|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Apr 20, 2020 21:57:32 GMT
I mostly agree with this, but I don't read the very last scene as Freddie having tamed his urges just because this is the only time we see him having sex in the film - if anything it indicates that his impulses haven't been quelled (ha). That final shot of him next to the sand woman is a callback to the beginning of the film when we see him in almost the exact same position... so to me the ending suggests that he's come full circle and is back where he started, which makes his character arc that much sadder. It reaffirms that the sense of order and discipline that Dodd offered to Freddie was illusory and he will always be adrift. I used to view it that way, but I feel like Anderson adds a note of hopefulness in those final moments, because of the significance of Freddie actually achieving what he had pursued for the entirety of the film's runtime. Why else would we have that sex scene? For me, the scene has less to do with the act of having sex, but more to do with his verbal interaction with the woman. I think the scene benefits greatly from the return of "Overtones" score cue. In light of the cue’s previous appearances (like during the first processing session), its use here comes across to me as deliberately ironic. Rather than signal Freddie’s commitment to The Cause and his rise to the ideal that Dodd represents (its function in earlier scenes), the cue instead marks Freddie’s withdrawal from Dodd’s world, which had served as a place of order. At the conclusion of the film, Freddie is shown jokingly asking the woman questions that Dodd had asked him during his first processing session. “Overtones” had accompanied this earlier event, seemingly marking an important step in Freddie’s search for meaningful structure, but the cue’s appearance in the last scene sees Freddie ridding the meaning of Dodd’s words by playfully misusing them on the woman. The “processing” administered by Freddie does not serve the same disciplinary function as it did with Dodd, and therefore does not produce the same psychological effect. The woman does not know the significance of the exercise, and it can no longer serve as a mechanism of order for Freddie. Divorced from Dodd’s practice, the exercise has lost its power and meaning, again reinforcing the idea of Dodd's promise of order as illusory.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 20, 2020 22:01:02 GMT
I mostly agree with this, but I don't read the very last scene as Freddie having tamed his urges just because this is the only time we see him having sex in the film - if anything it indicates that his impulses haven't been quelled (ha). That final shot of him next to the sand woman is a callback to the beginning of the film when we see him in almost the exact same position... so to me the ending suggests that he's come full circle and is back where he started, which makes his character arc that much sadder. It reaffirms that the sense of order and discipline that Dodd offered to Freddie was illusory and he will always be adrift. I used to view it that way, but I feel like Anderson adds a note of hopefulness in those final moments, because of the significance of Freddie actually achieving what he had pursued for the entirety of the film's runtime. Why else would we have that sex scene?See, I don't know but isn't that somewhat a failure of that ending though - we're talking about all the movies that nail the ending and it's a bit of a puzzler as to what the filmmaker's intent is. To me I took it like Cake did and that's why the order of the scenes is a writing mistake to me because the key person to him is Doris - not Dodd - and the scene at the very end connects to her - by having their scene immediately before it, it almost plays like a weird detour (in retrospect, it's a great scene in and of itself).
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 20, 2020 22:22:37 GMT
I used to view it that way, but I feel like Anderson adds a note of hopefulness in those final moments, because of the significance of Freddie actually achieving what he had pursued for the entirety of the film's runtime. Why else would we have that sex scene?See, I don't know but isn't that somewhat a failure of that ending though - we're talking about all the movies that nail the ending and it's a bit of a puzzler as to what the filmmaker's intent is. To me I took it like Cake did and that's why the order of the scenes is a writing mistake to me because the key person to him is Doris - not Dodd - and the scene at the very end connects to her - by having their scene immediately before it, it almost plays like a weird detour (in retrospect, it's a great scene in and of itself). It's not a failure if the artist made it open to interpretation. Most filmmakers would spell it out, but Anderson leaves it open for discussion and debate. I disagree entirely about Doris, for example, because at no point does Anderson ever frame her as anything more than a romanticized image in Freddie's mind, that of "the girl he left behind." But we never see her outside of those fond reminiscences, and it is unclear if what Freddie remembers is indeed what happened. That dovetails into the themes of Dodd's entire ethos of the Cause, that we "imagine" what happened rather than "recall." Freddie's involvement in the Cause is what spurs Dodd to shift his viewpoint (and, ultimately, prove Val right that his father is indeed making it up as he goes along). Freddie imagined a relationship with Doris that might not have been true. Indeed, Mrs. Solstad seems to treat Freddie with wariness; with Freddie's family history, would a well-to-do family as the Solstad seem to be be thrilled that the son of a dead drunk and a woman in an asylum was courting their (barely legal for the time) daughter? Again, Anderson doesn't spell it out, but there's oodles of subtext to explore the idea that Freddie's memories, which are what he's clung to this whole time (or purported to, at any rate), are manufactured. This ties into the brilliance of The Master. Very few filmmakers can hope to approach the depths this movie explores in their entire catalogue. PTA did it in one fucking movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 20, 2020 22:54:30 GMT
See, I don't know but isn't that somewhat a failure of that ending though - we're talking about all the movies that nail the ending and it's a bit of a puzzler as to what the filmmaker's intent is. To me I took it like Cake did and that's why the order of the scenes is a writing mistake to me because the key person to him is Doris - not Dodd - and the scene at the very end connects to her - by having their scene immediately before it, it almost plays like a weird detour (in retrospect, it's a great scene in and of itself). It's not a failure if the artist made it open to interpretation. Most filmmakers would spell it out, but Anderson leaves it open for discussion and debate. I disagree entirely about Doris, for example, because at no point does Anderson ever frame her as anything more than a romanticized image in Freddie's mind, that of "the girl he left behind." But we never see her outside of those fond reminiscences, and it is unclear if what Freddie remembers is indeed what happened. That dovetails into the themes of Dodd's entire ethos of the Cause, that we "imagine" what happened rather than "recall." Freddie's involvement in the Cause is what spurs Dodd to shift his viewpoint (and, ultimately, prove Val right that his father is indeed making it up as he goes along). Freddie imagined a relationship with Doris that might not have been true. Indeed, Mrs. Solstad seems to treat Freddie with wariness; with Freddie's family history, would a well-to-do family as the Solstad seem to be be thrilled that the son of a dead drunk and a woman in an asylum was courting their (barely legal for the time) daughter? Again, Anderson doesn't spell it out, but there's oodles of subtext to explore the idea that Freddie's memories, which are what he's clung to this whole time (or purported to, at any rate), are manufactured. This ties into the brilliance of The Master. Very few filmmakers can hope to approach the depths this movie explores in their entire catalogue. PTA did it in one fucking movie. Great post Side note - have ya seen Mysteries of Lisbon? I think you would dig it
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 20, 2020 22:55:28 GMT
It's not a failure if the artist made it open to interpretation. Most filmmakers would spell it out, but Anderson leaves it open for discussion and debate. I disagree entirely about Doris, for example, because at no point does Anderson ever frame her as anything more than a romanticized image in Freddie's mind, that of "the girl he left behind." But we never see her outside of those fond reminiscences, and it is unclear if what Freddie remembers is indeed what happened. That dovetails into the themes of Dodd's entire ethos of the Cause, that we "imagine" what happened rather than "recall." Freddie's involvement in the Cause is what spurs Dodd to shift his viewpoint (and, ultimately, prove Val right that his father is indeed making it up as he goes along). Freddie imagined a relationship with Doris that might not have been true. Indeed, Mrs. Solstad seems to treat Freddie with wariness; with Freddie's family history, would a well-to-do family as the Solstad seem to be be thrilled that the son of a dead drunk and a woman in an asylum was courting their (barely legal for the time) daughter? Again, Anderson doesn't spell it out, but there's oodles of subtext to explore the idea that Freddie's memories, which are what he's clung to this whole time (or purported to, at any rate), are manufactured. This ties into the brilliance of The Master. Very few filmmakers can hope to approach the depths this movie explores in their entire catalogue. PTA did it in one fucking movie. Great post Side note - have ya seen Mysteries of Lisbon? I think you would dig it I have, and I'm a fan.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 21, 2020 7:38:26 GMT
Se7en (1995) - - We covered great directors with great endings (Chabrol) and great directors who struggle with it too - PTA most notably for me as a writer especially - but David Fincher is hit or miss though when he hits people talk about his endings almost first thing in the movie (The Social Network, Zodiac) and unlike PTA he wrote none of those which maybe solves one problem. That was certainly the case here and this is another movie with a screenplay so ingenious it could "end" either way still make sense and still fulfill the movies conceit. Also is this the only scene where it's not raining..........maybe just feels that way - it also matters how a director sets mood and Fincher when he's on his game is great at contrasting his movies overall tone with his ending tone.....
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 22, 2020 12:17:09 GMT
The Silence Of The Lambs (1991) - It's hard to find a more "complete" movie than this one - and even though it doesn't make my personal top 10 of the 90s - for American films it probably would and you could conceivably rank it near the top for all American movies since 1991 even - that's how many boxes this checks off. It's ending simultaneously balances the heroine "winning" (over her cynical boss' expectations) and that ties directly into the same impulse the audience feels in Hannibal Lector also "winning" - fnck Starling's boss and fnck those less brilliant than Lecter. One of the few Hollywood blockbusters that makes a convincing case for the culture of the negative - rooting for an obvious bad guy, while at the same time rooting for good too - a contradiction right down to his sick, bad joke at the end which is a great last scene.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Apr 22, 2020 12:49:36 GMT
Today's serving: The Thin Red Line.
I've seen this movie dozens of times over the years, watch it once or twice a year at minimum, and I've read the source novel and script a couple of times apiece, so I probably know more about the background of this movie and which character is which than most (one of the main complaints the film got is how interchangeable everyone is in it, which plays into the film's "one big soul" ethos). So I can appreciate, for instance, that Private Train (the fellow talking to Arie Verveen's Dale at the start of this scene), who was afraid that he would die at the start of the film, and whose ultimate ambition in life was buying an automobile when he got out of the war, has discovered a new outlook on life and that war has changed him intrinsically. It is Train who narrates much of the film's philosophical musings in voiceover, including the final one we hear over this scene (I've heard many ascribe these monologues to Jim Caviezel's Witt, who indeed does have one or two speckled throughout the movie, but most of the more "Malick-y" ones are John Dee Smith as Train).
I find it equally interesting that Train is talking to Dale, who we saw earlier in the film exhibiting the savagery of war more than anyone else on the American side (Dale is the G.I. who was plucking gold teeth out of Japanese dead and POWs). Dale says nothing while Train goes on and on, but it's easy to see the trauma of the war weighing on his soul as well, and it's likely that if both men are able to survive till the end of the war, Train will likely be able to move on and bear the burden more than Dale, who has likely surrendered his slice of paradise along with his humanity and will be haunted forever by his actions.
And then you have Doll (Dash Mihok) leaning on the deckrail, just watching the wake of the boat as they leave Guadalcanal, looking at the rock for which countless died, which seems a tropical paradise for the layman but for every man on that boat, it will be a lush green hell that will forever linger in their souls.
But after Train's final monologue fades away, we get another look at Guadalcanal. Two natives paddling an outrigger canoe down a river. Two parrots clucking on a branch. And a stark coconut shoot standing on the beach, reminiscent of the rifle sticking up from a certain character's grave at the end of the film.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,155
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by Nikan on Apr 22, 2020 13:34:40 GMT
I knew well enough that Von Sternberg was a director with style but the ending of MOROCCO... was something else.
|
|
|
Post by pessimusreincarnated on Apr 22, 2020 14:38:56 GMT
Trainspotting's ending always instantly comes to mind when I think of great movie endings. It's just a perfect, bittersweet encapsulation of the film's themes. We don't know if Renton will use the money he stole to better his life, it might just be another act bore out of desperation and depravity on his part. But damned if the movie doesn't give us hope for him as he fades out the frame with "Born Slippy" playing majestically in the background, grinning from ear-to-ear.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 23, 2020 16:56:38 GMT
Make Way For Tomorrow (1937) -
Was there ever an ending where the "bad guy" won before The Thomas Crown Affair in the US? Serious question .....any? I don't think so - could be wrong - but whatever that was shouldn't it be flagged as a really really important thing because that's a thing in US culture? Of course it should....
Similarly, this complex, tear-jerker ending, presented as "the lie told to us as if it was true when we know it is not" is not only reflective of life but it's specifically American. That's implicit in US culture so when Tokyo Story no less lifts from the earlier American film we should probably give more credit to the American film than we do.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 23, 2020 22:16:54 GMT
Well, it's been a few days since I've posted and I can't let Pacinoyes have all the fun...
My pick for the day -- one of the biggest ones (for me at least) that I don't think has been talked about at all yet -- the ending of Lost in Translation.
So iconic that you know the ending even if you've never seen the film, and one that's easy to parody/mock too. But that doesn't take away from its brilliance at all, at least not to me. This ending is well-known for the much-discussed ambiguity at the center of it -- "what did he whisper in her ear?" *gasp* -- but for me the answer to that question has never mattered and I don't see it as an ambiguous ending at all. It's not what he whispers that matters but the act -- and not just the act of whispering this one last gentle, personal message to Charlotte, but the intimacy of the entire encounter, that their goodbye at the hotel was cold and "off" and that Bob sees her while on his way to the airport and immediately has the car stopped and flags her down in a fleeting, spontaneous moment of pure romanticism for the warm and loving goodbye we all know the deserve. It's just impossibly beautiful and if you've never wanted to experience some version of this scene in your real-life ... well fuck you and you have no soul.
This is an ending that practically defines "bittersweet," it's touching and then heartbreaking, the act of leaving behind the once-in-a-lifetime love while knowing that we must. And it leads into the impeccable "Just Like Honey" needle drop ... one of the best needle drops ever without a doubt (could be a thread on its own but I've already discussed so many of them here, lol) ... the perfect music for sitting in the back of the car, gazing out the window at this special place you're leaving behind, full of despondency and longing and maybe hope. Beautiful mirror to the film's opening, and one of those "perfect" endings that cements what you've just watched as a masterpiece:
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 24, 2020 19:08:18 GMT
Sunset Boulevard (1950) -If you haven't seen it stop reading this board and maybe go see it Not only is the opening daring narration device a classic but the plot is a revisionist Hollywood story a full 20 years before revisionism was in vogue and the ending is a corker too: You expect a twist and instead it rather ends logically, predictably, horribly and ratchets up the madness, sadness, in a way campy humor (though it doesn't play that up) and no twist at all: fade to black, the end is the beginning is the end.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2020 19:53:40 GMT
Unforgettable...
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,155
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by Nikan on Apr 24, 2020 21:39:16 GMT
This ending is well-known for the much-discussed ambiguity at the center of it -- "what did he whisper in her ear?" *gasp* -- but for me the answer to that question has never mattered and I don't see it as an ambiguous ending at all. I never got people's obsession with this either - specially when it overshadows the general beauty of the ending which you described in the following ... somehow it misses the point more than Inception's "Is he Dreaming or not?!" debate lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2020 18:11:21 GMT
To me, the ending of Now, Voyager is what cinema dreams are made of. The bit with the cigarettes was improvised by Davis and Henreid. Pure magic.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 25, 2020 19:10:13 GMT
Two pacinoyes 60s faves often that I watch in double feature together: The Swimmer (1968) and the even better Seconds (1966).
Two movies that perfected the "wait, I have to watch this again right now to see if that even makes sense!" ending. Both movies start and end like gangbusters and everything fits in their narrative even though each has a diverting (maybe meandering even) middle section that makes you think maybe it doesn't "really" work. This ending in both is "the elongated Twilight Zone-ish" ending and the reason it works so well here is it's not just a "twist": Each ending suggested something rotten to the core of the American Dream in the "happy" 1950s and in our movies too - and both starred leading men of those glory days yet different now: older, sadder, more dissatisfied. Right around the corner were the movies of the 70s.....the deeper tangle of Vietnam, Kent State, Altamont, assassinations of a Kennedy and King...........and Watergate. Don't Blink:
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 25, 2020 23:01:57 GMT
Another 2010s pick: Meek's Cutoff -- become one of my favorites of the decade after a rewatch, and gets better and better every day that I think about it.
(Spoilers below ... don't read if you haven't watched the film and please watch this film.)
A simple and complex ending simultaneously -- it should almost be triumphant but it has a lingering, haunting power to it too. The culmination of Meek's own crisis of identity that has unfurled throughout the film, as we see the crisis of the white male identity of the American pioneer crumble and succumb to forces that are not white and not male. In this ending Meek gives up his power to those other forces but also it feels hopeless ... as if it's too late, the damage is done and we've already consigned ourselves to our own doom.
Some of my favorite final lines to any film ever: "We're all just playing our parts now. This was written long before we got here. I am at your command." -- it resonates with a haunting power, as if we are not creating our own stories but acting out one that already exists. The final shot just evokes a pure sense of desolation -- these characters started lost and in the middle of nowhere and they still are -- for the settlement of a country, founded upon genocide and ruthless expansionism, is not the glorious act we've been deceived to believe...
This video puts the ending after a clip from earlier in the film to show the key contrast:
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 29, 2020 20:20:57 GMT
Here's another recent one ... and a controversial one (yaaaaay) ... the ending of First Reformed. A shocking ending on first viewing, and maybe even after. It's such a confounding note to leave your audience on, and also somehow a perfect one. There are so many interpretations subscribed to it that are interesting to read into I guess, but maybe because I'm a sucker for (well-done!) ambiguity, but I've never felt a need to "interpret" it on a literal level. It's the image that matters, and it's the image we see of the broken embodiment of despair making a last desperate reach for this visage of hope, holding onto it as the camera floats around them, the camera itself finally freed in its movement in these final moments ... perhaps like the character himself?? ... where it's "real" or not shouldn't matter because the meaning should hardly change anyway. It's a bold, risky ending (don't see many of those these days) that's not afraid to alienate half or more of its audience and isn't afraid to tell you to think about it after or offer easy answers which is exactly what can be said about the entire film, hence why this is the perfect way to end it. One of the most unforgettable final images in a film, certainly of recent years I'd say...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2020 20:33:41 GMT
The ending of Salo delivers a final, perfect blow - the morbid indifference of the ones on the sidelines, knowing all of this is unfolding. "The banality of evil" has been used to describe that scene many times, and it's really fitting. The guards buying into the attempts at absolute objectification/dehumanization of the tortured to the extent that they don't even remark on what they know's been happening is an incredible way to end this great(est?) political masterpiece. Probably the most disturbing ending in all of film.
|
|
|
Post by DeepArcher on Apr 30, 2020 4:52:58 GMT
I mean, this is a suuuuuper obvious one ... but a super obvious one that (I think) hasn't been mentioned yet. The ending of There Will Be Blood. There was a long time when I considered this to be my favorite scene in all of cinema ... and while I wouldn't say that anymore, I still think it's absolutely flawless. Everything about it is perfect: the set-up, pacing, staging, the acting (obviously), even down to the set decoration, it's almost overwhelming how flawless the craft is here, while at the same time not feeling overly-calculated either (a fine line that the entire film walks pretty miraculously). It's the culmination of Day-Lewis's masterful performance into a cacophonous, chaotic climax that is impossible to look away from, delivering one of the most towering moments of acting in cinema history. But the performance and quotability of this scene that has made it one of the most iconic moments of 21st century cinema are so well-known, so I won't focus too much on that... As more time has passed and the more I've watched this movie over and over again over the years, the more its brilliance is revealed to me, especially with how perfectly it bookends the film. Daniel starts the film in a dark underground, laboriously swinging his pickaxe, menacingly emerging covered in the dirt that is evidence of his labor -- literally, the Devil emerging from Hell. After spending time on Earth for over two hours, stealing from it and corrupting it, the Devil returns underground, though this time it is a dungeon of his own creation, the product of his material wealth -- and furthermore, the site of a competition, an extension of sorts of the capitalistic competition that built his palace in the first place. We watch as a naive priest enters this Hell and awakens the Devil, who proceeds to deceive the priest into renouncing his faith, before totally devouring him, swinging a bowling pin like he swung that pickaxe. And with that, the Devil's work is finished...
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Apr 30, 2020 5:38:39 GMT
I mean, this is a suuuuuper obvious one ... but a super obvious one that (I think) hasn't been mentioned yet. The ending of There Will Be Blood. There was a long time when I considered this to be my favorite scene in all of cinema ... and while I wouldn't say that anymore, I still think it's absolutely flawless. Everything about it is perfect: the set-up, pacing, staging, the acting (obviously), even down to the set decoration, it's almost overwhelming how flawless the craft is here, while at the same time not feeling overly-calculated either (a fine line that the entire film walks pretty miraculously). It's the culmination of Day-Lewis's masterful performance into a cacophonous, chaotic climax that is impossible to look away from, delivering one of the most towering moments of acting in cinema history. But the performance and quotability of this scene that has made it one of the most iconic moments of 21st century cinema are so well-known, so I won't focus too much on that... As more time has passed and the more I've watched this movie over and over again over the years, the more its brilliance is revealed to me, especially with how perfectly it bookends the film. Daniel starts the film in a dark underground, laboriously swinging his pickaxe, menacingly emerging covered in the dirt that is evidence of his labor -- literally, the Devil emerging from Hell. After spending time on Earth for over two hours, stealing from it and corrupting it, the Devil returns underground, though this time it is a dungeon of his own creation, the product of his material wealth -- and furthermore, the site of a competition, an extension of sorts of the capitalistic competition that built his palace in the first place. We watch as a naive priest enters this Hell and awakens the Devil, who proceeds to deceive the priest into renouncing his faith, before totally devouring him, swinging a bowling pin like he swung that pickaxe. And with that, the Devil's work is finished... Posts like this make me wish I was 2 things: a) a better writer and b) just plainly more intelligent.
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,155
Likes: 1,560
|
Post by Nikan on Apr 30, 2020 10:04:19 GMT
Eternal.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 30, 2020 10:32:42 GMT
If I was to pick the ONE best ending of all time - well I wouldn't do that - but if I had to it would be Eyes Without A Face (1960) - if you haven't seen it, stop reading! *********************************************************************************************************** No movie does the predictable ending, as unpredictably and by showing you not telling you. You can literally drive yourself insane with layering meaning onto it - and the ending raises this film stature - without this ending it's a good little movie. With it, it becomes an all-time great one. It's a "Frankenstein" plot but the changes deepen it and spin it into thrilling new thematic ground. The Dr. here is actually far worse - in what he does to the still living - his victims and his own "creation" (an even deeper meaning of the "father/creator" than Frankenstein). The ending scene (actually several scenes) are composed of elements you saw before - this ending "freedom" would not quite work with a man - in any way, not just instead of her but in addition to her. It is quite specifically about what face a female sees in a mirror or when others gaze upon her. The "seeing" theme is endlessly played out - whether the Dr. sees the evil in himself and what is the connection between seeing and feeling anyway? This gets dazzlingly complex in the ending shot below - just before this shot the Dr.'s assistant "cries" when stabbed (we see the tear), the Dr. dies with his glasses on yet can not understand what he "sees" as he's attacked by dogs. But the last shot wouldn't really work with a dog who merely walks with her- and the dogs seen just before are specifically and brilliantly not in the last shot at all. The final image of the birds floating through the air, unbound and limitless and the dove with her on her hand leading her and led by her - each others eyes in effect - while she approaches a split tree which symbolizes her two "halves"- are her only accompaniment - in the most poetic images you can imagine. ..........and all of it.........is entirely wordless.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Apr 30, 2020 14:53:52 GMT
Earlier today I posted my favorite film ending ever - Eyes Without A Face (1960) - the French film that ends with no dialogue at all for an extended resolution. But the very same year in the same country another great ending where the key word - in the US at least - has been fought, argued over and debated for 60 years now - Jean Luc Godard's Breathless (1960).
The key word translated here as "louse" could be taken several ways - say as "you make me want to puke" or "you disgust me" and some people will say the whole effect of that ending depends on the English translation and framing of that word.......but in France it works in its own language so does the translation really matter?
Never again would Godard's camera be as light and purposefully spry as it is here - all surging close-ups and then lingering on faces, eyes, and fingers and and of course.........on words....
|
|