewhat upset, I will. Criminy, it's a message board. This is a forum for people who take a movie seriously enough to discuss it. And from what I've read, there are many people who take this movie far more seriously than I do.

[–] djsnafu23 17 years ago

I'm glad you said all that Joe, or I would have had to type it. The movie was too mushy mushy to have their reaciton as cold-clooded morbid humour- it just eems insensitive and counter to the sugary character they tried to establish for Hanks. I didnt liek the movie, butr I think this particular bit both annoyed me and undermined the movie

[–] joe-england 17 years ago

Glad to know I'm not alone, there.

[–] idealtroy 17 years ago

You know.. you've almost got it... but not quite, and that's why you don't understand.

First let's address the simple the surface level of your question "why aren't the charictors sad about the tragedy of the Waponis?" It's simple... Joe didn't die! By some odd miracle Joe and Patricia lived when everyone around them died. That's definately something to be happy about, don't you think? People who survive a tragedy might later feel any number of negative emotions, but initially, I'm pretty sure they're just happy to be alive.

That Joe feels this way at the end of the movie is really the point of the movie itself and the messege to all of us. As the doctor says in his office... you've only got so much time left, only so much life left... his advice... "Live it well." At the end of the movie, Joe is just finally starting to do that. He's not just happy to be alive after jumping into a volcano.. he's happy that he has life left to live... at the beginning of the movie, he didn't see life as a miracle to cherish. Now he does. That's the point of the movie right there.

Now, your concern seems to be also from the perspective of the "viewer" rather then just Joe's point of view. You don't like that the movie dismissed an entire culture's demise as merely a point of irony. That concern I'd have to address with more of a discussion about story telling mechanics. See, it's a story. They're not real people. They're not really dead, it was just a pretend tragedy in a movie. They even used very cheesy special effects to make sure we didn't take it too seriously. The point of the movie is not... as you suggested... "to save the natives." It's not a movie about trying to preserve a native culture in the south pacific. The point of the movie was to save Joe from himself. Joe lives.. and somehow in that crooked road he traveled, he managed to figure out why that's a good thing. If they'd focused on the tragedy of a native culture being wiped out by a natural disaster, that would have been an entirely different movie. Trying to mix it into this movie would have been confusing. If they'd chosen to show all the waponi's living, by jumping in thier rowboats or whatever... that would have broken up the flow and pace of the story that's supposed to end with just the 2 of them drifting away together into the unknown. Of course the death of hundreds of natives on an island is sad... but sad stuff happens all the time around us every day... far worse things then that happens in real life. One of the primary concepts of the movie suggests, right or wrong, that those horrible tragedies things should make us appreciate the life we DO have more.... like it did for Joe.

[–] crose5 17 years ago

If you understand where the movie is coming from ("Once Upon a Time", and "Happily Ever After"), a fairy tale asking you to consider the worth of your life, the worth of your soul, whether you should sometimes have faith and take a leap...well, then you never ask england's question because it has absolutely nothing to do with the fable you just saw. NONE of this is to be taken literally.

The question about the ending is, to me, completely irrelevant. If you can't grasp that, that your question is a non sequitur, then I can't help you.

This movie has NOTHING to do with logic. Sorry, but if you're asking those questions, you're stuck in the basement, Mr. Waturi.

[–] joe-england 16 years ago

...I'm sorry Idealtroy, were you talking to me? There are so many posts in this section I'm getting a little confused as to what's directed at who. If you are talking to me, then I'll just say that I do actually grasp everything you've mentioned, I do understand that the point of the story is Joe's personal journey, I never said that the point was to save the Waponis (that was in response to something someone else said), I recognize the importance of Joe realizing the value of life and of living, and I still see the same flaws in the film. If the main characters have a negative reaction later, as you suggest, that'd be fine. But there's no insinuation of that in the essence of the film, and all I would have asked for would have been some tiny bittersweet moment of recognition for a terrible, terrible thing having happened to other people within the context of the movie. It could have even augmented the expression of the moral of the story, all things considered.
Really, I assure you, I do get it. I do understand what the film is going for. It just doesn't happen to sit entirely well with me.

[–] sotouchisan 16 years ago

Hey Joe,

You make a good point, but I don't think anyone has really challenged you on it in a way that may be a bit more productive than just "you're right" or "you're wrong." So here's my kick at the cat. First, I just want to add in my own irritation at people who make the inane argument that "it's just a movie." If this were true, if according to their argument movies have no effect on our moral or ethical experience of the world than would they also agree that the rating system is completely irrelevant? Why not make porn available to all ages, zero and up? Why give an R-rating to ultra violent movies? Or what the heck is wrong with portraying some guy cutting off a women's head while raping her? It's just a movie after all. None of it is real. Of course the usual reply to this suggestion is a moral one - "well, that's just wrong! Of course you wouldn't want to see that on film..." And so the complete eradication of a civilization is somehow okay so long as its given pretty colors and a nice soundtrack? Really I think the people who say "it's only a film" are probably more dangerous than any film itself, since they are actually practising ideological thinking in their (non) answer. Worse, they're not even aware of their adherence to ideological nihilism.

This is not to say that I agree with you in your criticism of the movie. That is, I don't agree with you in the way that you may want to be agreed with. What I mean by this is that if you're going to criticize Joe v. the Volcano for its centralized focus around a hero and the hero's journey that sacrifices the viewers (and the hero's) ability to sympathize with any other subjectivity external to the hero's own, then it seems almost necessary that you make it a criticism of the hero's journey itself (this is not an invalid argument, since some would argue that the narcissism inherent to a heroic tale has some resonances with a fascist ideology; this, for my tastes, may be a bit too extreme in that it radicalizes fascism to the point of making it unrecognizable because it's too recognizable, but this is a wholly separate argument), and as such this becomes general criticism of the majority of american films made in the last... well, maybe since the beginning (and you would have to throw in a lot of literature, philosophy - at least since Descartes - and other forms of art). So in a way, my disagreement with you is actually to agree with you, but in a more radical way. Why not make this an argument against the predominant mode of storytelling itself? Why not ask the question, does the hero's journey NECESSARILY require the sacrifice of all other subjectivities to the extent that others can be killed off without any necessity to justify their deaths beyond "they're not the hero"? Then you could flip this argument on those people who say its just a movie, and show them how this very same logic is taken up by news sources, and government officials when they need to justify things like war, economic colonization etc. Does anyone need to be reminded of Bush's use of western movies to support his administration's actions? Or put another way, I'm reminded of a bit from the documentary Control Room when the public relations officer for the US military pointed out that when he saw Aljazeera's images of dead US military men he was incensed, but when US networks showed images of dead Iraqi's he felt nothing. Doesn't this trouble our understanding of sympathy? Shouldn't this and movies like Joe v. the Volcano tell us that maybe our sympathies aren't so universal and unquestionable as we'd like to think they are, that they can be controlled with the use of a simple narrative structure we've encountered over and over again?

Anyway, this is a long way of going about saying that I think you have a point, but I think your point is too narrow. For myself, I love the movie. It's one of my favorites of all time, but this doesn't mean I agree with everything it has to say. In fact, for the very reason that it is one of my favorites while still being excessively troublesome in its characterization of non-white people, this forces me to turn the mirror back at myself, so that I'm constantly reminded that I can't take anything at face value or "just as a movie." Movies are going to do their work on me at a level I may not even be aware of, so maybe its best to be aware of it so I can see how the same mechanism is being used on me in other mediums.

Okay, I think I've rambled enough, but I hope you haven't given up answering to these posts, cuz I'd love to hear how you respond to this.

[–] hawk102256 16 years ago

Hello idealtroy-

That was an excellent representation of this story. Perfect, well done. The crux of the movie was for Joe to be more conscious of his own misery and therefore correct it. That his life was a precious gift, whether he realized it or not. That in order to obtain our true bliss, happiness and joy in this world, we sometimes have to lose our life in order to find it.

This movie wasn't about the Waponi's or Joe's sacrifice on the island, it was about awakening to our higher nature. The story demonstrated through Joe our rigid conditioned thinking, which keeps most of us chained to our past and fearful of the future. That's it!

That's the whole story!!!!!!

John Patrick Shanley's genius was to show us, as Patricia stated on the boat, that we'll all asleep, in trance, reliving our past and therefore forfeiting the present moment. That our need is to let go of the past and live our lives without being fearful of our future. To take risks, which is why Joe took the "Leap" literally in the Volcano, the Volcano metaphorically representing fear.

In fact, Eckhart Tolle, author of "The Power of now" book is about this phenomenon, living in our thoughts and past experiences. And that only conscious living, to awaken to the present moment, can correct it.

Yet, most people just don't get it. There in trance, lost in their thoughts and
conditioned thinking and don't even know it. So when Shanley and Spielberg joined forces and created this fable to alert the masses, the critics viewed it as a failed attempt at a romantic comedy.

Shanley knew that most people would not get the message of the film and he depicted it in the movie when the ship was going down. Patricia was sending out distress SOS signals, that no one was receiving, and she announced to Joe " No one is getting this"

Watch this movie again with a fresh pair of eyes its brillant!!

[–] pmdawn 16 years ago

Joe jumps in the volcano.

Volcano wants a Waponi native, not Joe.

Volcano spits Joe and destroys island.

To me it's pretty clear that the "Waponi" demise was their own fault, not Joe's.

Fab movie by the way.

[–] journeybear 16 years ago

I'm sure you understand the Waponis had to die. After all, they had broken their pact with the volcano, and thus the ancient prophecy had to be fulfilled. That's how such things work in fables: follow the rules, everything's fine; change the rules, caca occurs. In fact, there's no assurance that the volcano wouldn't have self-destructed even if Joe's sacrifice had been accepted - he was an outsider, not a Waponi, thus his soul was not bound mystically to the volcano. Furthermore, perhaps Patricia's sacrifice upset the dynamic, as only one person was supposed to jump. Who knows? This movie, like many, many others, suffers from occasional instances of lazy writing, what Roger Ebert has often suggested could be fixed by another run through the typewriter.

That said, perhaps Joe and Patricia were so appalled at what had occurred, the tragic loss of life, that all they could muster as a response was to remark on the island sinking. Perhaps their grief was so stultifying they could not bear to bring to a verbal level what they felt at that moment. Perhaps they were so amazed at seeing an island sinking as if it had been floating just minutes before when all logic told them that such an occurrence was in direct conflict with the laws of physics that they could just mutter a few words to express this astonishment. After all, people die in natural disasters all the time, but islands sinking? Islands - the tips of mountains whose bases are under water so deep that the bulk of their massive structures are concealed - sinking? Well, that just doesn't happen every day.

Personally, I believe Joe and Patricia were saved by the very hand of God - maybe the god of the volcano, maybe some other god, perhaps Loki the Trickster on a Polynesian vacation - similar to the divine intervention in Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac. In the Bible story, God stayed Abraham's hand only when it was apparent he was going to kill Isaac. In the movie, Joe and Patricia were saved only after having made the supreme sacrifice by a curiously timely and helpful updraft that not only propelled them out of danger but landed them safely, an extremely rare occurrence easily explained as divine intervention. In both cases the persons making the sacrifices had proven their willingness to fulfill their side of their agreements, and this faithfulness appears to have been satisfactory to the powers that be. Perhaps proof of this faithfulness was all that was needed, but there was no other way to elicit it.

And perhaps Joe and Patricia were thus saved for another purpose, even if the Waponis had to die in order to set in motion the wheels of their destiny. The Waponis were doomed anyway, having failed to produce a sacrifice from among their own. Joe was caught between their cowardice, Ellison's greed, and his own lack of purpose (originally), though in the end he did find purpose. And in the end, as he and Patricia drift off with their luggage, away from the things of man, and the music swells, I wonder ... what's going to happen in the sequel?

[–] Meshuggavishnu 16 years ago

I was about to start my own thread on this until, as always, I saw one was created already. Declarations: I love this film, and haven't seen its entirety in several years.

It's been very interesting reading people's thoughts on this, as I caught the ending again recently. And it definitely put the screws to my brain: for Joe and Patricia to live, the Waponis had to die?

I'm not entirely sure yet whether it was divine intervention (the hand of God), or the spiritual force of the island itself (rejecting Joe for his selflessness while punishing the Waponis for the opposite) or whether they even died! No one can say with absolute proof (without going outside of the film, at least) that they didn't survive; we're not given any hard evidence either way.

What I do know is Joe's awakening is the central theme to the film in any event, and the fact he already believed he was going to die from a non-volcanic incident doesn't detract from his philanthropy; he could have just died, but he chose to use his death to save an entire village, an entire culture, which was too cowardly to do just that. Joe was rewarded for his sacrifice with the knowledge of his continued existence, while the Waponis have already been judged by The Big Wu (or God, or... whatever!), and thus neither Joe & Patricia nor the viewer need really be concerned with their fate (which is still unclear).

Oh, sure, bleeding hearts will bleed... that's what they do! But natural selection is a wonderful thing. Dig?

[–] death_to_klopeck 16 years ago

*beep* Please? Besides, Meg Ryan was bangin in this move.

[–] LetheL 10 years ago

I think that you, like the OP, are suffering from a severe case of the overthinks. Read two Aesop's Fables and call me in the morning with your thoughtful insights into the motivations of the principal characters and the resonance of their actions down through the lives of their descendants.

Lethe

[–] rstabosz-1 15 years ago

I was initially bummed out by the destruction of the island and all its people. Also I hated the destruction of the Tweedle-Dee, with Dagmar and the boys all going down.

Then I started thinking of it as a fable. The destructive elements were very much in the apocalyptic tradition -- "I see a new heavens and a new earth, for the old heavens and the old earth had been destroyed" (paraphrase of St. John in Revelations). Every dark and deathlike element was signaled by that jagged, lightning-bolt like symbol that appeared at various places -- on the road into the the factory, as the ship went down, as the island was destroyed.

The end of the world, and the destruction that it brings to living creatures, is the dying gasp of fallen creation, as it is transformed into a paradise. In apocalypse, death always precedes rebirth and renewal.

In one sense, the original screenplay carried out that apocalyptic theme by restoring Dagmar and the boys, the Chief, the islanders, and sending Graynamore off on his own voyage of discovery. All of the "good guys" are alive in the "new heavens and new earth", while the "bad guys" go off to find redemption on their own.

A literal interpretation leaves much to be desired. But as an apocalyptic fable, it works. Joe and Patricia can even be imagined to have gone through their own baptism in fire, when they jumped into the volcano. They, like the others, had to undergo "death" before coming into the new heavens and the new earth, where they are fully alive.

[–] hawk102256 15 years ago

rstabosz-1

You wrote an excellent interpretation of the film's many metaphoric messages, I invite you to view my interpretation, two topics down from this one at "Film's esoteric meaning, that only a few truly understand".

I value your opinion.

[–] armanhaikia 15 years ago

Hi everyone,

Since I didn't read the whole thread, I am not sure if someone already mentioned this but here is my take on the ending scenario.

First of all, Joe and Patrica weren't some spectators to this tragedy, they were a part of it, they survived and at that time, I think thats all thats important to them.

Secondly, when Patrica's crew died, what we are shown is that she is waking Joe up. She probably had already figured out by the circumstances and the situation they were in that the boat most likely sank and the crew died. So, when Joe told her, it wasn't a shock to her. She may very well have already mourned.

By the time the island sank, they (Joe and Patrica) have already faced death many times, seen their crew mates died etc, maybe by then it didn't seemed as that big a tragedy by their perspective. You've got to understand, in any tragedy, those who died aren't the victims, but those who survive are, because for those who die, thats it!! End of story, but those who survive have to live through even more hardship to get over the whole tragedy...

Anyway, at least thats what I think, take care all