MovieChat Forums > Man on Wire (2008) Discussion > why did the other guy start crying

why did the other guy start crying


at the end of the movie on of the tightrope walker's friends broke down into crying twice. I can't exactly put my finger on it what made the experience so grieve worthy.

reply

I think he was just overwhelmed with emotion while thinking back to his friend's amazing feat.

reply

Didn't they lose a friend and on the other hand a lover.

I got the impression that after the feat Philippe changed as a person and basically left the motley group, so they wept for the loss of a person.

reply

That's what I took from it as well.. once Philippe did the walk, he wasn't interested in his old girlfriend or his old friends anymore.. His friend was sad at the loss of such an important friendship.

reply

Yes, sadness and grief are not the only thing that can cause tears.

reply

i also got the impression that their friendship had ended ... and the crying was twofold: the beauty of the walking + the sadness re a friendship that had faded.

reply

***SPOILER ALERT!!!***



Yes, his best friend Jean-Louis recounted how Philip inquired (on the flight back home) about planning a next adventure, "but the friendship had been broken."

It was an overwhelming moment. It really did seem like Philip's friends gave everything to help him. Grinding away at the cable until daylight (with that worthless slug of an American Alan, who gave up and left at daybreak) without knowing the outcome, if he would go to jail, if his friend would die, etc. The stress, and then the break (apparently by Philip, who enjoyed his fame alone and lied about banging that groupie because his friends and girlfriend were again waiting for him) the relationships. He no longer needed them.

His flippant explanation, and apparent delight at having banged a piece of hot strange, and his recounting of his satisfaction, was juxtaposed with Jean-Louis's reaction of disappointment and loss. Philip no longer needed him, so he would go back to whatever life he had, and without his friend. Loss, so powerful, and helpless to do anything about it because Philip made his choice.

This ending really made me sad and disturbed. It was great, no doubt. And when it dropped, all the pieces came together (there was an underlying hostility from his girlfriend, who I assumed would become his wife until that point). The description of the other teammates (especially the Americans, one of whom showed up stoned the night before, and ran out of the caper when it looked too risky). All of it fit. What a great piece of storytelling, and filmmaking.

reply

I think you're right, JayCeezy. And that part at the end was quite emotional to me. The whole film was really beautifully done.

reply

You summed it up beautifully, JayCeezy. I left the film also haunted and disturbed by Petit's lack of gratitude for all that Jean-Louis had sacrificed for him. He had been the one who had been there all along through thick and thin, but it appeared he never even got a "thank you." Instead, Petit just wondered when he would be available to string another cable for him. I felt so sad for Jean-Louis. Petit's ego really didn't allow him to care deeply about anyone or anything besides his own artistic aspirations (and picking up some groupie as a part of that "art," apparently).

reply

I am not sure that is exactly what it was.
I think as he said he wanted to live life on a tight rope and doing the same thing would be boring to him and I think his friends expected him to do exactly that - the same thing.

reply

You got it right!

reply

Why did you interpret the one about the groupie being a lie. It sounded to me like it did happen

reply

Watch it again. You must, to truly understand.

reply

I don't think I need to watch it again. He did sleep with the groupie. There is no reason to think otherwise.

reply

Then you need to read this thread again, nobody (especially me) thinks he didn't go off and have sex with a female stranger. Nobody thinks otherwise.

You need to read this thread (and watch the movie again) if you still don't know why the other guy started crying.

reply

I see. and who posted this may i ask?

The stress, and then the break (apparently by Philip, who enjoyed his fame alone and lied about banging that groupie because his friends and girlfriend were again waiting for him) the relationships. He no longer needed them.

reply

You misinterpret, when you say I interpret...(your first accusatory post above).

Philip left his friends and g/f, abandoned them in that moment of conquest and of course he couldn't tell them the truth at the time that he went off to bang a stranger instead of share the moment with the crew that supported his effort for more than a year.

Guessing your first language isn't English. Philip did lie at the time, but now acknowledges what he did (which was bang a stranger). The operative word in the sentence you isolated above is "because." Philip didn't show up the next day and tell his girlfriend that he cheated on her, and his friend that he stood them all up because he *beep* a woman he just met. He lied, then. Now, he admits what is an obvious truth. No need for the lie, now, he discarded his g/f and friend(s) after using them (just like the strange woman who wanted to have s*x with a guy who did something great, as all groupies want).

The thread is 'why did the other guy start crying', and the answer is in my posts to others, above. As you can see, my answer has been quite helpful to a few readers.

Merry Christmas!

reply

Well for somebody accusing others of not having a good grasp of the English language you exhibit a singular lack of it.
Saying something along the lines of he lied about doing x implies that person lied about actually doing it - i.e. they did not do it. That is the implication in English and in fact in most other languages as it's just simply a logical construct.

Obviously one can draw from context that you may have meant the opposite (as you espouse) that he in fact concealed the fact he banged the chick but how am I to know you did not in fact misinterpret it which is quite possible and implied by your wording.

reply

I interpreted the way I did because you worded it incorrectly.
Had you worded it correctly I would have interpreted it the way you meant to. You cannot fault the others when the fault is in yourself.
That being said I agree with all your conclusions.

reply

by shurbanm(Sun Dec 25 2016 08:49:14)
IMDb member since July 2003

I interpreted the way I did because you worded it incorrectly.
Had you worded it correctly I would have interpreted it the way you meant to. You cannot fault the others when the fault is in yourself.
That being said I agree with all your conclusions.


...said the guy who has deleted 9 replies as of this writing! 😁

reply

So?
Editing takes one more step yet posting again is just one click back. Thus posting is duplicated. I merely wanted to make it easier for you to read and understand. I guess you prefer duplicated posts.
And your point was? Where did i misspeak exactly?
(btw it's 2. learn to count)

reply

by shurbanm (Sun Dec 25 2016 09:37:46)
IMDb member since July 2003

So?
Editing takes one more step yet posting again is just one click back.
And your point is?


...just beyond your grasp!😉

reply

yeah riiiiight....said the guy with the excellent grasp of English...
nice try.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

By the way - you did not get it.
He never really needed them other than as a means to an end. It was all about him and his aim to accomplish this feat.
They all realized after all this that he did not really care about them and all they had sacrificed for him. All he really cared about was achieving this never acknowledging them after all was done. Some of the others were expelled and banned from entering the US yet he was allowed to just perform some community service by juggling and got off free.
That is why things changed and why the friendship broke and his girfriend left him.
I think you really did not understand what happened.
Some people watch this movie one time and get it. Others watch it multiple times and still don't get it.

reply

I did not, for the slightest second even think about the attacks.

I don't know why, but I feel a great annoyance that you couldn't just see the beauty of the film without having to resort to thinking about 9/11.

I can't justify why I feel this way, but to me that seems kind of.. shallow.

reply

[deleted]

I'm with Hacka on that one. The film worked as a tender poetic counterpoint to 9/11. Not mentioning it explicitly showed admirable restraint, and sound moral taste, on the part of the director. A bunch of guys use subterfuge, cunning and mad courage to achieve something extraordinary - but in 1974 the "coup" was something beautiful, breathtaking and sublime, giving us a fragile rebuttal of the ugly, heartbreaking and vicious attack 25 years later.

reply

it's really very superficial to associate it with 9/11. other than the obvious fact that it's centered on the same buildings it has nothing to do with it. there was no point in even mentioning it.

reply

not once... not one single time did i think about the 9/11 attacks.

reply

[deleted]

Shallow? Really?
I think taking a movie's meaning and applying it to a greater historical context is just the opposite.
Considering the fact that I thought about the WTC for a total of 4 seconds before 9/11, I definitely saw this movie as a sort of elegy for the buildings. A reminder of why they were inspiring for so many people, and maybe a reminder of why they became such a symbol of American dominance and therefore a target.

Which is what makes the movie so great, in my opinion. It works as an amazing story in and of itself. Add the subtle nuances that definitely refer to 9/11 and you have just about a perfect documentary that works on many, many levels.

reply

*One-woman applause*

reply

And when we hear the Beatles' music we think of George Harrison dying of cancer? When we see Van Gogh's paintings we think of him cutting his ear off?

Perhaps some people do, but not all of us.

reply

Not sure how the twin towers were a symbols of dominance considering they were mostly vacant at the time. The asbestos was a huge problem as well.
They were brought down for a reason and that was not because they were a symbol of anything.

reply

Anyone claiming to have not even thought about 9/11 even briefly is most certainly conning us.

The plans of the WTC laid out would most assuredly bring to mind thoughts of the "wrong people" having access to the building like that and the drawings.

It would have been fitting to at least acknowledge their destruction and address it by asking Philip his thoughts which would be relevant to say the least.

No one is suggesting doom and gloom. Just a mention.

reply

I never thought of it that way.

That probably isn't the reason that he was crying, but I really never thought of it that way and I saw it nine times. Unlikely a reason, but possible.

reply

I did think about 9/11, and am skeptical about anyone who claims not have considered the loss of these magnificent buildings that Phillipe was enamored with before they were even built. Even more skeptical about someone who claims that thinking about a terrorist attack that claimed 3,000 human lives is "shallow."

That said, it did not occur to me that Jean Louis was crying over 9/11. His months of personal sacrifice while he put his own life and goals on hold, combined with a lifetime of friendship squandered by someone he trusted, who clearly didn't place the same value on it that he did, seemed quite clear to me. The French are secretly glad it happened to the U.S., and not to them, but would never say it anyway. For him to start crying over 9/11, after a whole movie about the relationships and dream realized of this highwire walker, seems unlikely. But, who knows? That is what makes a movie, not the images on film, but the interpretations of the viewers. Cheers!

reply

If he and his friend weren't having a homosexual relationship I'll eat my hat. I think it is the end of that reltionship which caused the tears.

reply

You may be joking around, but there was a moment that stood out to me in that film: where the guys were running in a field, and then fell down and rolled around and played grab-@$$. That is not something I have ever seen with any male over the age of 7. But I quickly moved past it, thinking "those crazy French!"

Thinking about Philip Petit's flippant comment regarding his selfish encounter with a piece of strange tail, "pleasures of the flesh, how disgusting~!" I now realize that he was being sarcastic. You make an interesting point, whenever I have had a close friendship end, I am either angry at the disrespect shown to me, or ashamed of my disrespectful behavior. Or just confused at how what used to be a good friendship has drifted away into nothing, in spite of my efforts to stay in touch. I don't think I have ever cried in anguish over the loss.

Anyway, I did not consciously think about the possibility you raised until reading your comment. Interesting, joking or not. Cheers!

reply

Well it was probably pretty painful as well to think about his lost friendship with Phillipe. They did such an awesome thing together, and then Phillipe kind of just abandoned his friends.

reply

i didn't read the entire thread, but as for the original question.
he started crying because (as others said) their friendship imploded, after the completing of this "dream". This is almost logical, Jean-Louis has realized from the start it's actually a crazy thing to do, he's SO SO SO GLAD Philip did not die, he just cannot have anything to do with him anymore.

as for the 9/11, of course, we, the viewers, have 9/11 in the back of our minds and it adds to the movies sadness, but I do not think Jean-Louis started crying because of that.

reply