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.

[–] matthias-locker 16 years ago

Hi Psychic Goat,

You really stole the words out of my mouth! I found the film really great. Once I realised that she had been a doctor, I said to myself ... sh*t this is going to be another "euthanasia" themed film (after million dollar baby, etc...). The film was just perfect until the last 5 minutes.

Your second point (unbelievable) was really what bugged me the most. I totally think it is unbelievable that she would spend 15 years in prison without ever telling the truth. Surely, a judge would have reduced the sentence to about 5years given the circumstances? Surely, at the beginning, you would want to punish yourself, would have lost capacity to think for yourself etc... but during 15 years??????

I fully agree with your 4 points that were well argued. It would have been much better to end the film whilst leaving "what happened in the past" in the dark. The audience would then focus on the central theme which is how an ex-convict reinserts into society.

Regards

[–] martita-2 16 years ago

I totally agree with you, and had the same reaction!!! Glad to know I am not the only one who thinks the end is a cop-out. Still, I also liked the film -- before the end!

[–] creegah-3 16 years ago

I think all of you folks badly need to watch this movie again only this time, PAY ATTENTION! A few points...

1. If you ever saw a person in the latter stages of MG, even a perfect stranger, it would tear your heart out. IF you ever saw YOUR OWN CHILD with MG, you would go insane.
2. She was in the Green House ALONE with Pierre.
3. Even a skilled M.E. would have difficulty detecting MG during an autopsy unless they were specifically looking for it.
4. She suspected the worst with Pierre and confirmed it. She was the only who knew that Pierre was a dead boy walking as the early stages look like nothing more than extreme tiredness, usually helped by a long nap.
5. It's a crime to euthanize anyone. Even in La Belle France.
6. People always think that if a person is sick they will somehow be magically cured. No one but Juliette knew that Pierre could not be cured. Killing him would have never been condoned by anyone. Even after the plug was pulled on Terri Schiavo, who was in a coma for 10 years and had an empty space where her brain should have been, was called a "murder" by a lot of people, including members of your own Congress.
7. Juliette was NOT punishing herself for killing Pierre, she was punishing herself for being responsible for his MG through genetic inheritance.
8. You people remind me of all the posters to the food groups who say, "I just LOVED this recipe for Beef Bourgignon but I substituted chicken for the beef chuck because it has less fat".

[–] matthias-locker 16 years ago

Hi,

None of what you say really changes my mind about the fact that this film could have been a masterpiece if the author was not seeking some sort of rationale or clarification for Juliette's past actions to end the script. And I still think that the next best option would have been to do this in a slightly more believable way. Throughout the film you are really dragged into it by its very realistic style and the excellent acting. At the end, the film ejects you out again when the plot turns to be unrealistic. Judging from other posters reactions, I am not isolated in feeling that way. It's not because one can list a number of very specific circumstances in which such event could actually happen that it can be considered as realistic. So yes, possible, but not realistic.

You don't really believe that a Slumdog can win 10 million rupees, but you don't care because you understand that it is just a plotline to depict the episodes in a life of a Slumdog. You don't care if what James Bond does is not realistic because it's just for fun. But you do care that a social realism film remains realistic (without needing a medical degree, a degree in French penal law and a degree in psychology to find it plausible).

I found the movie perfect as long as it was focusing on Juliette's difficult reinsertion into society and particularly how the relationship with her sister evolves. Anyway, I don't think I will want to watch this movie again as you suggest.

Regards.

[–] fanaticita 16 years ago

I loved the film just as it was. I didn't try to over-analyze it, as I am sometimes prone to do. I really got caught up in the acting of KST and saw it through to the end, which I also liked.

[–] lem15 16 years ago

>> If you ever saw a person in the latter stages of MG, even a perfect stranger, it would tear your heart out. IF you ever saw YOUR OWN CHILD with MG, you would go insane. <<

And your point would be???

>> It's a crime to euthanize anyone. Even in La Belle France. <<

No kidding. Once again, your point would be???

>> People always think that if a person is sick they will somehow be magically cured. <<

Really? I don't think that. I don't know anyone else who thinks that. Do you think that? WTF are you talking about???

>> No one but Juliette knew that Pierre could not be cured. <<

Yes, we know. She kept it a secret. Why would she keep that a secret?

>> Killing him would have never been condoned by anyone. <<

It might have been condoned by some. More likely it would not have been condoned by most, but at least it would have been understood by many.

>> Juliette was NOT punishing herself for killing Pierre, she was punishing herself for being responsible for his MG through genetic inheritance. <<

Yes, we know that. She said that in the movie. Maybe you're the one who needs to PAY ATTENTION.

>> You people remind me of all the posters to the food groups who say, "I just LOVED this recipe for Beef Bourgignon but I substituted chicken for the beef chuck because it has less fat". <<

You're an idiot.

Is there anything else we can help you with?

[–] sabar-1 16 years ago

I completely agree with your post below. I'm flabbergasted by some of the posts here. Some are just insistent that everyone would have felt sorry for her and let her walk away from prison, yada yada. Dream on, people.

<<<<<< I think all of you folks badly need to watch this movie again only this time, PAY ATTENTION! A few points...

1. If you ever saw a person in the latter stages of MG, even a perfect stranger, it would tear your heart out. IF you ever saw YOUR OWN CHILD with MG, you would go insane.
2. She was in the Green House ALONE with Pierre.
3. Even a skilled M.E. would have difficulty detecting MG during an autopsy unless they were specifically looking for it.
4. She suspected the worst with Pierre and confirmed it. She was the only who knew that Pierre was a dead boy walking as the early stages look like nothing more than extreme tiredness, usually helped by a long nap.
5. It's a crime to euthanize anyone. Even in La Belle France.
6. People always think that if a person is sick they will somehow be magically cured. No one but Juliette knew that Pierre could not be cured. Killing him would have never been condoned by anyone. Even after the plug was pulled on Terri Schiavo, who was in a coma for 10 years and had an empty space where her brain should have been, was called a "murder" by a lot of people, including members of your own Congress.
7. Juliette was NOT punishing herself for killing Pierre, she was punishing herself for being responsible for his MG through genetic inheritance.
8. You people remind me of all the posters to the food groups who say, "I just LOVED this recipe for Beef Bourgignon but I substituted chicken for the beef chuck because it has less fat". >>>>>>>>>>

Rachel

[–] PVarjak 16 years ago

I assume by "MG" you mean myasthenia gravis; but most sources seem to suggest that the writer/director Claudel meant for the disease to be ALD. MG is an autoimmune disorder with a serology test for antibodies. That's not what the paper Lea finds says. That paper shows a test for enzymes.

[–] jraetay 15 years ago

While watching this movie, I really wanted to know the circumstances surrounding Pierre's death...I wondered if it was euthanasia, I even suspected (and dreaded) that it might turn out that she didn't kill him at all. Though the ending was not completely unpredictable, I didn't think it a major, film-ruining disappointment, or even absurdly unbelievable. It was just something else to think about; a final fact to fill in the holes left at earlier parts of the movie.

But...before the final scene, as the movie neared completion, I began to wonder if it might end without an explanation at all. If Juliette might just come home, put Pierre's picture back under her pillow and go on with her new beginning. In some ways, I think that would've been the bravest ending of all. To not have Lea discover the medical tests, have them interpreted and confront Juliette with that information. To have Juliette just...keep her secret, from her family and the audience, and let each of us decide whether we can love her despite this unknown factor.

Of course, that's just an alternative ending and an alternative movie. And I don't think any of our preferred or suggested outcomes take away from the one we get.

At the start, we watch Juliette re-enter the world, not knowing exactly why she was taken from it, and we're curious to have that key question answered. But as we get to know her, absent that fact, it becomes less central, less important. I enjoyed watching the journey so much that, by the time I got to the end, the ultimate revelation seemed unnecessary. But that just tells me a lot about what aspects of the film moved me most. I think our reactions to the ending we were given tells us something about ourselves, and the story we wanted to hear, rather than revealing a flaw in the story we were actually told.

[–] Valerie_Vance 16 years ago

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.

But the thing is, she wasn't a bad person at all.

It's an ordinary high school day. Except that it's not.

[–] alison1963 16 years ago

One point several people have mentioned, is that they thought Lea knew the circumstances of Pierre's death because she had said she hadn't wanted to give birth. However, he feelings towards giving birth were more likely about being so close to a child you've carried for 9 months, and then losing it in any way, would be too much to bear, and probably she and her husband - naively - thought that by adopting they would have some emotional distance from their children, and spare themselves such possible grief of loss in the future (by any means).

"If you build it, he will come"

[–] lamont-hard 14 years ago

The one thing that I mentioned on another thread was they glossed over what a nightmare the father must have went through, I agree they spent to much time telling her side of it, which was good but did not have the courage to show the harm the dad had to deal with. I do understand her actions but to let him twist like that was cruel.