MovieChat Forums > Moartea domnului Lazarescu (2005) Discussion > OK, what's that lame ending?!

OK, what's that lame ending?!

posted 19 years ago by veo
38 replies | jump to latest

I simply loved the movie, it's a movie we (Romanians) have been expecting for years, but... what the hell was that ending?!
Oh, of course, I can understand the director (I respect and applaud and envy him!) wanted to:
- make sure you are frustrated as a result of the movie, because a movie that makes you feel something, be it anger or happinness, is a good movie. But what happens in the film makes you mad enough - so there was no need to artificially add to the viewer's anger by ruining the climax. Or let's put it in another way: if you're not angered by Romanian doctors at the end of the movie (which is good), the ending will just make you mad at the director (which is bad).
- look good for the critics, which are well known to reject simple rewards of film-seeing, such as coherence and an logical ending ("if it doesn't respect the climax, it's definitely art"). But that's only encouraging the critics!... (just kidding)
- tell us Lazarescu was already dead because he had been left alone by everybody (his daughter, neighbors, health department etc) so that was the REAL death of Mr Lazarescu... Well, duh!, man, we had already understood that!

So - what the hell was that ending?! Enlighten me, please.

Oh, lieutenant, your men are already dead.

[–] daemeh 19 years ago

Well the ending made sense to me - the whole idea was to show the final hours of Mr. Lazarescu, and I can only see the ending as a question with an answer in the movie's title. He dies in the operation. Sad movie - I got angered too by the doctors, and the abrupt ending made me understand that this was the end of Mr. Lazarescu's path to death.

[–] jezajeza 19 years ago

To be honest I thought he died at that instant in pre-op. "Lights out" as it were, at least that's the impression it gave me.

[–] helliada 19 years ago

That surely was a lame ending! And even if I felt sooooo much anger after seeing it, trust me .. this isn't a proof of a good movie. Neither brilliant (although the "tragedian" did his job very good) ...
Sorry, veo .. I don't know what the hell was with the damn` ending. Add me to that list to be enlightened too.

[–] melinte 19 years ago

I dare to say that the ending is caracteristic to romanian movies. I guess it's a "trend", so to speak. But I liked the film. I liked the ending too. It makes you ask yourself some good questions.
Definately an excellent movie.

[–] ilinca-2 19 years ago

The thing is you already know the ending from the very beginning. There's no need to see the man dying, although I have to accept it is frustrating. But the film ends with the beginning. The death we all wait as a "reward" is in the title. And I think the director was very brave to let the film have such a title. If the film wasn't called "The death of mister Lazarescu" we all had, more or less, the hope that the man won't die, the hope that something might still save him, no matter what. This way everything makes sense.

[–] Razdrak 19 years ago

You don t have to be angry about the end..,
in Romania this kind of things happens every week..
I guess u know that case about some old guy who was left , in winter,
outside the hospital ,in the street, and he died,because the doctors said that wasnt their responsabillity....
Sad but true!

[–] shaki_cips 19 years ago

Nu se intampla numai in Romania chestiile de care spui tu.
Aruncati o privire si asupra sistemului medical din USA (doar ca un exemplu).
Nu am inventat noi nimic (desi avem impresia ca totul e unic in ROMANIA)...nici prostia, nici coruptia, nici rautatea.
Exista peste tot, dar la nivele diferite.

[–] oana5874 19 years ago

Ilinca ai foarte mare dreptate. Normal ca omul moare pe masa de operatie, dar asta nu mai este cazul sa o vedem, stim sigur ca va muri inca din titlu. Veo nu fii frustrat (si eu am fost dar mi-a trecut:)).

[–] dlgicu 19 years ago

in my opinion the end comes in the right place, on the point where all the story was told. there's no point in showing the physical death of mr. lazarescu, and, in some way, the director/writer is the only one who cares about the man's dignity and stops exactly on the point where it would begin to be affected.

i'm a little optimistic, and i don't think he will die in the operation, which will be successfull, and they will rather "send him home to die by cancer" as one of the doctors says.

this doesn't change anything of the movie's message, anyway, and that was revealed by the director itself: it's a movie about the love for the one near you, or, in lazarescu's case, about its lack. even if a lot of people seem to be involved in helping him, lazarescu (as most of the real life suffering people) deals in fact alone with his pains and illness, because nobody really cares about his needs. and eventually will be alone when dealing with death, as all of us are.

so i will take to some extent your last variant, which in this case makes the end a really long one, as the film itself :-)

just a final remark about the medical system. the system, even if slowed by bureaucracy and lack of resources, actually DOES its job in mr. lazarescu's case. think about the fact that things could be really tragic (and sometimes they actually are in real life) if ANY of those wouldn't happen:
1. the ambulance comes
2. the nurse decides to take him to the hospital
3. they decide to run MRI scans
4. in the end the right diagnosys is made, and
5. the right decision (immediat operation) is taken
this only adds the medical system as a huge machinery which in the happiest cases helps you and eventually cures you, or make your life longer, but even if it's made out of humans, there's nothing human in that machinery, a brutal, cold, and insensible one.

cristi puiu doesn't necessary accuse it, maybe this is how it's supposed to be, any emotional implication being a potential source of trouble, but he just does a great job in showing it closer to reality than anyone else i've seen.

[–] veo 19 years ago

As a matter of fact, you are all right and also Cristi Puiu was right - it's the best end for the film, despite the fact that isn't what we had expected. Ilinca put it very clearly.
On the other hand... OK, I understand, we don't need to see Mr Lazarescu in the moment of his death, but I expected to see at least what happens AFTER that with the medics, neighbours etc. (not that any doctor would get prosecuted etc..., but, like, somebody come to any of the doctors and yell: "You piece of **** mother******, you left him die, so you killed him"). I'm talking about that kind of satisfaction.

Oh, lieutenant, your men are already dead.

[–] merlinobicha 19 years ago

Actually, when the film finished, the first thing I did was turn around to see if there was some kind of technical problem. I thought there had been a blackout or something. When I realized it was the real ending, I was absolutely shocked. I still can't decide whether it was a good resource for the director to use, but it certainly leaves one thinking... what the hell was that? what does it mean? does the blackout mirror the moment when Lazarescu die?
Aside from that, I think the movie is excellent.

[–] psdhart 15 years ago

I thought the same, it ended suddenly

[–] florin_3d 19 years ago

As I said in the title, this is no lame ending guys. And imho the man doesn;t die on the operating table. He doesn;t even make it there. And if you think about it, the director just tried to show how death comes sudden, that's why there's no fade=out or any bull like that. It's just one clean cut, sudden, cold. It would've been lame if he had indeed made it onto the op table, it would've been a hollywood ending.

There are many things to be said about the film, there are many symbolic "inserts" in the movie:

-For example, the name of the doctors that treat, or rather NOT treat mr lazarescu are ordered alphabetically from A-Z (first one Ardelean, last one Zamfir)
following somehow the flow of life
-The name of the main character "Lazarescu", sends us to Lazarus, the resurrected dead man from the Bible
-The woman paramedic's name is Marioara - Mary -... (the merciful)
-The shaving and cleaning of Mr Lazarescu = the cleansing before the trip

These are just a few i managed to notice, im sure there are more.

[–] velutha1 19 years ago

Great awareness of some subtle signs in the movie there florin_3d. If you think of anymore please post.
I didn't understand his talk about Virgil, first with his sister on the phone and then the nurse at the end talking about a Virgil.
Pretty cool film overall.

[–] jazzgrass 19 years ago

Is the recurring "Virgil" perhaps Dantean? Symbolic of the purgatorial hell (pun fully intended) Lazarescu endured throughout the day of his death?

-----------------------------
"What in pluperfect hell...?"

[–] jadamson-2 19 years ago

Virgil, of course, is a reference to the works of Dante, this is especially obvious given that lazarescu's name is lazarescue dante remus (dante remus lazarescu)

virgil guides dante in the divine comedy

lazarescu = possibly a verbal play on lazarus, which denotes hope (i think)

the last line (english translation) is something like "virgil take him to angel"

the dr. or specialist operating on lazarescu's name is angel--i thought it was a beautifully overt subversion of your typical symbolic fare

we know lazarescu will die already, either literally, figuratively, or in both ways

this movie is called "the death of mr. lazarescu" so the film shows how mr. lazarescu goes about dying

to me the folks who died in the bus crash and made it to the hospital seemed to be in living purgatory, they weren't alive or dead really, the same, for a while, might be said about lazarescu

another surname of lazarescu's was remus--if i'm not wrong wasn't remus one of the two founders of rome (the other being romulus) and wasn't remus raised by wolves?

there is some other political referencing (war) that i missed out on as an uninformed american

[–] jadamson-2 19 years ago

sorry to repeat parts of your post--i agree with all but one of your interpretations...in dante's inferno, before dante actually enters hell there, is a fainting, a tremor, and a white (red) out...in other words, we aren't allowed to know exactly what it's like to pass. the same is true in the death of mr. lazarescu...when she says "virgil, take him to angel" it whites out, and we aren't allowed to know, for sure, the exact measure of how lazarescu crosses

in fact, i agree with the interpretation that the "death" of mr lazarescu is the social failing of mr. lazarescu, especially given that we aren't privy to his literal death

one question--isn't virgil his brother-in-law? why would he be the one to take lazarescu to the specialist or doctor (whichever one mr. angel or dr. angel was) ? this leads me to two possibilities. (1) what we hear is actually lazarescu's muffled, half-cognizant interpretation of what is going on around him, which calls into question the "reality" of the entire film or likely (2) that the last line is also literal (in a new way), virgil, the master and sage, is taking lazarescu to an angel

of course, all of this could be do to the bad translation i downloaded

[–] Gutza 19 years ago

Great insight, Florin! It took me a couple of days to realize that particular moment WAS actually Mr. Lazarescu's death, but I was far from making any of the connections you did. Good post!

[–] laweat 19 years ago

I agree with those who suggest the final blackout is, literally, Mr. L's final blackout. Death is instantaneous, and final, and complete, something symbolized in film language by blackout. I loved this movie, and the ending, but the friend I saw it with was very irritated by the ending, so I understand why it bothers. On the other hand, there's no proof that I'm right about the meaning of the ending. Like death itself, there's no way to know what happens afterward.

[–] Callahan09 19 years ago

Dammit, I've seen thousands of movies: independents, mainstream, foreign, classic, what-have-you . . . and I just did not see any merit in the existence of this film. Okay, maybe that's taking it a little far. As far as reality goes, I mean, it may have achieved something there. The dialogue was something I would expect to say and hear myself in my final days of living. The situations were not entirely unrealistic either. The photography was good in that documentary sort of way. The acting was phenomenal. That all being said, I despised every second of this wretched movie, and I see no reason other than pretention to deem it "excellent." Perhaps it was well-made, and perhaps it was realistic, but it was not that funny (I did laugh at 2 parts, but it was so subtle, so banal that I don't even remember the situations which caused my laughter.) Watching this man feel sick, throwing up numerous times on screen, caused an uneasy feeling in me. When I wasn't falling asleep during this pointless movie, It was all I could do to keep from vomiting my own guts out. It was a nauseating experience. I swear The Charles theatre in Baltimore had implemented some new "Smell-O-Rama" technology; throughout the entire effing thing I could smell all the putrid aromas that stench up this guy's life: vomit, liquor, cat-piss, hot dust, what have you. Or maybe someone just ejaculated in my seat during the prior showing. Either way, this movie was not funny, it WAS boring, it was pointless, it was pretentious (to the Nth degree!) and above all it was downright sickening. I go to the movies for enlightenment or entertainment, and this movie didn't even bother to try doing either of those things. From this viewer's perspective, there is no reason what-so-ever to qualify this depressing movie's existence. I'm sick of these movies that try to show you some piece of somebody's life that could "actually happen in real life! To ANYBODY! This happens to EVERYBODY" ; bullcrap - below the surface, they're all as hollow as can be, this one especially. This was the most infuriating movie I've seen since Manos: The Hands of Fate. Live your own life instead of doing it vicariously through crappy movies that rob people of their own livelihood. I recommend a visit to Patient First over this movie anyday. You'll get a similar experience, and probably a more gratifying one as well. Consider yourself warned.

[–] noveltylibrary 18 years ago

Hey now, watch what you say about "Manos"!

Torgo rules!

[–] plupu66 18 years ago

You did not get this film. It's Ok. (You got one thing right though - it's not a comedy.) Maybe sticking to safer films (Man in Black II, Die Hard, King Kong, Friends, Seinfeld) will spare you all this frustration. For instance I don't eat Indian food - but I'm not vehement against it just because I don't have the stomach for it.

[–] zerobeat 18 years ago

Callahan09 writes:
>" I just did not see any merit in the existence of this film. "<

Wow, you really hated this film!

Callahan09 writes:
>"Okay, maybe that's taking it a little far. As far as reality goes, I mean, it may have achieved something there. The dialogue was something I would expect to say and hear myself in my final days of living. The situations were not entirely unrealistic either. The photography was good in that documentary sort of way. The acting was phenomenal. "<

Ok, so you actually see SOME merit.

Callahan09 writes:
>"That all being said, I despised every second of this wretched movie, and I see no reason other than pretention to deem it "excellent." Perhaps it was well-made, and perhaps it was realistic, but it was not that funny"<

Could it be that the mislabeling of this movie (it isn't a comedy by any standard I've ever encountered) is why you hate it so fiercly?

If it had been labeled correctly (even something generic like "drama") would it have satisfied you more?

Can't a reason for liking film simply be "I couldn't stop watching it because I wanted to follow the story to the very end, wherever that was" Is that pretentious?

f-erenc

[–] crabapple86 19 years ago

I clicked on the reply to the initial post. I did read the thread though.

Honestly, the ending is perfect. The man dies. What? You need more to the movie after he dies? He's dead. That's the end.

I was reading a review, and the critic had the same reaction, but... then realized that what made it lame, was Hollywood. Hollywood has everyone who goes to a movie theatre expecting a "good" ending.

The end of this film does exactly what the director wanted. If you know someone, and you love them with all your heart. When they die unexpectedly, that leaves you feeling what?

Don't jump on me for this, you're mad at the ending. You have questions, you feel empty, you have "why?" going through your thoughts, frustration that no one is going to give you an "answer".

That's what the director wanted, and that is, quite frankly a damned good job if you ask me.

Bleu Cheese Salad Dressing is made on the Moon! My Uncle from Mars told me, so I know it's true!

[–] pezastic 18 years ago

Wow, I never thought of the ending like that, but you're right. What a brilliant way by the director to get an emotion out of the viewers! Also, I didn't realize there was that much symbolism in the movie until reading this thread. Great comments about a great movie! Thanks a bunch!