MovieChat Forums > Nocturnal Animals (2016) Discussion > The many interpretations of Nocturnal An...

The many interpretations of Nocturnal Animals ending.

posted 8 years ago by RoloTomassi777
55 replies | jump to latest

I've been observing this board and scouring through the Internet trying to gather the many interpretations of the ending. There's a lot of dissension. Everyone is trying to come up with their interpretation and that's good. But a lot of people are still left feeling dissatisfied. Let's take a look at some of the interpretation shall we.

1) Bobby and Tony is manifestation of Edward. Bobby's cancer compelled him to seek justice and finally do the right thing. The book was written to reflect upon his condition and what gave him the drive to finally write a novel. That also leaves us with the clue why he didn't show up. He died from cancer before he could meet up with Susan.

2) Revenge. Edward didn't show up because he did it to spite Susan and to teach her a lesson. Sort of dish best serve cold.

3) He still wants to use his pain and suffering as an inspiration in order to continue to write from the heart. He didn't want to ruin that hence the reason for the no-show.

4) As her mother said to Susan "The thing you love about him now is the thing you will hate". In the past Susan only saw the version of him she wanted to see but in reality he was a mediocre writer. Now the book has dispel that doubt but is she making the same mistake of creating a false image of Edward? That's why Edward replied "I'll be there" meaning who she wanted to meet was only a false illusion of him not the real Edward. OTOH, the version of her is also false when she aborted the baby she destroyed that illusion. Hence, the blinded-eyes, the necklace and shot to the stomach resembled Susan sad eyes and abortion. And the necklace signified that Tony was Susan. When Tony died that false image of Susan died too.

5) He didn't want to see her because she was right. She wanted to be the person he wanted her to be but she can't. They're not perfect together. Good riddance anyway as it turned out he manage to write a good novel without her. Why would he want to meet her? She aborted their baby. That pretty much ruin any hope of reuniting.

6) The abortion scene was revealed too early towards the ending. It should be juxtaposed together when Susan got stood up as a plot twist. Instead of Edward trying to make the impression of winning her back it actually the reverse she was the one who was trying to redeem herself.

7) The book was a suicide note. Edward killed himself.

8) They both suffering from bipolar disorder which explains why Susan couldn't get enough sleep, why she's unhappy all the time, why she changed her mind about firing her worker and maybe why she had an abortion. Which also explains why Edward was flip flopping whether to show up or not. That's why he said they were perfect for each other because they complete each other. Also explains why Susan's mother knows what's best for her.

Edit:

9) Another theory is there was a miscommunication during their correspondence. When Edward said he will be in LA until Wednesday that means he won't be there on Wednesday. Until means in the most literal sense that a true condition will become false upon the occurrence of the target event. Susan messaged Edward that she'd love to meet him on Tuesday night. Then Edward replied Tuesday night tell me where and when and I'll be there. But she came on Wednesday night. Classic love stories blunder.

If you have your own version feel free to post them. Whatever it's subjective anyway.

[–] Farshnoshket 8 years ago

I believe Edward's basic intent was to say to Susan 'You threw us away' and you can't have it back. By not showing up, for whatever reason, he proves that to her. The last moment we see a tear from Susan, her sad eyes, so we know she is hurt. How devastated Susan is by Edward not showing is certainly left to interpretation, but she certainly couldn't be at a lower point in her life.

If Susan finally realizes the novel is an allegory for her own story with Edward and also realize she is Tony in the story she might realize Andes represents Edward and therefore does not show up in the end.

[–] RoloTomassi777 8 years ago

Another theory that he might still be alive is when we saw the Mercedes subsequently after Susan drove in her house. It was actually Edward leaving his manuscript at her mailbox. The dead bird thrown at her glass wall was Edward. Since Susan gave everyone a weekend off so he managed to let himself inside her compound.

When we saw his Mercedes that is somekind of an indication that he might still be alive. Considering he already has cancer at the time he was writing the book. That cancer would spread in 3-6 months. No offense to anyone with cancer or anyone who has family member with cancer. No cancer patient IMHO will be able to walk properly without a cane or he will have someone else to help carry him around. He will passed out while driving if he made the trip to LA by car or it will be impossible for him hunting for a publisher back and forth in LA to market his book. I mean look at how he pushed the car door open and stepped out of the car. Very energetic and sternly not how a cancer patient will do.

[–] Farshnoshket 8 years ago

I believe you have overstepped with cancer. There are way too many different kinds of cancer and their effects to assume how a person is feeling and how long they might live or possibly survive. Edward was still pretty young, so there is a possibility he could beat it in many different ways.

Of course that is if Edward has cancer.

[–] RoloTomassi777 8 years ago

Bobby said it has metastasized that means stage 4 and was given a one year timeframe. I guess one year is ample time to finish writing a book and to get it published.

[–] Farshnoshket 8 years ago

Well while I believe there are parallels between Edward's novel and the main story I'm not sure if they are that direct. Edward might have cancer or he may not and if he does it doesn't mean it's the exact same cancer as Bobby's, does it?
Edward wrote Andes had stage 4 cancer because it works well in his novel, but the question of how that compares to his real life is still up for discussion.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

Don't let old FartyKat talk you out of Edward being afflicted with cancer. It conflicts with his absurd Tony=Susan theory, so he tries to throw cold water on the idea, but he used to believe it himself. Of course Edward has cancer - it's a no-brainer.
As for the disease itself - there can be very sudden downturns - from reasonable health and mobility to death in a matter of days.

[–] RoloTomassi777 8 years ago

After much contemplation no.1 is quite reasonable, no.2 kinda far fetched it took him 19 years to exact his revenge, no.3 possible but why bother setting up a date, no.4, tony=Susan so who represents Edward in the book? No.5 why bother contacting her at all, no.6 wishful thinking as Ford pointed out the ending was correct for him. No7. Why does it took him 19 years to kill himself? No.8 bipolar disorder. No evidence of that. No. 9 he was there until Wednesday. She misread him. He came on Tuesday she came on Wednesday. Possible. That's why Jake gyllanhaal said the ending was upbeat. There's hope.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

No. 1 is the only plausible explanation. The clue lies in the book's dedication - no author will dedicate his work to somebody he despises.

[–] Farshnoshket 8 years ago

Your 'absolute' nature is your biggest fault.

#1 States Edward died from cancer before he could show up, which while a possibility there is no reason to make it an absolute. He could have cancer, still be alive and not show up simply because it really is the only way to show Susan was the weak one. I certainly believe it possible that Edward could have cancer or he had cancer and it was bad enough that he decided to end his life, but to think that Edward died of cancer sometime between answering Susan's email and not showing up at the restaurant? I would believe Susan told him Edward to meet pretty soon, like the next night, so to think he died from cancer over a 24 hour period seems a little far fetched.

As far as the dedication goes, it only shows Edward possibly died of a broken heart. To believe that no one dedicates a book to someone they despise, well I'm pretty sure many people are inspired to create work based on people they despised. I wonder how many songs never would have been written if it weren't for broken hearts?

You really need to stop being so absolute. This is certainly the wrong board for that.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

. . . so to think he died from cancer over a 24 hour period seems a little far fetched.

Apparently you know as little about cancer as you do about reading an allegory for symbolic meaning. It's not at all far-fetched for a cancer which has metastasized to the brain to have very sudden incapacitating effects.
As for suicide - I don't know why you bring it up when Tony's demise has no suicidal aspect. Ford makes strenuous efforts to prevent anybody getting that idea.

As far as the dedication goes, it only shows Edward possibly died of a broken heart . . . many people are inspired to create work based on people they despised

This is gobbledegook. An author's dedication is a entirely different matter from the subject of his fiction.

You really need to stop being so absolute.

And you need to stop being so absolute about your farcical teen-fiction revenge theory when several intelligent posters here have described the idea as absurd. If Edward deliberately arranges a meeting with the intent not to show up, he's dishonest, pathetic and a coward.

[–] mihailosundic 8 years ago

Apparently you know as little about cancer as you do about reading an allegory for symbolic meaning. It's not at all far-fetched for a cancer which has metastasized to the brain to have very sudden incapacitating effects.
As for suicide - I don't know why you bring it up when Tony's demise has no suicidal aspect. Ford makes strenuous efforts to prevent anybody getting that idea.

Apparently if someone disagrees with you, just tell them they know very little about the topic and that's done?
I guess you may just be a troll or someone very narrowminded, by looking at your posts here on NA. But let's try to analyze a few things here.

So you say that he died of cancer in a day or so and yet he somehow managed to wait for her to read the manuscript which took her (at least) several days.
Are you saying that he is able to control when he dies? In that case sure looks more logical that it's a suicide and not cancer.
Because probability says that it's not the case unless you don't like to involve probability and reason here.
Or are you saying it's just a coincidence he died of cancer just then (between e-mail and dinner)? That would be pathetic, stupid and meaningless storytelling. Totally out of the movie theme. So obvious that's not the case.
There's always a slight chance that's the way it happened but it's just such a long shot that I can't see any logical and reasonable clue why ayone would insist so much on this theory. If you could answer my questions above and tell me what backs up the theory so much that you defnd it so harshly, I'd be so happy to see that.

So if we use logic and probability theory, than no, he didn't die of cancer. Either he lived (with or without cancer) or he killed himself, which I also don't think is the case, because after all these years he has become a very strong man through time, he's definitely not a coward but on the contrary, he's a hero for facing things in this manner.

What about the reason he didn't show up?
Because it's done, there's no turning back after all that suffering and 20 years of hell. It's all about closure.

So then is he a liar only set out to revenge? No, I think that he needed to show her one more thing because he knew the story alone won't be enough.

Two years ago he didn't return her calls. He knew something was off in her marriage when she contacted him after XY years.
So he did know she was unhappy.
She was obviously thinking that something may happen between them, so he sees that she doesn't really understand the consequences of her actions.
Maybe that's what trigerred him to write a book.
But this is just a speculation, it's just something I didn't see anyone writing about and wanted to point out as a possible motive for the book and the things we see happened 2 years after.

After reading the manuscript she understood what she put him through. And she still loved him (as the director said it was the idea - she fell in love with him again). But that is just not enough for her to see the entire picture, and he knew that, he is so huge that he understands that she needs a final message to be able to cope and accept the reality.

In the end his action was just the way to tell her without actually writing (which is such a great storytelling in the end) that she was foolish to think that after all that, there is a chance for anything. But that it's OK.

The point is to understand, he needed closure, so did she.
And I think she gets it in the end, she screwed up three lives, irreversibly.
Partially he did too, in his book he showed himself as a weak man, he didn't do anything to protect them two. So he also blames himself.
After 20 god damn years, there no fixing that, in any way!
She finally understands everything and that's her look on her face, disappointment but she still accepts that.

And that's the point of the ending which is definitely not a "non ending" as some call it. It's so brilliant. It's a closure for both of them, different but exactly what they both needed their whole lives but they couldn't get, it took them 20 years and a lot of pain to be able to find it.
Realistic too, because people often don't get it at all, except one of them is involved which is so strong and persistent like he was.
Beautiful movie in any case, not saying my theory is the only possible, but I think is the most probable and most realistic.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

Are you saying that he is able to control when he dies?

No, I've never said or suggested anything of the kind. None of us know when death will take us. OTOH I've known cancer patients who have gone from walking patients to dead in a couple of days - and as a pertinent example, Bobby looks like he's sinking fast. He also didn't show up - why?

So he did know she was unhappy.

Not at all. I once called an ex-GF 20 years after we'd last spoken. Unhappiness had nothing to do with it.

What about the reason he didn't show up?

That's the big conundrum, isn't it? He sends his ex-wife the manuscript, says he's in LA on business and that he'd like to get together. What changes his mind? There's nothing in the emails, is there?

It's a closure for both of them . . .

This term 'closure' is glib, overused - and meaningless in most cases.

. . he has become a very strong man through time, he's definitely not a coward . .

IMO a man who deliberately stands up another person is a pathetic, cowardly individual. Obviously you think this kind of conduct denotes strength, and that's where we part. It could even be closure.

[–] shamis-881-25789 8 years ago

you are so full of yourself.
sounding like a fool.

[–] iconoclast-y 8 years ago

The idea that someone would throw a dead bird at a window is preposterous. The bird clearly flew into the window and was on the ground by the window as a result. You are reaching.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

The idea that someone would throw a dead bird at a window is preposterous.

Ummm - what would be the motive for throwing a bird at the window? I doubt the OP has thought this through. Perhaps he believes Edward wants Susan to drop dead from fear?

[–] RoloTomassi777 8 years ago

That was meant as a sarcasm lol. People are taking this movie way too seriously. I just wanna make light of how many people here are grasping at straws to thoroughly explain the overused of tropes in this movie. I can't believe it took so long for someone to call me out on that. Obviously it was a trope just like Ray jumpscare. And the revenge red herring.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

When there are so many silly unfounded theories floating around, it becomes hard to identify sarcasm.
You're right - like the RE-VEN-GE painting and the call to the daughter, it was a red herring designed to lead the foolish up a garden path into the maze of revenge. Some of them are still lost in that labyrinth.

[–] RoloTomassi777 8 years ago

Another theory is there was a miscommunication during their correspondence. When Edward said he will be in LA until Wednesday that means he won't be there on Wednesday. Until means in the most literal sense that a true condition will become false upon the occurrence of the target event. Susan messaged Edward that she'd love to meet him on Tuesday night. Then Edward replied Tuesday night tell me where and when and I'll be there. But she came on Wednesday night. Classic love stories blunder.

[–] ivannano 8 years ago

I think Susan was reflected in several characters in the book:
- the wife
- as she was pregnant, also the daughter
- Ray, as she was the one who killed the daughter and Edwards image of her
- Lou as he took Tony to the middle of nowhere and left him - as Susan did to Edward

Finally, when Tony took control, it didn't bring any satisfaction as it was too late to save his family. He was broken and alone.

That's why Edward didn't show up at the restaurant. He wanted to teach Susan one last lesson that you can't go back and have to live, as she said, in the real world.

[–] bellapeligrosa 8 years ago

Edward doesn't know what her life is like now, that she's broke, her husband is cheating, and that she's going through a mid-life crisis. There is no way he could know any of that. He only knows the Susan from 20 years before, the one that became everything she hated about her mother, cheated, aborted his child and broke his heart.

I agree with other people on this board that Susan is a number of different characters. He's a writer, and he would carry his demons for a long time - the pain and hurt - but he doesn't strike me as someone who couldn't forgive. He's more likely to be wounded, than angry.

This is about her, and her own reactions to the book. It forces her to realise the ugliness inside herself, reflect back on past mistakes, and deal with the pain of being cheated on. As she sits in that restaurant, it's not the embarrassment of being stood up by Edward that makes her sad, it's the self-loathing that has been building up inside her. Edward has succeeded in finally writing something beautiful and living up to his potential. She feels like she's wasted hers. In that moment in the restaurant, their roles are reversed and he is the stronger one. She's a desperately unhappy woman, living in a fake world, regretful of past mistakes, and for a moment there was a glimmer of hope. Now she sits there lonely, with a full retrospective of her life running through her head, thinking 'how did I come to this?' The reason Edward doesn't turn up is irrelevant.

What I can't buy into is if we are to believe that Edward sent her the novel, and then stood her up for revenge. That seems petulant and immature (for a man in his forties), and out of character from what we saw in the flashbacks. He'd driven the point home by sending her the manuscript in the first place, a not so subtle dig and by dedicating the book to her he's made it personal. Standing her up too is pointless, unnecessary insult to injury. And if he had cancer that far advanced (another theory), why would he be flying across the country - he'd be in a hospice. The fact is we know nothing about current day Edward for a reason - all we CAN do is speculate - and it makes it a richer film for being so open to interpretation because everyone can have their favourite theory. Likelihood is he was stuck in LA traffic and his phone died.

It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!

[–] exit00-1 8 years ago

Totally agree with what your wrote here. I had basically the same ideas after seeing the film. The story is all about Susan and how her life has evolved. I also think that it's laughable that the ending is about some big revenge plot from Edward....

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

I also think that it's laughable that the ending is about some big revenge plot from Edward....

The credulous swallow the RE-VEN-GE bait, and can't spit it out. For some reason - probably misogyny - they like to imagine Susan is a 'crushed, destroyed woman' as she drinks whiskey alone at the restaurant. Edward's no-show does have to be explained, but revenge has absolutely nothing to do with it.

[–] omarcruz86 8 years ago

Good post.

I don't agree with your claim that Edward's no-show is petty, per se. As a singular action, yes, it is petty. but when you also take into account that he wrote an entire book dedicated to her where all the characters are arguably a facet of Susan, claimed in his letter that Susan was the inspiration for this work, and then the scene of the painting with a singular word: Revenge (because of the abortion, as alluded by a baby being written into the scene), then it's pretty clear that both the fictional book and the screenplay of Nocturnal Animals is really a story about revenge. The last image we see of Edward is outside the abortion clinic and the last time they spoke he hung up on her. To me, there's no way he didn't stand her up purposely. Her look of absolute devastation cannot be the sole work of coincidence, but rather it becomes more meaningful when caused by Edward's direct actions: his writing and his absence.

[–] bellapeligrosa 8 years ago

My point was that it wasn't petty. I don't believe the character capable of that level of bitterness. If anything, maybe he had the intention to go and then couldn't go through with it last minute. Perhaps Susan sees it as a revenge move though, as most of this film we've seen through her eyes. In her head she wouldn't be able to interpret it any other way, because she's so self-focussed and neurotic, and in the end it's only her response to the series of events that matters.

It's too cerebral! We're trying to make a movie here, not a film!

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

Edward doesn't know what her life is like now, that she's broke

I'm not sure that's true. On 2nd viewing of the film I watched out for references to Susan being in financial trouble. I heard only this: As Hutton sets off for NYC to seal a business deal, he says: "We need this." Susan relies: "You need this."
I doubt she's broke. Any self-respecting wealthy Republican family puts some of a daughter's assets in trusts, in order to protect them from fortune-hunting husbands.

[–] marcc-15131 8 years ago

I thought she said "you need this" as a brief moment where she regained her former self about not caring about money, only happiness. The reason she married Edward because he wasn't succesfull then and she claimed not to be materialistic like her parents. She wanted to go away with Hutton for the weekend just after the audience realises she is unhappy and just before she said that phrase.

Maybe it's my interpretation but I thought materialism and can't buy happiness is the theme there. It's not like they had debts or anything and after all it was an excuse for Hutton to go see his mistress.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

You may be right - the line has a certain ambiguity.
There have been a lot of posters on this board loudly proclaiming Hutton and Susan were broke, but I didn't see anything to suggest or confirm that.
It's clear Susan was already disenchanted with both contemporary art and materialism at the beginning of the film. She assesses herself quite harshly in the conversation with her gallery assistant. Many of these noisy posters seem to think she's borderline evil for the decisions she made in her 20s, but I find her quite a sympathetic character - and it's clear Ford does so as well.
If dumping a spouse and getting an abortion qualifies as evil, the term has been devalued to meaninglessness.

[–] kamma-mason 8 years ago

Hutton comments that it pisses him off that they need to sell the paintings, Susan replies:

"Don't worry, I can fill the walls with some new LA Artists and people will think we're ahead of the curve instead of going broke"

[–] Anna_Korol 8 years ago

I think he didn't show up because she was right and he was weak.
The hero of his book couldn't deal with his revenge alone. Yes, he saw himself as a strong and stubborn man who is ready for struggle, but we can see that He actually needed a help from someone stronger (ill Bobby, i don't think that Bobby was "another Edward" because when they met Bobby suspected Edward at first. We usually know if we did smth or not, so if Bobby would be Edward's alter ego he would choose Edward's side from the start), Edward needed someone supporting (his wife never supported him during their short marriage). First of his enemies was already dead when the main character knew who he was. The second was killed by Bobby. The last was shot, but how? It was an accident because the hero didn't know how to use his weapon and he also got injured: first of all he is blind. Then he is dead. This blindness gives us a clue about Edward's state: he made his way till the final but he doesn't know what to do with it. And he can't see what's next. But his "weapon" - a book, made it's way to his ex-wifes heart, that's why she came there. He is dead in the same way as Susan "died" in his novel: he just went away leaving it all. He doesn't exist for her anymore.
i also liked 4, 5 and 8 theories)
as a revenge it would be very childish, i suppose. And i think that he already relieved his pain by writing this book and needs smth new in his life and writing. And if he was dying from cancer he could simply say it in a letter. I thought about suicide note but if it really was so he wouldn't wait untill she'll (if she will) decide to meet with him.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

I think he didn't show up because she was right and he was weak.

Before you dismiss Edward as weak, perhaps you should consider the symbolic meaning of Bobby's terminal cancer, and Tony's death in the novel. It's extremely doubtful Edward included those details for no good reason.

[–] Anna_Korol 8 years ago

well, symbols are not always strict. His wife was also dead in his novel and her murderers too. But in fact Susan wasn't raped or murdered - she rudely left him. In my opinion it was the death of their ralationship.
She made such a decision years ago and he must somehow live with it (seek revenge or forget, do smth), then he relieved his pain in the book and decided to end with all of this story. Smth like that :)
Death also means an end of anything and release.
It seems that by writing a death of the main character he wanted to say her "it was hard but now i am free" but when she started correspondence he became uncertain. He wanted to see her. But he also understood that what is ended must stay in the past and decided not to show at all. It's hard to deal with emotions sometimes and he was certainly a vulnerable man with deep feelings.
Bobby's cancer was very helpful: it made him fearless and stronger. Edward's pain also has impact on his way: it made him to write a powerful novel.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

Much of your Edward analysis is just projection - like: " . . he became uncertain . . But he also understood that what is ended must stay in the past and decided not to show at all. . . he was certainly a vulnerable man with deep feelings." The film doesn't show any of this.

Bobby's cancer was very helpful: it made him fearless and stronger.

Some people interpret Tony's death as 'death of an old self'. All very well - but Bobby is also proxy for Edward and dying, and in fact his cancer wasn't helpful at all - it rendered him weak and facilitated Ray's escape.
Bobby's identity as a second alter ego for Edward has been confirmed by the film-maker himself and the otherwise unnecessary detail of the estranged daughter. If Ford had wanted to suggest the novel's author was killing off his old self through Tony's demise, he would have left Bobby to soldier on as his new self. Instead, he's killing him off too - leaving death triumphant on the West Texas battlefield. Ignore all those points, and you might as well ignore the idea that events in the novel symbolize real events in Edward's life.

well, symbols are not always strict. His wife was also dead in his novel and her murderers too.

Exactly - but her abduction and death transparently symbolize a crucial event in Edward's life. Edward isn't a Texas sheriff with terminal cancer, hasn't been blinded with a crowbar and shot himself accidentally in the stomach with a gun after killing a rapist/murderer - but this stuff means something. And Edward's illness explains his absence at the restaurant far better than some farcical juvenile attempt at revenge by standing up his ex-wife for dinner - the person to whom he's dedicated his novel. This would be the meaningless act of a pathetic coward.

[–] Oldguy69 8 years ago

Some people interpret Tony's death as 'death of an old self'. All very well - but Bobby is also proxy for Edward and dying

If you assume that Edward has "moved on" it makes sense that both Bobby and Tony disappear. Tony was the broken down version of Edward while Bobby was the part of him that was fueled with anger and wanted to get even. They both represent feelings that Edward had towards it all but his broken heart is ok again and he no longer feels anger towards Susan, Hutton etc.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

If you assume that Edward has "moved on" it makes sense that both Bobby and Tony disappear.

That actually makes no sense to me. The Texas narrative closely follows the formula of a traditional myth, where a lost and impotent novice faces a dilemma, finds a mentor (tribal elder/spiritual master), is forged into a warrior, succeeds in his quest and is transformed into a person of power.
In these fables, sometimes the mentor dies, so the disciple can fully inherit his power - you'll find this idea clearly expressed even in lightweight fiction like Doctor Strange - but it's very unusual to have the disciple perish. If you can think of an example where both master and disciple die, I'd like to hear it.
People intuitively understand these storytelling rules because they're rooted in the culture. I suspect this transgression of tradition has resulted in a lot of confusion about the story's meaning - e.g. the 'revenge' theory. It also seems to have caused a lot of anger on this IMDB board - e.g. all the "what was this about?" complaints.
Ford had something specific in mind - and it wasn't some kind of pitiful no-show insult by Edward towards his ex-wife. If that was supposed to signify the hero's emancipation and 'moving on' - what a dick-less loser!

[–] Oldguy69 8 years ago

Ford had something specific in mind - and it wasn't some kind of pitiful no-show insult by Edward towards his ex-wife. If that was supposed to signify the hero's emancipation and 'moving on' - what a dick-less loser!

Moving on as in processed his grief, pain and anger. Stop with the re-ven-ge & no-show thing for just 5 minutes please, it's not even what I'm talking about haha.

Bobby and Edward are fictional characters made up in Edwards mind based on himself and his experiences. At the end of the fictional layer the both "disappear" and what's left is Edward's current self which we of course never see. My reading then is that Edward is different from either of these two fictional characters today which is why they both die. It's behind him today.

Thematically the idea of splitting one person into several others based on different aspects of his/her personality is very old. I'm not aware of the rules you're referring to let alone why NA should comply with these rules?

In Mulholland drive Betty & Rita are fictional characters made up in Diane's mind based on herself and her experiences. At the end of the dream they both disappear and what's left is Diane's current self. As we learn, Diane is not really like either of the two fictional characters either which is why both of the fictional characters disappear - they each represent something that's no longer there . You may disagree with this interpretation but it's probably one of the most solid/recognized ones out there.

Off topic - taken from slahfilm (you may not like this)

"I think it’s to signify that Edward just does not give a damn about Susan anymore. We have no idea if Edward knows about Susan’s unhappy life situation (if he does, then his revenge is all the more punishing). But he does likely know that his book Nocturnal Animals is a hit, and that that talent and brilliance is something Susan will be attracted to. So he dangles in front of her the opportunity to meet again and possibly rekindle old flames, only to allow her to come to the slow realization that he never intended to show up. Elie Wiesel once said, “The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference.” Thus, the film’s ending is a much more hurtful form of revenge than anything Edward could actively do to hurt Susan."

In an interview on Jeff Goldsmith’s Q&A podcast, writer/director Tom Ford affirms this interpretation

Come to think of it, that's actually on topic - all the old emotions are gone

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

At the end of the dream they both disappear and what's left is Diane's current self.

Mullholland Drive is an excellent case in point, although I don't believe Diane truly identifies with Rita's personality. She has re-made Camilla as a powerless, malleable version of Camilla.
But back to your point - Betty and Rita disappear, and Diane reappears - but Camilla never does! Why is that? Because, like Edward, she's dead.
It's somewhat similar in 'Lost Highway'. Fred Madison transforms into Pete Dayton. When Pete melts away, Fred reappears - he may be lost in delusion in his prison cell, but unlike Edward, he's still alive!
I'm very happy to dispense with the RE-VEN-GE nonsense, but the restaurant no-show is crucially important, because it informs us of Edward's fate - he is no more.

[–] Oldguy69 8 years ago

I'm very happy to dispense with the RE-VEN-GE nonsense, but the restaurant no-show is crucially important, because it informs us of Edward's fate - he is no more

Sorry, but please re-read my other post, I did an edit while you replied.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

Interesting - of course the quote is taken totally out of context. Where is the rest of the interview? At other times, Ford has said the opposite - that revenge has nothing to do with the no-show.
Needless to say, this idea of indifference is contradicted by Edward's actions. A writer doesn't demonstrate indifference to somebody by dedicating his first novel to that person, driving a thousand miles to hand-deliver the manuscript, dishonestly agreeing to a dinner meeting and then failing to show up. All he's demonstrating is small-minded petulance and rudeness.
If this is Ford's actual vision of his 'hero', a self-deluding milquetoast, still nursing a grudge over getting dumped 20 years previously, I'm not surprised I've always had certain reservations about the film.

PS - I listened to the entire interview, and your out-of-context quote is somewhat deceptive. Ford posed that scenario only as a possibility - it's certainly not his definitive interpretation.

[–] christmastiger-16003 8 years ago

I agree that it makes NO sense that Edward stood Susan up because he feels indifferent towards her. If he were truly indifferent he wouldn't have wrote a whole book about her, dedicated it to her, gave it to her, and agreed to meet up in the first place, he would have just moved on.

But I disagree that he didn't meet her because he was ill, just because the cop had cancer doesn't mean Edward does, there's nothing to imply that he was sick or dead. The idea that he didn't show up for those reasons seems like a way of trying to make the ending mean something more than it actually does.

I don't think there's a truly logical reason we can find from the movie as to why Edward went through all of that trouble and didn't show up, or at least real-life logical. In movie logic you could say "Edward somehow KNEW his book would be a hit (not sure how) and he could shove it in her face!" But that is some extreme lengths to go to for someone who is trying to give the impression that he's moved on.

Personally, this felt to me like a wish-fulfillment movie where the writer wants to imagine he's the guy who wrote SUCH a great novel it made his ex fall back in love with him, only so he could be like "Screw you!" and she'd be sooo devastated. He just didn't actually think through the logic behind it, because something like that doesn't often logically happen.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

Sure - believe what you like - it's a free world.
Maybe Edward took a nap before the meal and overslept. Perhaps he got a flat in a dead spot on La Brea. Maybe he got lucky when some starlet hit him up in his hotel bar. Perhaps he smoked some weed and couldn't be bothered. Maybe he showed up after Susan left the restaurant or Tom Ford ran out of film stock.
As far as I'm concerned, he had Bobby's cancer and ODed shooting up some fentanyl. No question about it - not a shadow of doubt. It's all there in the film. Case closed. Funeral is on 02/20/2017

[–] zcarface86 8 years ago

I found your logic to be flawed. The OP mentioned that Edward personally delivered his manuscript as we are shown in the scene after Susan's car entered her house it was followed by a Mercedes same as described vividly in Edward's book. That means Edward actually travelled cross-country from Texas to LA for his business trip. If he is using Fentanyl it will likely to induce hallucination as the drug is highly potent than morphine. It causes extreme sleepines. It will be impossible for him to make that trip to LA under influence of Fentanyl to operate a vehicle. Also it's illegal too.

Hence if he made it to LA to personally deliver the manuscript that means he can drive in long hours without incident. That means he is not taking Fentanyl. If he didn't take Fentanyl that means he didn't have cancer. Period.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

You can keep your logic. It doesn't sound like you have any personal experience of the current opiate epidemic raging across the country - I do. People drive under the influence of these drugs whether it's legal or not.
The buyers frequently don't know what they're purchasing on the street. Fentanyl often gets mixed in with heroin because it's cheap and powerful - and this leads to accidental deaths. Fentanyl is so powerful that a tiny amount can kill by being absorbed through the skin.

[–] zcarface86 8 years ago

You still haven't explain how he can still managed to drive all the way to LA for a trip that last 18 hours. Even if he took Fentanyl he will be hallucinating and bound to be involved in an accident or spotted by the police for driving incompetently. But he still managed to arrived to LA safe and sound, didn't he?

Let me break it down for you like an 8 year old.

If Edward has cancer + drive to LA + took Fentanyl = Accident fail to arrive to LA

Edward didn't have cancer + drive to LA + didn't take Fentanyl = safe and sound as seen in the scene after Susan entered her home. This is evident in the movie. And your version is not seen in the movie. Your theory is entirely shrouded with a cloud of doubt and not without a shadow of a doubt at alllll.

Understand?

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

As I wrote previously, it's clear you really have no idea what you're babbling about.

[–] zcarface86 8 years ago

Can't argue with facts resort to derailing my argument.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

You're deluding yourself your uninformed opinions are facts. They're not - they're just alternative facts. Do you remember what they are?

[–] zcarface86 8 years ago

Edward drove to LA is a fact if not why would they insert that scene. What purpose does it serve than to show that Edward is fine and healthy. Why would they make Tony's car and Edward's car exactly the same. It's not just coincidental that it's the same.

Edward has cancer is speculation and until it is proven in the movie that showed Edward died from cancer and literally showed he accidentally injected himself with Fentanyl it will continue to be speculation. And my fact have dispel that speculation and obliterated it.

How's that for a fact?

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

Not a fact - just an alternative fact - aka a lie

[–] zcarface86 8 years ago

Alternative fact is evidence nonetheless that showed the event actually occurred. You are abusing the phrase and twist it around like it's a rhetoric or something. It's a legal phrase to put forth a new evidence to the case to dismiss previous judgment as faulty and to prove to the contrary that it's not the case. But your Edward cancer theory remains as speculation until it's actually proven in the movie. Not a fact.

[–] Anna_Korol 8 years ago

Oldguy69, This is exactly what i felt about this movie

[–] Anna_Korol 8 years ago

Yes, you're right about the role of traditional myth

[–] Anna_Korol 8 years ago

Some people interpret Tony's death as 'death of an old self

i thought that death of his main hero was a death of his old self.

And Edward's illness explains his absence at the restaurant far better than some farcical juvenile attempt at revenge by standing up his ex-wife for dinner - the person to whom he's dedicated his novel.

Much of your Edward analysis is just projection - like: " . . he became uncertain . . But he also understood that what is ended must stay in the past and decided not to show at all. . . he was certainly a vulnerable man with deep feelings." The film doesn't show any of this.

of cause this wasn' an act of revenge but it doesn't mean that he is really dead. How many refused dates can be explained by a death of a man, really? Most of the time the reason is simple: someone changed his mind and didn't have enough courage or will to say about it. Edward couldn't see what's on the mind of his ex-wife, he only knew that she became a main source of pain in his life before (that's what his book is about) and he already overcame it (the book is over). But if he didn't had any remaining feelings he wouldn't send her this book and wouldn't agree to meet with Susan. It's a common thing in our world: she was his first love, his only wife. People often remember such things even if they begin a new life. But our hero didn't start a new life. He was completely destroyed. Remember the dialogue between Susan and her colleague when she told a story of her relationship (I married... He is still lonely... Well, she's a lonely person, too but that's another part of the story). This is not smth we can easy forget about. The film showed us who was Edward in the eyes of Susan's mother, Susan and Edward himself. Only a truly hurt person with deep feelings would imagine the abortion and divorse as an act of violent death with rape and write such a book about it. And his hero really cared if Bobby has anyone in his life. By the way, Tom Ford himself called Edward "vulnerable".
That's what i liked in this movie: we have a food for thought

Edward isn't a Texas sheriff with terminal cancer, hasn't been blinded with a crowbar and shot himself accidentally in the stomach with a gun after killing a rapist/murderer - but this stuff means something.

By the way what is cancer? This illness is eating you from the inside. Just like Edward was eating himself because of letting Susan go.
The state of blindness has a huge range of meanings: being not aware of smth, refusal to see the truth (or running away from it), naivite and even justice is blind, so we have lot to think about.

[–] lindewell 8 years ago

I think the policeman had cancer because it would explain how this guy would be willing to do justice himself although he's been arresting criminals for decades, it was for sake of logic. Also you can also imagine it's because there's no justice in this world.
I think Edward didn't show up because she killed him in a certain way, how did she expect a dead guy to show up at a rendezvous? He finally had his revenge but he didn't have to do anything. It was only a matter of time before she would regret her choices and live with it the rest of her life.

[–] ScarfaceIMDb 8 years ago

I, for myself, don't think it's a revenege story. I think the story is more about coming to a conclusion and moving on.
I've interpreted Edwards writing of the book as coming to terms with the things Susan did to him. And by sending her the novel, he wanted to express how she hurted him and let his pain go.
Remember Tony asking Ray to tell him, what he did to his family and what they were feeling? These are the things he wanted Susan to know.

Between the murder of Tony's family (aka Edwards divorce and the abortion) and the final confrontation with Ray, some amount of time had passed. In this time Tony probably couldn't stop thinking about Ray and about his loss - like Edward was probably haunted by Susan in the years after the divorce.
Edward's pain was eating him off and he was starting to get revenge thoughts (symbolized by Bobby, his cancer and his thoughts about justice).
In the night of the confrontation, after Ray fled, Bobby heads to the highway and Tony went to Ray's trailer (the two alter egos now symbolizing the crossroad at which Edward stood).
Then Tony found Ray and Bobby was never seen again. Meaning Edward's old self won and his anger and revenge thoughts disappear - in the process of writing the book.
Finally, Tony kills Ray and dies: Edward left the past behind and let the haunting image of Susan go, while sacrificing his old self. He moved on.

After he finished the book, he sends it to Susan to let her know how bad she hurted him, but also that he got over her. While reading the book Susan could really feel the pain she caused, which started a catharsis in her: The day after an intense reading session, she keeps the employee she wanted to get fired, because she don't wanted to hurt her easily.
However she didn't realized yet that Edward got over her. So she asks to meet him.
Only after she was rejected in the last scene, she accepted the fact that Edward moved on.

Now I'm not quite sure, why Edward accepted and then rejected her. Maybe he just wanted to know how she is doing (she was a big part in his life and most of the bad feelings disappeared). But then he thought that seeing her and spending an evening together could risk the peace he made with the past. So he got weak and rejected here without saying a word.

[–] tigerfish50 8 years ago

I agree with you about the Revenge idea being not credible.
OTOH it's a bit weird having an invisible protagonist acting so ambivalent at the end, don't you think? I want to meet her again . . . well no, maybe I won't.
I think there's more to it than that. As others have also concluded, Bobby's cancer is probably Edward's. This might well have something to do with the no-show.