i've tried but i really dont get it. i've watched the movie a couple times so maybe im missing something. but that whole end part. starting with when she goes back home i dont get. can anyone help?
"my toast always lands butta side up."
kari-mythbusters
Maybe you need to watch it again. Three times a charm.
shareI think the ending(s) were meant to be open ended. You're not supposed to know if the G8 leaders eventually passed the millenium plans. You're also not supposed to know if Gina & Lawrence eventually got back together again. They leave it up to you to decide how it ended.
**SPOILER ALERT**
IMHO I think the G8 did pass the millenium plans, why else would Lawrence call Gina up to tell her to turn on her TV? But I'm still vaugue about Gina & Lawrence though...I'd like to think that they patched things up and got together again.
Yes, I agree. The British pretty much said they were changing their agenda to put more focus on the Starvation problem.......and asked how many others were with them........so this is the end, the starvation problem became THE most important issue at this conference..and Lawrence called Gina to let her see how what she said acutally helped persuade them to go in this direction...and as for Lawrence and Gina.........I would kind of like to think they did indeed hook up together again. They were PURRfect for each other. Wonderful movie, I can watch it over and over.
shareTo me it looked pretty clear this was the reason why he was calling her. To show her that her words had not been all in vain. Well, It's obvious (at least for me) there was something else in his mind, but he had this ''Look, we've got it'' sound in his voice.
***********************
http://www.billnighy.net - GET THE EXPERIENCE
I'm not convinced that we are supposed to infer anything other than what Gina said all week long had had an effect on how the British delegation presented its priorities. This was, after all, the point of her criticism and Lawrence's misgivings...that other problems can't even begin to take precedence over an epidemic of human suffering. So when he calls her at the end, it is to let her know (regardless of how that information was received by other G8 members) that the British team had made a STAND against poverty...in public and for all to see. And that's quite enough...the very first step. I am in love with this film. It's the ultimate story about people from disparate backgrounds falling in love over similar convictions about human suffering...is there anything more profound? I never would have guessed Bill Nighy as such an unbelievable and convincing lead.
sharei think im going to rent it so i can pay more attention to it. thanks for the help.
"my toast always lands butta side up."
kari-mythbusters
Despite their age difference, they were perfectly matched in terms of their personalities. The whole "soulmate" thing.
The film was multi-layered, understated in many ways and quite subtle, despite it's unsubtle message. The less obvious message was Gina's motivation and the quiet passion behind it. Quite an intriguing study in contrasts, IMO.
enoebel is certainly right about Nighy. He is a good comic actor. So naturally pathetic, though. Excellent actor.
shareBasically, in the end, he was telling her that she did change the world.
sharei sorta got that feeling too. that he wanted her to watch it so she could see what all her talking did.. im still sorta confused by it though...
"my toast always lands butta side up."
kari-mythbusters
In film there's a maxim, "show, don't tell." It wouldn't have worked half as well if the filmmakers had revealed the "actual" outcome.
Personally, I want to think that Gina made a difference through her profound conviction that came from her personal experiences. It was very real for her and she stood up for that convinction.
But like Rocky, it could also have meant "go the distance." But I prefer the other interpretation.
Thank you urchinau. All the waffle on this thread & you got it right in one sentence.
Turn the TV on - they have chosen to be the G8 who are great & change history. And of course they stay together - I've watched it twice & they never "break up".
Just wish one politician could drop their hidden agendas & actually do some good in this world.
Gina and Lawrence took the first step but the ending which faded to the ONE.org announcement implied that ending poverty is up to us. Gina set a good example.
share
As others have said: Lawrence was calling Gena to have her turn on her TV to watch the change that she was able to push through because she was willing to take a stand and make her voice heard. If you listen to the language that the chancellor uses, it is very similar to the words used both by Gena at the dinner and by Lawrence in his last meeting with the staff before he walked off. This means that the the both of them together were successful in making the change that Lawrence and then Gena wanted to so desperately to make.
And of course the film is something of propaganda (I say this only in a positive way) for the One campaign about how your voice could make a difference. It would not make sense for her efforts to be a failure if you want to show the One video aftwerwards to encourage people to get involved.
I also think it means that they get back together. Because in the end their joint effort made a real change in the world. If they could do that together than there is no reason why they can't continue their relationship.
Gena saw no future for them when they were in her hotel and they both thought it was a failutre. But, the success of their actions shows that they may very well have a positive future ahead both in politics and in a relationship. It is her eloquence and fearlessness that provides an outlet for Lawrence's knowledge and repressed passion that he feels for those issues.
I also think it means that they get back together.
I agree, and I also think Lawrence kept his job. He resigned because he thought he had lost their respect, but clearly he had his boss' respect since his boss ended up pushing the global poverty discussion, using the same phrases Lawrence himself had used, about being in public service to make a difference etc. Lawrence had clearly influenced this turnaround.
I think it took Lawrence's boss and co-workers by surprise, that Lawrence made a strong stand. Recall through most of the movie, at work he says very little and certainly nothing controversial. This change in him impressed them and brought newfound respect for him.
If their only abstruction ended up working brilliantly to together change the world, I think they had a very bright future ahead of them.
shareI don't think he did. That would be too pat, and it's not the way these things happen, but the important thing is that he made a difference, even if the rest of the world thought it was "his bosses". Sometimes, when you rock the boat, you gotta get out of it for the safety of the other people. It can survive that rocking, but maybe not another one.
sharepeople, the movie is over and you are still talking about what happens next? It's over, over. It ends there because a happy ending would ruin the message. It ends there because the story was over. We have seen happy endings, who cares? I cared about the characters because they were well drawn, the script was credible even if the relationship was unlikely. The message is : this is an improbable moment and improbable moments happen and they remain, like that, miracles. Discuss the movie that has been shot not the story that never was written.
shareThank goodnesss a voice of reason has come to force us into their path. Bravo, ignominia, in your courage to limit yourself to living inside the box.
sharepeople, the movie is over and you are still talking about what happens next? It's over, over. It ends there because a happy ending would ruin the message.
I agree with that last sentence. But so what if people want to speculate about what happens to characters we have come to care about? Why are we supposed to care that the great You thinks it not worth discussing? You are free not to, and we are free to.
Discuss the movie that has been shot not the story that never was written.
People will discuss what we want to on a DISCUSSION board. We don't need your permission. A post telling people not to post is pretty pathetic.
i honestly don't think that gina and lawrence got together again in the end. I interpretted it as a sacrifie that the two made to change the world. that sort of thing
shareOnly Tony Soprano know for sure what happens to Gina and Lawrence even though he can not explain what happened to him in the end.
shareI have to agree with bettystalker281. I don't believe that gina and lawrence got together again. One of the movies themes that persisted throughout was self-sacrifice in order to better the common good. Of course, the 'common good' is the variant as shown in the movie. The 'common good' is now more of what is economically, policitally, and socially best for the country rather than what the world. This fault I believe is shared equally among each of the countries. I found it a little biased that there seemed to be a bit of a target on the United States but ofcourse to each their own opinion. To continue on the theme of self-sacrifice, each character is shown that in order for them to make a difference, they have to take a risk. Gina risked and in the end sacrificed what she had with Lawrence for the "off chance". Lawrence risked his job in search for love, however it later became that he sacrificed both his job and love for what he felt was right and he was content with that. It was at that moment, I thought, that he became a man that he would actually dream to be. The prime minister also risked as well. He risked standing alone and whether that was a sacrifice or not wasn't shown because in the end it wasn't the purpose. The purpose was that in order to make a difference, you have to be willing to take a risk and thus sacrifice. Therefore, if we really want to make a difference in the world, each one of us has to be willing to make a sacrifice.
Overall I think the movie was very well made. Bill Nighy was fantastic in the lead role and his performance really did make the movie.
ah, the ending of the movie, does not signal an ending of the message or theme of the movie, but rather the start of how these unseen ideas can apply to your reality.
shareThis film was made in 2005 when the G8 leaders were meeting to discuss world poverty (in Gleneagles in Scotland)
Richard Curtis has been an advocate of writing off 3rd World debt and the whole idea of this film was to bring the issues to a wider audience (you and me).
At the time the film was being made he didn't know what those world leaders did decide at Gleneagles, but whatever they did decide is what Richard Curtis intended to be the open end of the film - (history will tell).
The inability for Lawrence to approach Gina, parallels his unwillingness to say anything substantially significant. If Lawrence is not going to put himself out there because he's afraid of being rejected, then he will never get the girl. Although Gina ultimately recognized this, stepped outside of the cultural norm, and forced Lawrence to play a hand.. it takes two for a relationship to work. How much does Lawrence grow, is up to what Lawrence is willing to try.
When Lawrence explains the world to Gina, he's not afraid to state an opinion on what the reality of the world is. Yet when he was at work, he did not. Does he change? yes, but he merely sticks his neck out.. says his peace and quits. Although given the situation, it surprised the chancellor and the chancellor stops taking concessions, and stands up for what he truly believes in. Although he stole a line from Gina.
By removing oneself from the situation, however doesn't work when you want a relationship to work. Also, he doesn't use his knowledge to change the world, he allows others to do it, and is a martyr for the good fight.
Lawrence's credibility and experience still allows him the opportunity to continue the fight, it's really up to him to grab it. He lacks bravery, which Gina has.
They are soul mates in the sense that they see the world the same. Even though they come from different walks of life. Gina wasn't much of a student. He wasn't much of a lover. Their weaknesses are the other's strength, but for them to come together, I think Gina needs Lawrence to pull himself up, a little.
The film is a poltical persuasion film wraped in a love story, the reason that in the end the desition of the G8 leaders is not revealed is because poverty in africa is NOT A FICTIONAL problem, and the G8 leaders confrence is NOT A FICTIONAL event. Therfore to put a fictional Happy ending on the film would not bring about the politcal motivation and awareness this film was desigend to create.
The point of the film was to cut through all the political bull that goes on in these confrences, and to put in laymans terms the issue of poverty in africa. the end of the film is left for us to deside in this NONFICTION WORLD WE LIVE IN.
In short this movie was made to inspire action on this issue at the next real G8
and they dont get back together (sorry)
i didn't know this was a "propaganda" movie, nor did i realise it was "just" a TV movie, it certainly had a cinema-movie feel about it.
but my first impression is that it *kicks* Lost In Translation's ASS !!
it unfolded as a *really* sweet movie, and ended as something a little more powerful - VERY GOOD !!
by delphii (Sun Nov 5 2006 10:26:34)i'm with the nay-sayers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also think it means that they get back together. Because in the end their joint effort made a real change in the world. If they could do that together than there is no reason why they can't continue their relationship.
by enoebel (Sun Apr 9 2006 09:30:49)i fully agree - it was left open-ended but nudged to a "happy conclusion".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not convinced that we are supposed to infer anything other than what Gina said all week long had had an effect on how the British delegation presented its priorities. This was, after all, the point of her criticism and Lawrence's misgivings...that other problems can't even begin to take precedence over an epidemic of human suffering. So when he calls her at the end, it is to let her know (regardless of how that information was received by other G8 members) that the British team had made a STAND against poverty...in public and for all to see. And that's quite enough...the very first step. I am in love with this film. It's the ultimate story about people from disparate backgrounds falling in love over similar convictions about human suffering...is there anything more profound? I never would have guessed Bill Nighy as such an unbelievable and convincing lead.
I agree with Robynwolf's interpretation of the ending. And Lawrence called her; he will call her again.
sparky4eva
The aim of the film is to engage you in the issue, and make you yearn for the G8 to make the right choice. Right after the the end, at the start of the credits, you hear Gena's fingers snapping at 3 second intervals to represent a child starving to death every three seconds.
If the film had given us a rousing hollywood happy ending full of wish fulfillment (like we get in Curtis's other films like Love, Actually, and Notting Hill) then we'd be satisfied and slaked. We wouldn't feel so urgently that we wanted the right thing to happen if we already saw it happen. That's how I think the director and writer expected it to work.
Actually, the idea that some painfully shy, socially inept civil servant and his loud ex convict twenty something girl friend can somehow motivate the prime minister of England to take a stand against and succeed against the other G7 countries to make them take action against world poverty IS the implausible, unrealistic, saccharine Hollywood ending.
I say this and yet I love this movie, but I think it is ridiculous to believe the notion that these two could change the course of world events is somehow more plausible than Laurence giving Gena a phone call at the end of the movie.
This movie is so Hollywood because the biggest, most implausible wish of all was fulfilled...that the industrialized world would somehow wake up and decide to radically alter policy because the PM and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the UK decided to play hardball....and all in about 8 hours.
The whole ending is fantasy. It is a delightful fantasy and one that I wish were true, but let's not delude ourselves into believing that it is a real world ending.
Agreed. But the point isn't plausibility. The point is which thing you really want. Do you want the world to change or do you want the boy to get the girl?
However unlikely, the film keeps our attention on our desire for world change, partly by disappointing us about the boy/girl convention.