The ending


I've noticed that the ending (showing all the characters in different moods) is in the same way as the ending from "Donnie Darko".

Sorry if i'm talkin bananas.

reply

Your not talking bananas. But surely the "Donnie Darko" ending is like "Bleu", seeing as Kieslowski's film came first. Although this sort of montage was not used for the first time here either.

reply

yeah, if you look in the "bleu" reference section on imdb it notes that Donnie Darko referenced it somewhere. this, of course, has to be the end scene.

reply

although lets be honest, no matter how good donnie darko is. Three Colours Blue does it far better. I feel that Donnie works as well as it does simply because of the perfect use of music. Three colours has this and so much more.

reply

I think, the people shown in sequence at the end of the movie was passing through Julie's mind. what do yuo think about it?

was that the moment that Julie appreciated the contributions of the relationships to her life and completely gave up on her reluctancy?

Also for the ones who are interested the link below contains a comprehensive review and interesting views on Three Colors Blue:

http://www.mediacircus.net/blue.html

reply

I've seen "Blue" twice, and I didn't quite get it even after the second time (yesterday). Therefore, I came here to look for some enlightenment. Though I didn't think I found any, I finally got it when I was in bed, trying to fall asleep.

My first question is why Oliver doesn't want Julie's final work. I think there are two reasons. The first is that he loves her, so he wants her to complete the work of herself and to have the courage to publish it. The second is that he wants to prove to himself that he knows her by trying to continue the work of her and seeing if he gets her feeling. Actually, it's also motivated by love.

My second question is why in the end the director chooses to take every character in this movie a shot. My confusion raises to the highest level when the boy who happens to witness the accident is given a shot. Now I can understand that well. The charaters, including the boy, are all who are in one way or the other related to Julie, who decided to get rid of all that is familiar to her and move to a place where no one knows her and vice versa. As a result, this movie tells us that it's still impossible to live isolatedly, disconnecting to people. Only when one is brave to understand, face and fight for life, which is composed both of joy and grief, gain and loss,etc. can he get a life. In this way, the real freedom is at hand.

Finally, I think this movie teaches us a similar lesson as in the New Testament when Jesus accepts the love of a prostitute who falls on her face to wipe the foot of Jesus. In this movie, Julie accidentally helps the stripper in her apartment and the latter repays her by offering her friendship and revealing some personal secrets.

Love can NOT be classified. Be open to love and love back, and you'll get freedom.




Yier

reply

excellent insight, Yier. thanks for sharing.

reply

wow. that was a great interpretation of the overall message of the film. you even got what the scholar had to say! She said the main character was running away from her life because it was too painful to face, and that Binoche wasn't truly living until she faced it.

Actually, i think she went a little further and said that true liberation, the kind that Julie Binoche seeks, is impossible. Liberation only comes from "constraining" yourself in your relationship with others. She said it was a veiled allegory for the failure of democracy. Kind of interesting. I see a corrolary in feminism.

The whole point being I didn't get it until I saw the dvd special features. on that point, i salute you.

as for the other earlier point you made, i disagree. the reason he insists on getting credit for the symphony is his sense of failure. he hasn't done justice to the vision of the original composer, or who he thinks the original composer is, Binoche's dead husband. And so in a sense he doesn't want to ruin a perfectly marvelous piece of music with his heavy, trundling notes. On the phone with Binoche, hanging his head, he confesses, "it is mine, clumsy, but mine." The dialogue, his voice, are heavy with defeat.

I think there's also a sense that he has put a certain amount of sweat equity into the thing, and despite his failure and exhaustian, he's proud of it.

But look at the scene again. His sense of defeat is palpable. He's unable to rise to the challenge, and he knows it.

I guess what I'm saying is that it wasn't through blind devotion to Binoche or self-effacing generosity that he deferred finishing the symphony to her. That's romantic, but I don't think it's true. True, in the beginning of the film he pulled out all the stops to get her to start composing again. Not for the sake of art, but so she would feel something, anything, and start living again. But I think Binoche fell by the wayside and his obsession with artistic integrity took over, however, briefly, and he just felt like he couldn't do the symphony justice.

reply

i think "the ending" also repeated american beauty...and yes it's so beautiful
mendes isnpired a lot....

reply

Heh. Just finished watching the film and there I was thinking I was so clever for recognising that. Enjoyed the film immensely, dad loves the trilogy.

Amir

reply

Eh? This film was made several years before American Beauty.

reply

are you saying sam mendes inspired kieslowski ? just checkin, because out of you formulation of words it quite unclear

reply

no palucci!!!!!!!! this movie was first than American beauty. This beautifull piece of art evokes a great expectation in the spectator. It's a piece of work that can be study and can be watch witout the other two parts of the trilogy, but than, what's the whole point of calling it a trilogy? It;s important that the viewers and people here discussing this also complete this Kieslowski trilogy the way is meant to...I just said it because no one talked about it, and of course there's big connection between them, a conection as close as a part of an atom. The three of them are part of an atom that can not be desintegrate, an atom also colored by the blue, the white and the red of a France flag, a france story, an universal story!!!
Long time to Kieslowski cinema.

reply