The end (spoiler)
Why do you think that Sydney leaves at the end with his bagged packed just after he tells John that he will talk to him soon? This confuses me.
shareThat bag contains the guns he takes over to Jimmy's place.
Not clothes or anything that would mean he's leaving.
Pay attention. He didn't bring a gun from the hotel he took one of Jimmy's from his closet.
Also, he did leave Vegas (Reno, actually, I think) at the end. He went to that coffee shop from the beginning of the film which is apparently between Vegas and Reno, judging from the conversation in the first scene with John. He was either going back to Vegas or off somewhere else, but I think he needed to sever the relationship with John, since he'd done what he could.
I think he went back to the coffee shop at the beginning because he was looking for another substitute son. He'd "lost" John and was maybe expecting to find someone like him.
Also worth noting that Sydney approached John through the guilt of murdering his father prior to the start of the film. This led me to conclude that he would also feel guilty about murdering Jimmy and, if Jimmy had a son, Sydney might try and seek him out and help him out like he did with John.
Seen like this, the film shows that you can never easily undo your past mistakes - you just make things worse and it goes on and on . . . .
I've been in the group for years and I know, he always listens.share
when he made the "negotiation" with Jimmy, Sydney said that he feels he has done all he can for John and himself at this point. I guess that he felt that he had sufficiently made it up to John and also ridded himself of some of the guilt of killing Johns father. Either that or he was reminded that he killed his father and couldnt stand the guilt he would feel by seeing him again. But he definitely was NOT looking for another substitute son, the only reason he helped john was because he felt guilty, its not like he just goes around looking for kids to help out because he is lonely. Either way, i think this is a great movie although the ending is a little weak but it is without a doubt one of the, if not the strongest first effort by a director(and writer) i have ever seen.
shareYou seem very certain, elevan89 - but how do you know he was definitely not looking for a substitute son, and how would you explain the fact that he returns to the diner at the end of the film.
Did you not get the impression, like I did, that Sydney was a mess of unspoken emotions and motivations? He was certainly not your typical tough-guy.
I've been in the group for years and I know, he always listens.share
Ur right, i apologize for seeming so certain because Sydney is a very unreadable character. maybe he just has no where else to go, can't go back to Atlantic City, can't go back to Reno. I dont know, maybe P.T. just wanted to end the movie where it began...although he usually has more meaning behind his actions.
shareI agree, it's not like PT to show us something unless it has relevance and meaning, even if the only meaning he intends is "there is no meaning"!
I've been in the group for years and I know, he always listens.share
Elevan89 is absolutely right. I thought it was somewhat obvious and PT confirmed this during an interview at The Spirit Awards a few years back. After Clementine's antics Sydney knew at that point he did all he could do for John and now it was time to move on. He explains this to Jimmy earlier. Simple.
shareThe reason we know he was definitely not looking for another substitute son is because stupid ideas don't belong in good movies.
1) He wasn't looking for a substitute son in the beginning of the movie; he was just trying to help out a guy whose father he killed earlier in life; making amends. Yes, it turned out that fatherly feelings did grow for John, but that wasn't his intention. He was just trying to help out a guy whom he previously screwed (by killing his dad a long time ago).
2) Sydney was a wise man, right? If he wanted to know if Jimmy had a son, he would have easily found out by rummaging around his house.
3) Acknowledging that Sydney was wise, what wise man would stupidly think that he can just go to the same diner he met the son of the man he killed a long time ago and just happen to meet the son of the guy he just killed the night before? That would truly be a miracle. He knew John was at the diner in the beginning because he tracked John down. Had he been tracking Jimmy's son down? No, because the only reason to track Jimmy's son down is if he's looking for a substitute son (which he's not and never was), or to make amends for killing Jimmy (which he didn't know he was going to do, so if he wanted to track him down, it'd take weeks if not months, and that last diner seen only took place the morning after killing Jimmy; meaning there's zero time to track down his son).
I'm not saying YOU are stupid; I'm just saying it's a stupid idea. And I have them all the time. But it makes zero sense that a movie that makes so much sense and doesn't stretch reality would have an ending as far-fetched as miraculously coming across the son of a man you just killed--and at the same diner you met the son of the FIRST guy you killed, no less.
The end was only a demonstration that Sydney was continuing on in life, just living like he was before. This is a slice-of-life movie; a lot of story, but no plot (my favorite kind, just by the way). When he covered up his bloody sleeve, he was saying goodbye once and for to violence.
Actually I saw the bloody sleeve as a metaphor for the his inability to hide his past actions. However hard he tries it will come back to haunt him again.
shareEither way, i think this is a great movie although the ending is a little weak but it is without a doubt one of the, if not the strongest first effort by a director(and writer) i have ever seen.
Have you seen Blood Simple? share
The Coen brothers combine to form my favorite director, but even I prefer Hard Eight to Blood Simple.. Blood Simple. is cool but I prefer the subtlety and depth of Hard Eight.
shareAlso worth noting that Sydney approached John through the guilt of murdering his father prior to the start of the film. This led me to conclude that he would also feel guilty about murdering Jimmy and, if Jimmy had a son, Sydney might try and seek him out and help him out like he did with John.
Seen like this, the film shows that you can never easily undo your past mistakes - you just make things worse and it goes on and on . . .
But here, Sydney's intelligence is sacrificed for a cheap, contrived "lesson". It's like: "Oops, I killed another guy... I better go find his son and make myself feel better again."
That's not the way I look at it. Sydney did what he had to do to cover up the truth and save his own skin/integrity. It's under wraps again; everything's intact; as it was... And he can go on in peace, continuing to escape his past after a very close call. He's not perpetually living a careless, violent lifestyle. It's that that he's trying to get further away from... But, of course, he's still as sharp and in control as he ever was -- thus, he was able to dispose of Jimmy.
I certainly didn't see him as a "mess" of any sort. His objectives were very direct. share