Ending - Seraphim Falls (2007) Discussion

[–] Flickfan-3 18 years ago

saw it tonight--thought (like most reviews) first 80% is pretty good -- final section suffers--for me it was not the revelation of why Neeson was chasing Brosnan that wsa the killer---pretty much put that together from flashback dreams and Neeson's accent--but it was the weirdness when they went into the desert and only the two of them are left---becomes very surreal and metaphorical--and when you see the metaphor coming then you know it's not working...
if you think of the ending as symbolic then it is pretty self-explanatory...

"...That's the beauty of argument, Joey. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong..."

reply

[–] annibus 18 years ago

Yeah, the ending was a little weird. First 90% of the movie was fantastic. I loved it. But the ending.....i'm not sure what the director/writer was going for. I could see the symbolism, wanting to show how far Neeson's character was willing to take his revenge, but I'm not sure what else was going on.

The fact that after being shot, Carver stands up and walks away makes me wondre if this wasn't some dream sequence, or perhaps even an afterlife-ish place. Anyone have any ideas.

reply

[–] artistathome 18 years ago

***Spoiler***
Just saw it today and the ending was strange to me. For instance, you think that Liam Neeson is dead and then Brosnan lifts Neeson's shirt to look at the gunshot wound and decides to gives him water. Huh???

I figure he was not injured too bad, and they decided to end the fight and go their own ways.
Or>>>....
They are in afterlife and they hang up their weapons and one goes to hell and one to heaven.

Thing is tho, how did Pierce Brosnan die if he is dead and in the afterlife? No one shot him, did they?

Also, considering that Brosnan did not intend to kill any of the family, why would he have to go to hell?>
Brosnan was told the house was empty, but the baby was in there sleeping.
But his decision to burn the barn was a bad one.
Definitely a message movie. I would have preferred some explanantion as to why Brosnan was chasing the Col and his "men" 3 years after the war ended. There MUST have been more to the feud than simple desertion. One woman said Liam Neeson was a rebel but I am not so sure about that. Brosnan was a captain in the Union army. That is all I know for sure.

Nina

reply

[–] picap 18 years ago

The ending is vague (mainly because of the rather mystical appearance of Angelica Huston) but I don't think either was dead at the end. Though how either could make it over the dessert without then becoming dead is another issue. As for Carver's wound it seemed most likely just a flesh wound -- Gideon was not aiming to kill but disable.

Gideon was not pursuing Carver years after the war ended. The film begins in 1868 and Carver said he'd been pursuing Gideon for the last 3 years. The war ended in 1865. Carver was a Confederate Col. By the time of the incident at the farm, it's unclear whether the Civil war had officially ended or not, or whether Carver had just gone home when he knew the South was losing. I think it was the former, the war was still going on but Carver felt it was over for him, he'd laid down his arms. Either way there were Union occupying forces in the South in '65 and there were still pockets of rebels that hadn't surrendered after the Civil War ended. Gideon wanted to know where Carver's men and the cannon were. Carver said he disbanded his men and I think he said he destroyed the cannon months before.

reply

[–] Ian Bradly 18 years ago

I thought the ending was lacking as well.

I think that the Angelica Huston character may have traded a dummy bullet. He was hit, but not wounded. I didn't see any blood and I think they even said something about it, but I couldn't make out what one man had said to the other.

Fantastic start to the movie, but it just fizzled at the end.

http://whatelseishappening.blogspot.com/

reply

[–] noralee 18 years ago

Good background guess. The only reason I could come up with why a Union officer would track down a Confederate officer at that point is if Neeson had been involved with Andersonville, the notorious prisoner camp, not that there's any evidence in the film. I just couldn't figure out why Brosnan was after him in the first place.

This seemed like it was very much in the style of Ambrose Bierce, who also included images of the devil and the civil war in his short stories.

I figured just about everything in the desert was hallucination.

reply

[–] Inspiration-BG 18 years ago

The movie it self was sorta weird. They story was set up as a Fable or a Myth rather than a standard film story. The end to me is 3 Tests, first one is at the watering hole, they both are given "Life" the second is Madam Louise and her bargaining in which they both chose to give up life (Horse, and Water) for revenge. The third test is about choosing to give each other life. I thought that the end was the best part of this movie.

I feel that this film is a film in which we must think on a higher level and push our interpretations. Take from this film what you want, there is so much you can take from this I haven't even found them all yet.

http://www.inspiration-bg.com/pictures/TheGraduation

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Clive_Dexx 18 years ago

Did anyone notice Angelica Huston's character's name is Louise Fair (lucifer). She bargaining for their souls.

Then when Hayes and Carver stayed the night with the relgious people, Carver didn't indulge in the earthly pleasures. He was focused on his journey.

I think there's much more to this movie than appears on the surface. I don't know the breadth of it or if it allegory is sustained, but I do notice one weakness.

I'm being overly critical because these writers are good to begin with; but in my opinion when you put your story on a metphorical level, it has to blend with the physicality of the environment or you must prepare the audience for greater susension of disbelief. In other words, they didn't set up for the fantasy element at the end when Louise appears out of nowhere. We were in a western, then we switch gears to the supernatural at the end.

Still... very smart screenplay.

reply

[–] tbetts 18 years ago

I really wanted this film to work, as I love westerns and we need more of them to be made, but this was a complete waste of time.

The ending leaves you nowhere. After a 90 minute chase their is no resolution just two men wandering off. What a waste of Angelica Huston and Wes Studi. Where did they come from? Okay Huston is the devil but why throw this mystical part in with no explanation. This reminded me of "Bluerry" where it goes off into a peyote spiritual trip at the end of the film. Who needs that.

The musical score is typical modern day filler with no main theme and leaving you with nothing after the film is over.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] drglenn-2 18 years ago

Carver and Gideon are 'dead and in purgatory' or choose 'have gone to a spiritual plane' and are being tested to determine their true core nature, good vs. evil.

Remember that in bible stories, many revelations/ temptations etc. happen "in the desert" the dry lake and desert scenes can be considered to be on a spiritual/meta-physical plane... Support for theory: as the film ends the two men become insubstantial and disappear rather than walk off into the sunset, symbolises that at this point they are not physical beings, are already dead.

Madame Louise/'the remedy peddler'/Anjelica Huston character is tempting/testing them them -- is 'satan' ? What she gives is not life, but what is needed to tempt the two men.

The 'indian by the water' states: "that's life there, nothing is free" (paraphrase) and "what you give will be given to you, but what you take will be taken from you"... meaning if you seek forgiveness, you must forgive, to live you must give life, if you take life it will be taken from you, etc.

'The indian' "gives life" to both men, "only god can do that" he's God, preparing them for their test, to have life (the Christian version) everlasting, they must prove they are good and not evil.

Both men have the chance to kill the other, neither does. They have not killed out of vengeance (which "vengeance is mine" sayeth the Lord, is only for God) they have killed in war and accidentally and in self defense...

the question is, does God really forgive such killing, the answer, yes God forgives all if you truly repent.

There are a lot of Christian symbols earlier in the movie, but subtle, foreshadowing this final scene.

I only saw it once, so forgive me if I don't have it figured out at what point it was that the two died, but in the dry lake scene, they are already dead.

reply

[–] bradt-4 18 years ago

Well said drglenn. I thought this movie was excellent. Go see it now.

reply

[–] Greg_lennes 18 years ago

drglenn-2 has figured it out - excellent!

reply

[–] dtnoga 18 years ago

This is just a guess but I think maybe Brosnan and Neason both just got so fed up with being in this piece of crap,that they threw down thier gun and knife and just walked off the set.It seemed that marching off into a vast broiling desert was better that to continue in this mess of a movie.

reply

[–] bruce-129 18 years ago

I think they lost track of what they were doing when the started going into that ridiculous flashback scene ... and I think they must have patch together a completely different film just to get it done and released because it did not make sense. First they talked about a bridge where Gideon killed a hundred men ... then they show Gideon utterly incompetant at leading his men. The men just fan out and do whatever they want, burning the house and the family. They portrayed this as so idiotic and full of holes it was totally unbelievable ... and then it goes into the fantasy where Angelica Huston appears in the desert. Oh God ... it was ridiculous.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bruce-129 17 years ago

Why, Wes Studi, of course, the classic trickster archetype.

reply