the ending
I don't get what was up with the video screen, how he walked away on one TV. weird.
shareI don't get what was up with the video screen, how he walked away on one TV. weird.
shareI think it was a sign that he had lost his mind a bit or a representation that everything in the movie we saw was unreliable based on his psychy
shareHe had been running free, elated because he thought he got away with the check scam. When he saw the TV's, he realized that he had been on camera at the instant cash place.
The middle tv image takes off running, because that is like him trying to scam his way out of it like he did at every turn in the movie. The last shot is the rogue reflection running back to catch up with the other reflections, in other words, he didn't get away with this scam. You also hear a car stop sound as the credits start, probably a cop car rolling up and noticing him.
His dishonesty caught up with him.
shareWhy are so many people convinced he actually didn't get away with it? I like it when protagonists who cross the moral event horizon get away with it, or even gets to live. And it so rarely happens in American films.
American (and to a great extent English and parts of European) cinema is so hopelessly obsessed with justice and closure that even the most daring film-makers can't seem to sneak an upsetting ending into their work.
Japanese cinema has been so okay with it to the extent where I think they must by now find western endings cloying.
In terms of my interpretation of the ending: it isn't one. I thought the part where you saw him come back into the TV image and walk away was that he had neither gotten away with it or gotten caught or even resolved to do anything. That these people and experiences have different consequences every day, without end, without shape and without scope. And that deserving a certain fate only has a conceptual link its likelihood of occurring.
@zoozersadd: Use some incredibly light skills of inference to deduce that board title 'the ending' probably has spoilers.
@VicBooth
And it so rarely happens in American films.
American (and to a great extent English and parts of European) cinema is so hopelessly obsessed with justice and closure that even the most daring film-makers can't seem to sneak an upsetting ending into their work.
Japanese cinema has been so okay with it to the extent where I think they must by now find western endings cloying.
Actaully, American films have been doing that since the '70s---showing protagonists who get away with doing bad things---and I don't think America is "hopelessly obsessed with justice,"---it's just that things don't always tie up that neatly in real life either, so it's nice to see villains or just plain terrible people get what's coming to them in films sometimes. Just saw the film,mainly because it was filmed entirely in Michigan,and being a Michigander, I had to see it. I also was interested in seeing a film where,for once, the main character actually escapes to Detroit to get away from a situation----that just sounded funny to me,being a Detroiter too. Can't remember the last time that happened in a film. Liked it, and I felt that even though he'd gotten away with at least one of his little scams, that it was still going to catch up with him sooner or later.
Another thing---the synopsis says the main character escapes to "a dangerous Detroit"---that makes me laugh, because the scenes in Detroit were filmed less than a stone's throw from the downtown area, which is one of the least dangerous areas there (I know because I lived down there for a couple of years.) What tripped out was how he was stupid enough to pay for an expensive hotel room at the Motor City Casino hotel (which is the tall brown building in the far background when he passes the fence) and live it up chomping up the spaghetti with giant meatballs,then the very next night he's sitting up in a low-budget hotel eating dinner straight from the can, when he could have just saved the little money he had, and no have to sneak back in the next night. For all the effort Marty puts into scamming other folks, he's not really all that smart about it. And when he did what he did to the manager who busted him in a scam, I was like, "What the hell,dude? Why did you even have to go and do that? It wasn't even worth hurting someone over!" That was a fckd-up thing to do,and he knew it. And,yeah, he was a selfish user SOB---which is why it was cool to see the scammer get scammed for a change---I'm not spoiling that,but it was kind of funny,though---talk about what comes around going back around directly to you.
All in all, I liked the film, because it's basically what I cal la "slice-of-life" flick---you go into the film and watch a character's journey from the beginning to the end, and all the trials and tribulations they go through in between (or put themselves through,in Marty's case.) That's always been an interesting thing for me watch to watch in any good film that makes the journey worthwhile.
Compelling, and rich.
Of course I'm not talking about anti-heroes (The Godfather) or villain protagonists (Heat). I'm discussing the moral event horizon, the equilibrium of character likeability, lack of a greater opposing evil and moral bankruptcy. But thank you for introducing me to your original concept "slice-of-life" (am I typing that right?) and why narrative closure makes audiences happy.
I especially liked the pointless digression into life in Detroit and a cursory film review. Which I can tell is what you really wanted to talk about. However feel free to come back at me with some actual examples and without starting your post with a misspelt "Actually", for a more polite reply in future.
[deleted]
Means he will always be on the run..
share