Open to interpretation vs. Incoherent mess
#1
DVD Talk Special Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Future World
Posts: 1,048
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open to interpretation vs. Incoherent mess
I had a discussion with someone about movie endings that are "open to interpretation". I think a lot of movies that are "open to interpretation" are just poorly executed endings by the director/writer.
So, what do you think? Any movies you would argue the end is open to interpretation? Or others that are just poorly executed?
Hopefully my thread does not fall into the open to interpretation or incoherent mess category.
So, what do you think? Any movies you would argue the end is open to interpretation? Or others that are just poorly executed?
Hopefully my thread does not fall into the open to interpretation or incoherent mess category.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Rider: the first example that comes to my mind for an "open to interpretation" ending, mostly revolving around one enigmatic line that Peter Fonda says near the end:
Do you think the ending of Mulholland Dr. is a jumbled mess? Because I find that one very well crafted by Lynch.
Spoiler:
Do you think the ending of Mulholland Dr. is a jumbled mess? Because I find that one very well crafted by Lynch.
#3
DVD Talk Legend
My personal favorite film of all time has an ending that can be viewed as "open to interpretation" - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Some people don't see it that way, but to me:
Two more like this, and two more of my favorite films, is Lost In Translation and Memento.
I can't think of any like this that I'd say is an "incoherent mess" off the top of my head, but I know that there's a ton of em.
Spoiler:
Two more like this, and two more of my favorite films, is Lost In Translation and Memento.
I can't think of any like this that I'd say is an "incoherent mess" off the top of my head, but I know that there's a ton of em.
#4
One recent example I can think of is Children of Men. That was certainly not an incoherent mess. I don't believe there are many movies that are an incoherent mess, aside from Donnie Darko of course.
#5
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
I didn't find anything incoherent in Donnie Darko, and I was one of the few people who saw it with no preconceptions, in its initial theatrical run. It was building toward that ending and earned the right to present it as so.
Same thing with David Lynch's Inland Empire. If the work is done well enough and the filmmakers are able to draw you in, no matter how paper thin the narrative, how defiantly ambiguous, how ultimately disjointed, or how expressive, the ending can fit within the themes, the style, the rhythm, of what precedes it.
One of my favorite films, by Olivier Assayas, essentially collapses upon itself at the end. Irma Vep ends with a montage that can be placed within the narrative, but also can represent the director's own expression, or can be viewed as excessive, but in all cases, it ends with a bang. And is quite fitting... again, because of what came before.
The worst, incoherent endings come from bad, incoherent films. Not just 'art' films but from the mainstream as well. I find Michael Bay films a mess, and definitely NOT open to interpretation (because everything is so overstated). And all, all of the endings I've seen of his piss me off with their transparent grandstanding. So much in fact, that I find his excess fascinating, even when I know exactly what is coming.
Same thing with David Lynch's Inland Empire. If the work is done well enough and the filmmakers are able to draw you in, no matter how paper thin the narrative, how defiantly ambiguous, how ultimately disjointed, or how expressive, the ending can fit within the themes, the style, the rhythm, of what precedes it.
One of my favorite films, by Olivier Assayas, essentially collapses upon itself at the end. Irma Vep ends with a montage that can be placed within the narrative, but also can represent the director's own expression, or can be viewed as excessive, but in all cases, it ends with a bang. And is quite fitting... again, because of what came before.
The worst, incoherent endings come from bad, incoherent films. Not just 'art' films but from the mainstream as well. I find Michael Bay films a mess, and definitely NOT open to interpretation (because everything is so overstated). And all, all of the endings I've seen of his piss me off with their transparent grandstanding. So much in fact, that I find his excess fascinating, even when I know exactly what is coming.
#7
DVD Talk Hero
Lynch films make sense on a few levels, so those fit in open to interpretation (Mulholland Drive was especially well crafted in a more obvious way). Another movie that was somewhat open to interpretation, imho, was Oldboy.
When I think incoherant messes, I think things like the Stepford Wives remake where they constantly switch between microchips and full on robots. Darko didn't strike me as particularly incoherant.
When I think incoherant messes, I think things like the Stepford Wives remake where they constantly switch between microchips and full on robots. Darko didn't strike me as particularly incoherant.
#8
DVD Talk Hero
I have found that most people that label films, particularly "art" films, as "incoherent messes" tend to be unimaginative folks, with zero background in art appreciation. These are the people that insist that movies are simply "entertainment", and cannot fathom actually having to exercise some independent thought in a mere movie.
I wish that everyone who loves movies would take one or two college level film courses. There is so much more going on in so many films that flies right over the head of Joe Six Pack, just because they don't have the tools to recognize the language.
I wish that everyone who loves movies would take one or two college level film courses. There is so much more going on in so many films that flies right over the head of Joe Six Pack, just because they don't have the tools to recognize the language.
#9
IMO, Donnie Darko is an incoherent mess because of the way time travel is portrayed in the film. I watched the film and enjoyed but then when I started thinking about it I almost had a migraine. It's terribly incoherent.
#10
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Numanoid
I have found that most people that label films, particularly "art" films, as "incoherent messes" tend to be unimaginative folks, with zero background in art appreciation. These are the people that insist that movies are simply "entertainment", and cannot fathom actually having to exercise some independent thought in a mere movie.
I wish that everyone who loves movies would take one or two college level film courses. There is so much more going on in so many films that flies right over the head of Joe Six Pack, just because they don't have the tools to recognize the language.
I wish that everyone who loves movies would take one or two college level film courses. There is so much more going on in so many films that flies right over the head of Joe Six Pack, just because they don't have the tools to recognize the language.
#13
Banned by request
American Psycho is remarkably well crafted. So much so that many people don't even realize there's a debate about whether the killings happened, but once they learn of it, they go back and can see the movie in a whole new way. The film is also vague in that the director purposefully shoots it very blandly so as not to suggest implicit support or disgust over the actions taking place.
I find it funny that people list Mulholland Drive as a movie that's open to interpretation. That movie is telling a very specific story in an unconventional way, but there's a clear throughline in all of it. I think a better movie to list as open to interpretation is The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, which features some amazing imagery that is meant to illicit a reaction from the viewer without always pointing the audience in a specific direction.
However, that's not to say that Lynch is a filmmaker devoid of interpretation. Works like Eraserhead and Lost Highway are very open-ended. Heck, even Twin Peaks has some wiggle room. But Mulholland Drive is actually very streamlined for a Lynch movie.
Another great filmmaker who leaves things for the audience to decipher is David Cronenberg. Films like Videodrome and Naked Lunch have a very Burroughs-ian atmosphere (Naked Lunch of course being an adaptation of a Burroughs book) where the concepts of good and evil practically don't exist, leaving the characters in a world without many of the signs we use to orient ourselves. And films like Crash and A History of Violence internalize these struggles with characters who try and fit into the normal world but cannot or will not fully succeed.
As for films that are incoherent messes, I would actually nominate Inland Empire as a great example. The film says nothing new and wanders literally aimlessly. I was sorely disappointed with it.
I find it funny that people list Mulholland Drive as a movie that's open to interpretation. That movie is telling a very specific story in an unconventional way, but there's a clear throughline in all of it. I think a better movie to list as open to interpretation is The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, which features some amazing imagery that is meant to illicit a reaction from the viewer without always pointing the audience in a specific direction.
However, that's not to say that Lynch is a filmmaker devoid of interpretation. Works like Eraserhead and Lost Highway are very open-ended. Heck, even Twin Peaks has some wiggle room. But Mulholland Drive is actually very streamlined for a Lynch movie.
Another great filmmaker who leaves things for the audience to decipher is David Cronenberg. Films like Videodrome and Naked Lunch have a very Burroughs-ian atmosphere (Naked Lunch of course being an adaptation of a Burroughs book) where the concepts of good and evil practically don't exist, leaving the characters in a world without many of the signs we use to orient ourselves. And films like Crash and A History of Violence internalize these struggles with characters who try and fit into the normal world but cannot or will not fully succeed.
As for films that are incoherent messes, I would actually nominate Inland Empire as a great example. The film says nothing new and wanders literally aimlessly. I was sorely disappointed with it.
#16
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
American Psycho was a brilliant movie in my opinion & not only was the movie written in a way where you could look at it in different ways everytime you watch the film but Christian Bale put on a stellar performance as a man who looks completely normal from the outside but total lost & insane inside his mind.
Their are so many hints in the movie that lean towards that he didn't do it and it was all just some crazy disturbing but brilliant thought in his mind. Truly on of the all-time greatest "Cult Classic". It's an underated "Cult".
Their are so many hints in the movie that lean towards that he didn't do it and it was all just some crazy disturbing but brilliant thought in his mind. Truly on of the all-time greatest "Cult Classic". It's an underated "Cult".
#17
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Superboy
I think any David Lynch movie could be considered an incoherent mess.
Movies with Endings Open To Interpretation:
Mystic River
Total Recall
Henry Fool (well at least until the sub-par Fay Grim came out this year)
#18
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Hail to the Redskins!
Posts: 25,295
Likes: 0
Received 49 Likes
on
38 Posts
Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt
Exception: The Straight Story
Movies with Endings Open To Interpretation:
Mystic River
Total Recall
Henry Fool (well at least until the sub-par Fay Grim came out this year)
Movies with Endings Open To Interpretation:
Mystic River
Total Recall
Henry Fool (well at least until the sub-par Fay Grim came out this year)
Spoiler:
#19
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally Posted by DVD Josh
In Total Recall, in the director's commentary, I believe he says that
Spoiler:
While Verhoven and other filmmakers certainly have their specific goals in mind when crafting a movie, the viewer should be able to let the work speak for itself. What's on the screen is on the screen and the audience's reaction to that, is valid.
Now, the viewer may come to conclusions mutually exclusive to the director's intent, and may learn so after the fact, giving subsequent viewings a different hue. But that doesn't mean that initial reaction is rendered null.
Of course, opinions change over time, as has mine regarding Total Recall (without any prodding by Verhoven). I haven't ditched that first impression, just built upon it.
#20
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,085
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
6 Posts
I think David Lynch always provides great endings that are ambiguous and open to interpretation. I've yet to see Inland Empire, though.
The Thing is a good example of a perfect "open to interpret" ending. After all is said and done you still don't know who is who.
The Thing is a good example of a perfect "open to interpret" ending. After all is said and done you still don't know who is who.
#21
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
I find it funny that people list Mulholland Drive as a movie that's open to interpretation. That movie is telling a very specific story in an unconventional way, but there's a clear throughline in all of it. I think a better movie to list as open to interpretation is The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, which features some amazing imagery that is meant to illicit a reaction from the viewer without always pointing the audience in a specific direction.
.
.
Oh and, damn good movie.
#22
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Verhoven's Commentary on Total Recall
Verhoven may be the director, but he's NOT the writer...so it's just his interpretation of the story. Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon would better be able to stake claim to what the ending really meant. Or even Philip K. Dick, if someone wants to go dig him up.
Verhoven may be the director, but he's NOT the writer...so it's just his interpretation of the story. Ronald Shusett and Dan O'Bannon would better be able to stake claim to what the ending really meant. Or even Philip K. Dick, if someone wants to go dig him up.
#24
Total Recall
I wonder what would have happened if..........................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall
Dino De Laurentiis was originally listed as the producer, and between 1983 and in 1984 David Cronenberg was attached to direct with studios in Rome and locations in North Africa. According to Cronenberg every major director had looked at the project but fell out with Shusett who wanted a pure action adventure, described as "Raiders of the Lost Ark on Mars." Cronenberg quit the production after writing 12 screenplay drafts that were all rejected by De Laurentiis. When the adaptation of Dune flopped at the box office, De Laurentiis similarly lost enthusiasm for the project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_Recall
Dino De Laurentiis was originally listed as the producer, and between 1983 and in 1984 David Cronenberg was attached to direct with studios in Rome and locations in North Africa. According to Cronenberg every major director had looked at the project but fell out with Shusett who wanted a pure action adventure, described as "Raiders of the Lost Ark on Mars." Cronenberg quit the production after writing 12 screenplay drafts that were all rejected by De Laurentiis. When the adaptation of Dune flopped at the box office, De Laurentiis similarly lost enthusiasm for the project.
#25
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
I find it funny that people list Mulholland Drive as a movie that's open to interpretation. That movie is telling a very specific story in an unconventional way, but there's a clear throughline in all of it. Mulholland Drive is actually very streamlined for a Lynch movie.
Some of them are definitely hokey and require more of a backwards, inverted stretch than should really be necessary in figuring out a film, but some of the others make points that work without too much effort.