MovieChat Forums > The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans (2009) Discussion > Seriously, the ending is pretty unambigu...

Seriously, the ending is pretty unambiguous IMHO (SPOILERS)

posted 15 years ago by dudleynomore
34 replies | jump to latest

"Shoot him again. His soul's still dancing."

Nicholas Cage plants the crack pipe, tips off the cop, then goes to his Dad's house and deliberately takes the uncut dope to commit suicide, sits and nods off watching the game. The subsequent fantasy scenes are what the "soul still dancing" dialogue sets up; it's also why Big Fate makes particular mention of him not wanting Cage's character to "drop dead" because the police would come looking for him. Cage does what he needs to do to make certain that Fate is going to jail and then tops himself - the last thing he says before he nods off is "I'll kill him".

Everything after is a dream sequence. The next scene has three characters turn up in succession to immediately absolve him of their grievance with him, all three acting weirdly out-of-character. Then it's underlined further by the scene of him giving Eva the spoon, which is "not silver" (a fake); she nonetheless calls it "beautiful". The following scenes, which involve him showing integrity by avoiding a chance to kill Big Fate, a time jump to an implausible idealised future and then a resumption of his bad habits that appears to directly contradict the reality of the idealisation, can be understood as him thinking to himself "even if everything magically sorted itself out for me, I'd still be a worthless piece of sh!t".

The film concludes with a brief redemption at the end where he imagines accidentally meeting and being thanked by the beneficiary of his one altrustic act from the beginning of the movie, and going to sit with him in an aquarium representing his final peace of mind as he dies.

Great movie, anyway, brilliant script and sense of locale.

[–] NoArrow 15 years ago

I think this is pretty unsubstantiated.

The movie's a dark comedy where the main character's "bad"ness doesn't condemn him but actually helps him (and even saves him). Everything that happens in the end is in line with the movie's tone and theme (it's sort of like the polar opposite of "A Serious Man.")

When he says "I'll kill him" he's referring to the football player.

The ambiguity in the end is moral ambiguity.

I've learned that every rooster has his Spain, that it's located under his feathers.

[–] dudleynomore 15 years ago

Yeah, the character meant "I'll kill him" as a referance to the footballer. I'm saying the screenwriter chose that line to indicate something on another level, as clearly the character could not have literally meant he was to go kill the footballer.

The ending is open to interpretation of course, but the movie does feature him saying farewell to Eva and driving off to do the night shift in a pristine uniform, then WHAM he's re-enacting the earlier scene where he gets sex via the threat of arrest, then WHAM he's in a hotel room for no obvious reason and bumps into the guy he rescued entirely at random. The continuity isn't clear like in the earlier parts of the film, and they pile on a lot of very unlikely events to arrive at what you see as a literalistic ending. I don't think they'd have done it the same way if that's what they were going for.

The cut to the last scene in the aquarium is prompted entirely by Cage going "do fish have dreams", again implying that what we're seeing isn't real.

[–] NoArrow 15 years ago

I don't think I'd call the ending "literalist," nor would I say it's all supposed to be a dream. It's expressionist...no connection to reality as we live it, just an artistic representation of a feeling Herzog wanted to express - like the rest of the movie (have you seen many Herzog films? They tend to be very "dreamlike").

I just think it's kinda pointless to say "the character died and the end's a dream," not to mention, it undercuts the major theme of the film - that he gets away with everything.

I've learned that every rooster has his Spain, that it's located under his feathers.

[–] dudleynomore 15 years ago

I don't think "the main character gets away with everything" qualifies as what I would call a theme. I'd call that a plot point - a theme is why circumstances in the story play out as they do.

I haven't seen any other Herzog films, but I thought prior to Cage nodding off on the couch the movie made it very obvious what events were real and what Cage was imagining (iguanas no one else can see = fantasy). The issue isn't just with the way the post-couch scenes were acted, but the deterioation of continuity between them: prior to that point the movie depicted the plot and the subplots with clear chain of cause and effect. Everything was shown as having consequences until suddenly those consequences were swept away, changing the apparent reality of what we were being shown.

[–] NoArrow 15 years ago

Well, by "theme" I don't mean "point," maybe "theme" is the wrong word, I just mean...that's basically what the movie's dealing with: a bad guy who gets away with everything he does.

I haven't seen any other Herzog films, but I thought prior to Cage nodding off on the couch the movie made it very obvious what events were real and what Cage was imagining (iguanas no one else can see = fantasy). The issue isn't just with the way the post-couch scenes were acted, but the deterioation of continuity between them: prior to that point the movie depicted the plot and the subplots with clear chain of cause and effect. Everything was shown as having consequences until suddenly those consequences were swept away, changing the apparent reality of what we were being shown.

Sure, while the iguana scene is clearly imagined, none of what happens in this movie is supposed to be convincing as "real life," from the dialogue to the performances to the entire freaking story. And a lot of things that aren't hallucinations are still dreamlike, like the fish in the cup at the crime scene.

Can you explain what you mean by "deterioration of continuity"? When does the cause-and-effect disappear? The thug leaves Cage alone because he thinks Cage had those heavies killed. His bookie pays him because the game turned out the way he bet. The case is solved and Big Fate is arrested because Cage planted evidence. A year later, his family is clean - we've seen that from the progression of the film. He's married to Mendes, she's pregnant. He's still doing coke in secret on the side. It's the epilogue to the movie...the main story's already finished, now we're being shown what the character's life looks like at the end of it. What are you talking about?

I've learned that every rooster has his Spain, that it's located under his feathers.

[–] raimund-berger 15 years ago

Indeed. Except the Big Fate part isn't the "main story". It's the story within the story.

Outer story starts with Chavez, Terence hurting his back and becoming dependent on pain killers. Inner story starts 6 months later with the murder case and ends with Big Fate's arrest. Outer story continues, up to one year later, and ends with Chavez thus closing the circle albeit being open ended.

I'd say if anything qualified as the "main" story it'd be the outer one.

[–] NoArrow 15 years ago

Well, yeah, the "story" is mainly about what happens to Terrence in the span of the movie, but most of the film's plot is wrapped up in the Big Fate case.

I've learned that every rooster has his Spain, that it's located under his feathers.

[–] dudleynomore 15 years ago

It's possible that no definitive answer to this exists - I guess I should revise the subject title about the ending being unambiguous.

By continuity, I mean the rapid of tying-up of events, leaving out the usual scenes that would enable the audience emotionally react to them.

- The bookie and the thug both turn up in person at the police station even though doing so is out-of-character for either, so that Cage can have everything handed to him on a plate. Could a bookie cage had to see on the side ever go to a polkice station and jubilently hand him his winnings like that? Would that actually happen? Unless I missed something, the "two heavies" being killed is an event we're just supposed to assume happened, we are given no information as to why they might have vanished.

- Cage finds this spoon he could never find before, with no scene of him searching. He's just suddenly got it.

- ALL THREE of Cage's other family members magically wind up clean, even his Dad's girlfriend who was supposedly "birds of a feather" with Cage' character. Again with no setup.

- The subplot of the complaint filed against Cage by the old lady whose son is a congressman just disappears with no explanation.

- If Big Fate's drugs weren't of pretty much lethally potency, why have a character tell Cage that they were?

This to me makes the ending so optimistic that it's hard to believe it was intended literally, especially given the nihilistic tone of the rest of the film. Another possibility is that scene were left on the cutting room floor. Or else, if you think the jarring optimism was the whole point, fine.

The fish in the cup from the murder house, BTW, can be interpreted as representing how Cage felt himself to be trapped in his situation. It's definitely foreshadowing of the aquarium scene at the end with it's "do fish have dreams" line, as there were no other references to fish in the film. It suggests that the aquarium acene represents him accepting that he had no ability to change the fundamentals of his situation all along - but obviously if you believe Herzog didn't want to create uncertainty about the reality of what we were seeing the more straightforward explanation that Chavez and Cage just decided to go visit an aquarium in the middle of the night is going to appeal to you.

[–] raimund-berger 15 years ago

Regarding some of your points:

Terence found a spoon, not "the spoon". Because "the spoon" was silver. In fact, he might even not have been looking for "the spoon" at all but just bringing along some spoon to close his story. The film leaves that intentionally open that's why he's not shown searching.

The family members don't wind up clean "magically". There's talk of rehab and AA and going to rehab and AA all over the film. You apparently need to misrepresent and cut out major parts of the movie already to support your nonsense "theory".

The old lady part got resolved. You missed it, plain and simple.

Regarding the drugs, Big Fate just told Terence that he'd need to cut them if he wanted to sell them. That's all of it, because street junkies wouldn't expect that purity and OD. With this information Terence *knew* the purity himself though, knew how much he could take and not OD. It's not the drug which is lethal, it's the amount you take due to lack of information.

And so forth. Fairly stupid discussion you're conducting there, to be honest.

[–] NoArrow 15 years ago

Do we even know if Cage is snorting the coke he got from Big Fate?

I've learned that every rooster has his Spain, that it's located under his feathers.

[–] hotinvegas2000 15 years ago

Well if you go by movie rules, since it was the previous scene then I'd have to say yes it was.

[–] raimund-berger 15 years ago

Also would Terence hardly miss a chance to consume some premium quality dope. Nobody with a taste would.

[–] NoArrow 15 years ago

The bookie and the thug both turn up in person at the police station even though doing so is out-of-character for either, so that Cage can have everything handed to him on a plate. Could a bookie cage had to see on the side ever go to a polkice station and jubilently hand him his winnings like that? Would that actually happen? Unless I missed something, the "two heavies" being killed is an event we're just supposed to assume happened, we are given no information as to why they might have vanished.

Wow, not only did the bookie appear at the police station once already before that last scene, but the "heavies" that you seem to not remember being killed were the thugs who tried to steal Big Fate's coke and got killed (in the "his soul is still dancing" scene). Were you not paying attention, or what?

I've learned that every rooster has his Spain, that it's located under his feathers.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wizzbit-1 15 years ago

I'm with bcu11 with this. I thought it was all too neat at the end. All the characters were acting almost Lynchian ie over the top, like when the cop laughed just a little too long when telling him they had DNA evidence. There was no way in my mind that this was actaully happening but just a daydream of a dying man.

[–] nathhead 15 years ago

Yep, BCu11 is spot on no doubt. I enjoyed the film before reading our remarks but now I understand it, thank you. Anyone having doubts about what he says should maybe read or watch some Herzog interviews and look into his work pre-Grizzly Man. He's the kind of artist who rarely does the straight obvious thing and always uses heavy metaphors in is work. Loved this movie.

[–] horrorshowmovie 15 years ago

oh come on, this is completely ridiculous. The ending is not a dream sequence, there are no multiple personalities, and everything that is shown happens. I am beyond sick of people making up these "fight club-esque" endings to movies when they're clearly not intended to be viewed that way. A contrivance, like the bookie showing up, does not mean that it's not real, it just means that the plot is constructed (is this news to anyone?)

Bad Lieutenant is a comedy, and because of this, it has a more or less happy ending.

[–] gonzogonzalez45 15 years ago

I blame the director for this post ;) If he had only shown him in a rehab dreaming or sleeping, it would had clarified even more the ending.

But I think the director wanted to confuse the audience (and he has done it pretty well)

In my opinion, its all a dream. (Do you think someone who is so dependent with drugs can get away getting all his problems solved? he was shaking when he was not on drugs and when he was, he was delusional. In the last scenes he was quite well mentally...)

[–] shortbread226 15 years ago

But its supposed to be a black comedy isn't it? Comedies draw much of their effect by playing on unrealistic reactions, events and the quick reversal of situations.
It's like saying you thought it was a bit too neat is like saying its a bit too neat the way Cary Grant finds out he is adopted in Arsenic and Old Lace. Or the way anything ends up happening in The Big Lebowski.
Either way though the OP theory is a legitimate one, I just don't know if it was REALLY so unambiguous as to claim its the only clear interpretation.

------------------------------------------
What you just read was probably a bit of a rant. Sorry

[–] hotinvegas2000 15 years ago

Wow BCU11, spot f'ing on. Love it.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hotinvegas2000 15 years ago

well rino-4, you know how I feel :-)

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wooodenelephant 15 years ago

But I think the OP makes a good point about Herzog creating uncertainty at the end - particularly for me the way the nasty client, bookie and captain all turn up and absolve in sequence. It's not obviously a dream though as there are dream-like and incongruous elements throughout the film.

[–] Oneohtrixxx 15 years ago

It's not a dream, nothing's a dream. Herzog's intention, like people have said before, was to show that bad people sometimes get away with doing bad things, and also that Cage's character ultimately was a hero, albeit an anti-hero. Herzog doesn't cop out with "it was just a dream" endings, that's amateur hour stuff. Its a character study, not completely dissimilar to other Herzog film's like Aguirre, Heart of Glass, or Stroszek. I lucked out seeing this at the New Beverly with Herzog present, and in the QA afterwards he said the film is very literal, very straightforward, not something to overanalyze.

"Heineken??! Fu** that s**t!! Pabst Blue Ribbon!!!"

[–] jamasian_man 15 years ago

The movie also goes wonderfully full circle. The scene where he steals from the couple at the night club (the second one) shows that he hasn't changed.

But then by random chance meeting he finds the guy whose life he saved, and that guy then tries to help him out in return.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Noir-82 15 years ago

No. The ending is straight-forward.

The film just depicts one of those things in life: Some days, everything goes wrong, and then there are days where for some reason, everything goes right.

At least the movie did care to show that despite Terrence having a really good day, in the end of it all he's still a druggie that shook down people for hits; That is until he met Chavez in which the film gives hope that Terrence's gets cleaned.

[–] Mart1138 15 years ago

I don't see what all the fuss is about if you've seen the original with Harvey Keitel then you'll know that the ending is just a parody of that film. I think some people on here are giving too much credit to the screen writers, the film is weird and abnormal it doesn't need to be explained just go with it. Why do the majority of people on here need absolution and reason? I've read a few post saying they didn't like Inception because it didn't explain weather he was dead or not at the end...... YOU MAKE UP WHATEVER ENDING YOU WANT!! It's neither right or wrong, what matters is that you have your own imagination. To have every piece of art spelled out for you would be boring, is the Mona-Lisa smiling or not? Who knows but it would be boring to find out.

[–] s8ist 15 years ago

Art being explainable is not "boring." I keep running into this nobody's wrong, everybody's right mentality and it's so superficially profound and absolutely vapid. Unambiguous meanings do not detract from enjoyment unless you are conditioned to believe this is the case. Some works are intended to be ambiguous and open-ended, this is true and in that case I would argue that the artist is giving us the means to expand on what they've presented. But other times, there is an intended interpretation, sometimes hidden under layers of ambiguity, sometimes not.

YOU MAKE UP WHATEVER ENDING YOU WANT!! It's neither right or wrong, what matters is that you have your own imagination. To have every piece of art spelled out for you would be boring, is the Mona-Lisa smiling or not?

What if I think the Mona Lisa was actually frowning, or was a cross-dresser? Or that it describes the taste of chicken? The truth is, there has to be a limit to how loosely we support an interpretation to a work of art. We can't simply say that nothing is right or wrong. We try to understand reason, intention, context, and other methods of critical approach to understand a work; not our own selfish preferences.

[–] Mart1138 15 years ago

Are you agreeing with me??

Nice bit of doctoring there, It kinda takes it out of context and places it somewhere else?

Well, my point was that I saw the ending as a parody of the original. That's it.

And can we wrap up the Mona-Lisa debate right now before it gets silly. I was simply stating that if we found an old scripture stating that the wry smile on the Mona-Lisa was because Leonardo was wearing a pair of fake plastic tits whilst painting her portrait then it would spoil all those "is she/isn't she smiling" debates.... Although that would explain all why she couldn't keep a straight face.

I never said all explained art is boring! I said if EVERY piece was explained it would be boring. When our imagination is not engaged we get trash like Transformers 2. I personally like my imagination to kick in during a film, to fill in the gaps so to speak... that's basically because I've got a fookin' incredible imagination! I'll leave it there it's getting a bit pretentious.

[–] duncantoms 14 years ago

No way it's a dream. The couch scene ends with a shot of the footballer. There is nothing in the scene to suggest a death.

[–] Ennder 14 years ago

Yeah I'm not seeing this as a dream at all. In fact the end scene dialog would see to indicate that he had a few bad days and then a good one magically fixed everything more than anything else. I don't see anything about this that remotely suggests he died and the end is a dream.