MovieChat Forums > The Game (1997) Discussion > The game might not be over at the end

The game might not be over at the end

posted 6 years ago by mattjoes (53)
3 replies | jump to latest

When I watched this, the very last scene --with Deborah Unger getting into the car and Michael Douglas striking a conversation with her, and then the camera fading out-- felt like a question mark. Is the game really over at that point? For some reason nobody else considers this possibility when discussing the film. I think it's perhaps because the emotional climax of the film, with the party and suicide attempt, has already happened, and an ongoing game wouldn't appear to have anywhere to go, narratively, or any reason to exist anymore. But I think that last scene could potentially lead to more outrageous scenarios, on and on, forever. Obviously, there would be no logical reason for anybody to want to do that to Michael Douglas, but the film goes down the rabbit hole anyway. It's built on an absurd situation, so having the story "end" with the game never ending makes sense. It would be taking the premise to its "logical" conclusion.

As an aside, I have no issues of any kind with supposed plot holes in this film. As I said, it's meant to be a thoroughly absurd situation. In a (very) good way.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 6 years ago

I think everyone wonders that. Pretty sure even Roger Ebert did in his review.

As for why, Conrad’s “game” is done, but CRS could still want more from Nicholas - maybe the next game sets him up as a sponsor or director of CRS programs.

[–] mattjoes (53) 6 years ago

Yes, Ebert does wonder, but I've read some articles on the film (as well as some user comments in several places) that appear to think of it mainly as the story of Nicholas' emotional catharsis, with the game being the situation that leads to said catharsis. But looking at the film from that point of view, I think an unsettling open ending doesn't quite make sense as the coda to the story of a businessman who undergoes a change of heart. And in fact, before you mentioned Ebert I couldn't recall anyone suggesting the possibility that the game is ongoing at the end.

I don't think the film is meant to be primarily a story of emotional catharsis, like some people appear to think. The mysterious ending doesn't fit. Instead, it's primarily a paranoid nightmare, in which the emotional catharsis is something to add more fuel to this sense of endless deception. This might seem an obvious thing to say but I honestly think not everyone looks at the film that way.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 6 years ago

Sorry, I was talking about this board when it was on IMDB

It was a common theory among the regulars - like the Karate Kid notion that Daniel is the actual villain

This movie literally ends with Nicholas looking around suspiciously (more curious than afraid) before fading into “White Rabbit” - the implication is hard to ignore

The problem is the possible betrayal to both the plot (his “game” is over as the giant bill demonstrates) and the theme (he’s already been redeemed)

But like you say, it’s consistent with the theme of paranoia and, like I mentioned, he might’ve finished the Game Conrad bought him, but CRS may well have more in store