MovieChat Forums > Nymphomaniac: Vol. II (2014) Discussion > ENDING!

ENDING!

posted 10 years ago by wiggityp
4 replies | jump to latest

SPOILERS!!! So, after just watching all 5hrs of this and realizing at the beginning and maintaining now, that this movie really wasn't for me, I've still got to say that that ending BLEW!! Seriously, when Seligman says "But you've *beep* thousands of men?" when he is trying to get off somehow with her (this after we've just had 5 hrs of clear illustration that he is not like other men/people in general, and is a particularly empathetic and sensitive fellow not to mention Joe's only friend) for him to quizzically purport that he doesn't understand why she is not down to *beep* him is totally ridiculous. That is, IMO, akin to a slap in the face by the director.

Setting aside all my personal disagreements with both the film and the subject matter, I was actually really liking the ending when Seligman says "Do you think in your new life you might seek out your son?" (something like that) and Joe replies "Maybe." or something like that. I thought, Well *beep* that is actually a hopeful note to end a very bleak film with and "hooray" and all for that. But then no, we get a literally last minute 180degree shift in character for Seligman without any foreshadowing or explanation.

To me that was the most extreme example of the biggest problem with the film: Von Trier had a great story with dynamic characters and provocative subjects which he largely ignored in favor of ham-handed visual metaphors and shock-value. And I'm not talking about the shock value of the imagery which by today's standards is graphic but not supremely so (at least for me) but rather his disregard for our experience as a viewer by offering up every random technique he could think of in order to...change the tone? unsettle us?? It never seemed clear and usually seemed superfluous to whatever was happening (often as not a deep and intriguing bit of dialogue or character development. This just left it feeling cluttered and in your face and really disrespectful. Not to me, not to humans in general or to sexuality or to the story he was trying to tell but rather to a basic understanding of what a craftsman is and the value of earning his/her audiences' appreciation and thoughtfulness rather than forcing whatever vision (seriously what was he trying to say about anything?!?) he had on whomever was generous enough to sit through his 5hr film.

I think he is an interesting and for what it's worth, valid, artist and a competent aesthetic mind as far as the superficial beauty of his work, but he sucked hard with any craftiness and subtlety in a piece which should (and deserved to be) rife with it. I think another director could take this same story, same characters, even most of the same scenes and images and craft an overall much better film. To me this seemed like Von Trier just didn't care about his own work which I just cannot respect especially in such a profound and ambitious piece as this. Shame on him. I hope he mellows out in the future with his ego or mysticism or whatever trip he was on with Nymphomaniac because he obviously is smart enough to do much better than this.

[–] Dejay 9 years ago

Well I just sat through almost 3 hours of part II and wondered at the ending. But reading the comments here it occurred to me that it is so clearly and unmistakably bad ending / terribly implausible plot twist that you have to assume that it is deliberate and that the director is trying to tell us something.

Some reasons why it's so obviously bad that it has to be deliberate:

1. Joe had no reason to shoot him as she was not threatened with rape.
2. Joe is compassionate that she probably would even grant his request
3. Joe just said she swore off sex - why would seligman ignore that?
4. Joe said she is tired and wants to sleep - why would seligman ignore that?
5. Seligman would never want to *beep* her and even less so rape her in that situation. Everything we know about his character during the film says sensitive, caring and asexual.
6. Even disregarding Seligman's character, he wasn't even aroused or hard so it makes no sense for him to try this right now
7. A plot twist wasn't needed because the ending was already emotional satisfying and intellectually rewarding and interesting - it's superfluous

So lets give Lars the benefit of the doubt and assume the ending was bad deliberately.

Some ideas for interpretations of this:

1. The ending is for the viewer like a sexual denial, to tease and then not put out. A happy ending and then a horrible ending, that is not just emotionally frustrating but also intellectually - because it doesn't make sense. Like the sex life of the two protagonists.
2. Similar to 1) but about how sex is so awesome and brilliant before the orgasm but when you climax all the magic has been sucked out of the room and you can feel bad about what you just did.
4. Both are cured and suddenly act normal - hurray! She becomes a hysteric overreacting women who shoots to kill when offered coffee and he becomes a healthy man who wants to *beep* any and all women if given the chance and has no ability to think or have empathy
5. It's an "eff you" to societal norms (happy ending being the societal norm)
6. It's a brutish and incompetent attempt at a plot twist
7. Shock value - any press is good press - these dogma films sell so badly that even people talking about how bad the ending is it is better than nobody talking about the movie at all.

[–] [email protected] (1367) 7 years ago

If the ending was shock value, just to have people talk, then it cheapens the film big time. It wasnt needed. Its a shame, as I liked both films until the lame ending.

[–] rachel-filmer82 9 years ago

I think the both parts of the film are an allegorical representation of women's sexuality in a patriarchal society. Neither of the characters are real people, they represent ideas - each chapter is an analogy for some issue affecting women and their existence. Seligman's behaviour represents the treatment of women by society - they are encouraged to find and express their sexuality and then it is used against them. He makes her trust him, but despite everything he has just heard, he still believes she owes him sex because that's what she does. He is supposedly asexual and doesn't even want sex, but he believes she owes it to him - or his claims of asexuality were an attempt to gain her trust so he could abuse it.

Either way, if you're looking at this film literally it's not going to make sense. I don't think it's particularly strong anyway, to be honest.

[–] Drooch (5333) 6 years ago

It was a lazy and simplistic ending that felt tacked on. It wasn’t true to the characters at all - not their natures, not their respective journeys.

Seligman may well have wanted to lose his virginity to her after the intimacy of their night together, but he was far too sophisticated and sensitive to sneak up on her at night, start rubbing his dong against her and expect her to screw him after her trauma and exhaustion, with the excuse ‘come on, you’ve f**ked thousands of guys!’ Just totally out of character.

Similarly with Jo - she likely suspected he was repressed and could try it on, she knows the effect she has on men. She’s not going to impulsively reach for her gun, cock it, and blow him away.

I get the impression that this was the ending Von Trier always wanted, but he made a film far more nuanced and interesting along the way and he needed to listen to what the story and characters needed, not what his ego wanted.

When Seligman leaves and turns off the light - that was genuinely shocking because it was such a tender ending in a Lars Von Trier film. We’d suspected all along that these two might end up screwing and it was a pleasant surprise to see a new turn. But no, he has to force in his incongruous Von Trier ending.

It’s possible that the ending is a deliberate joke, and that Von Trier is just trolling everyone for his own amusement, or he’s mocking contemporary feminism by turning Seligman and Jo into a cartoonishly evil molester and righteous gun-bitch. Whatever he’s doing, it sticks two fingers up to what went before and the audience 🤷🏻‍♂️