MovieChat Forums > Il y a longtemps que je t'aime (2009) Discussion > The ending (major spoilers!)

The ending (major spoilers!)

posted 16 years ago by The_Psychic_Goat
73 replies | jump to latest

I saw this film today as part of the Times free screenings. I really enjoyed most of the film but I thought the ending was a complete cop-out.

Firstly, the idea that someone would kill their own son is very interesting and not something often dealt with in cinema. The film would have been more interesting to me if she had killed him in a violent rage or something and the family had to decide whether they could trust her and whether she could trust herself.

Secondly, it was rather unbelievable. Why would nobody else notice that the child was sick? And she's very conveniently a doctor and did the tests without telling anyone. Plus the reasoning for not telling people was a bit weak I thought. But surely there was an autopsy!? It was a murder case...

Thirdly, it was predictable. When it was revealed why she had been in prison for so long I thought "Ooh, this is interesting, unless it turns out it was for euthenasia."

Fourthly, it's an easy way out to make the viewers like the character. It felt too neat and I preferred thinking about whether it was possible to like a character who would do such a thing rather than feeling sorry for her which you get from a lot of films.

So basically, I did like the film, I just wish it had had the guts to finish in a more interesting way. It's like if "The Woodsman" with Kevin Bacon had finished with it turning out that he hadn't been a peadophile. It betrayed the whole point of the film for me and rather undermined the rest of the feelings I'd had watching the film.

Anyone agree/disagree?

If it weren't for my horse I wouldn't have spent that year in college.

[–] acolyte_of_flux 16 years ago

I completely agree -- but I wish you hadn't spoiled "The Woodsman"!

[–] dedalus-16 16 years ago

I was so relieved by the long drawn arrival of the ending so that I could finally escape from this dreary predictable, plot challenged movie. Even Kristin Scott Thomas seemed bored by it at times in how she attempted to bring a new flair to "isolated".

[–] JaneSchmo 16 years ago

I totally agree. I saw the ending coming from far away. You can predict it with the information that she was a doctor in her life before prison.

I kept asking why this movie wouldn't reveal the motive of the murder or say anything about it. Why would the movie make a point of saying she was mute throughout the trial and have the government people press her about it? Could there be a revelation coming? Why would a woman this smart and down to earth and seemingly sane ever kill her 6-year-old? Unless...yup, I knew it!

What makes NO sense is why she didn't just say so at trial. Why in the world would she keep that from the child's father and her parents and sister? Even if you don't think it was the right thing to kill the boy, even if you are haunted by it, even if you now regret it, WHY withhold that information?!

If it wasn't mentioned that the kid was 6, the only possible motive I'd have thought of was postpartum depression. That might have made this movie better, actually.

[–] juliaz3 16 years ago

Although the motive for the "murder" disappointed me and I have questions about the film's logic, I still like the film very much and think it's a great character study.

There are certain things we don't know, such as how long Juliette had the boy with her after "kidnapping" him. Perhaps it was months, during which he began to suffer the effects of his illness. The party she mentions, at first you think many people must have been there including the boy's father, but perhaps not. Maybe Juliette is the type of person who chooses to suffer in silence. She took the boy before he was noticeably ill, and she lived with him alone somewhere for a time and tried to deal with his increasing illness, and then she euthanized him. She did not contact her husband or her parents -- and this is what they can't forgive her for, keeping them away from their son/grandson and then chosing to "murder" him without giving them a chance to help care for him, say good-bye, or to talk her out of it. The court decision of 15 years may seem unlikely, but it works for the story so I'm willing to simply accept it. Perhaps the parents kept the younger sister out of the court and didn't tell her what happened, so she never found out the details.

Juliette's "crime" was that she never gave anyone a chance to help her, and the film is about what happens when she finally does give someone -- her sister -- a chance to help her join the community of humankind. This is a film about isolation and connection. The policeman committed suicide because he could not or would not share his pain with anyone. Juliette also chose not to share her suffering but finally became aware that others also suffer and through connecting with them we all can continue the struggle of life.

[–] kittwarn 16 years ago

Excellent analysis, juliaz3, especially your last paragraph. I just saw the film and was very affected by the sister connection.

[–] jaimebien 16 years ago

The film would have been more interesting to me if she had killed him in a violent rage or something and the family had to decide whether they could trust her and whether she could trust herself.

That would certainly be the greatest cliché. The film initially implies that this might indeed be the case, when we saw how Luc reacted when he was told Juliette would take care of his kids. It's easy to think that sometimes people just snap and that in a fit of rage, kill their children. But every action of the characters is motivated by love, from Juliette's crime to her sister's bid for reconciliation. Yes, it was predictable, but this wasn't meant to be a thriller, where the plot (what) counts for more than how the story is played out. At the end of the day, it's a simple story that uses simple words to deal with complex themes, like love.

[–] paudie 16 years ago

While I understand that Juliette was motivated by love for her son when she killed him I found the fact that she told no one that her son was terminally ill hard to believe.
Surely it would have come out in her trial as well.
I think this part of the film required a bit toomuch suspension of disbelief for my liking.

You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill

[–] sixquidapiece 16 years ago

So is euthanasia legal in France? You have a mother who not only euthanises her son, but gives no defence or reasons for her actions, pleads guilty and lets the court decide her sentence. I don't think 15 years is too far fetched. It's the max. She was probably up for parole a couple of times before the sentence ended. She gave ample reason why she wanted to stay in jail, because the jail of her own making was too much for her to bear in the real world. I wasn't unhappy with the ending. I thought it could have been better, but I think a predictable ending is better than a unpredictable one that makes no sense at all.

[–] paudie 16 years ago

I agree that the court had no choice but to give Juliette a sentence appropriate for murder but it's clear from the film that her own family (parents and sister) were not aware that her son was terminally ill when she killed him.
IMO It seems unlikely that this information would not have come out in the trial or that she wouldn't have told them.

You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill

[–] emkarpf 16 years ago

paudie says "but it's clear from the film that her own family (parents and sister) were not aware that her son was terminally ill"

I'm not so sure about that, considering this one scene where the sisters says she adopted her own daughters because she didn't want an own child.

In the moment one thinks that she fears she would be able to kill her child, too, but later I thought maybe she knew about the illness and didn't want to pass it on.

[–] buff-29 16 years ago

I completely agree with The Psychic Goat (and love the handle). The movie was sort of spoiled for me by the copout ending. Looking back, many of the plot devices that had worked (like how she was totally rejected by her parents)no longer made sense. I enjoyed it up until the point when I saw the ending coming; it was all disappointment from there on.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LudwA 16 years ago

i agree with the original topicstarter.

the ending is very very very hard to believe. And basically ruined everything for me. (well moviewise ;) )

This could be a movie about a woman who is/was troubled and killed her child, there should've been no real reason, just an act of temporarily madness, she gets released from jail and just like everybody deserves another chance.

[–] psuedoK 16 years ago

Regarding previous commentator's remarks that the ending should be taken for what it's about, not what the viewer wanted it to be, I counter that while a movie may demand to be judged on its own premise, it does and will be judged by how convincing this premise is presented.

Why did people expect the the revelation to be surprising? Because the entire plot was deliberately structured as a mystery, with hints dripped slowly until the "answer" is disclosed in a dramatic final confession. The unknown, which in this case is the motive for the murder, frames the possible meaning of every scene and propels the plot forward. It makes Scott Thomas' character interesting, we invest in her despite her cold refrain and complete inscrutability because we are lead to believe that they will not only be made sensible by the revelation but are somehow central to it. The film develops through what she chooses and chooses not to reveal and the characterizations of the other people in her life are driven by how they deal with this mystery.

The ending is unsatisfactory because it simply doesn't fit with the other pieces that have been laid out in this puzzle. Besides the holes in police procedural others have mentioned, it makes the portrayal of her guilt and isolation appear contrived. If she decided that mercy killing was a justifiable enough reason for her to kill her son, it simply doesn't reconcile with the wall of silence she surrounds herself in afterwards. If she truly feels she deserves a punishment of such total isolation from the world, why is she so resentful of her family and her sister's family for their lack of understanding? One can construct various psychological narratives to answer these questions, but a the well-thought out story fleshes out its own characters instead of giving the audience the job of conjuring up links to connect mismatched ends. The ending failed what was otherwise a finely acted performance because it cheated a subtly developed character of consistency and integrity. That is what a cope-out is.

[–] colettet 16 years ago

I agree - tho it didn't bother me at the time ... but it did take away from the subtlety of the film as a whole to give Juliette such a melodramatic "reason". No "reason" was needed...

[–] emkarpf 16 years ago

I had a similar feeling at the end, but in thinking the film over on my way home, I found it couldn't have ended differently.
There were quite a lot of scenes showing Juliette interacting with or being surrounded by children, and we never see her shy away from them or treat them harshly - except in that one scene about the poem, and one could understand even at the time that this brought up a sad memory for her, not an evil notion. So we had to assume that Juliette cares about and likes children, even when they are noisy and ask difficult questions.
It is also obvious that at the time of Pierre's death, the younger sister was in Juliette's eyes still the little child she used to babysit, not a grown-up she could open up to. We do not know what estrangements had already happened between her parents and herself, maybe the situation had already been difficult for a long time before Juliette had had her son. These may explain why she couldn't confide in her family. She also mentions that her marriage had been wrecked some time before Pierre's death. So she probably felt isolated already when she found out about his illness.

But most importantly, for me the main quality of the film was to see a woman having spent 15 years in prison for murder (even if a child is fatally ill, you are not allowed to kill it, bear that in mind every one) returning to a world she has no part in anymore. The reaction at her first job interview as well as the initial behaviour of Luc show very well how her crime has distanced her from the world outside. I admired how the subtle acting of Kristin Scott Thomas made me see the world through her eyes: How a park bench becomes a treasure, a cup of coffee in a bistro something special, even the bad quickie with a stranger a new and exciting experience. She has missed 15 years of love, flirting, traveling, caressing friends' new babies, instead counting out her steps in the prison courtyard and hiding behind a barrier of books.
I think this constitutes the real value of the film, and I like how it ended with her words, "I'm here." - She finally is back in life.