In the commentary to The Usual Suspects, if I recall correctly, Bryan Singer and Chris McQuarrie have differing opinions on the myth vs. reality of Keyser Söze. So the creative team didn't even come to a consensus.

You should have been around for the Soprano's finale thread. Man, those people wanted blood because they had to interpret the ending rather than being slapped in the face with a solid conclusion (some of them are in this very thread arguing the opposite way, strangely).

As a great teacher of mine once said, a true artist never gives you THEIR interpretation of their work...it's left up to you to decide.

That thread provided amusement for a good week.

Re: Total Recall -

Mulholland Drive more mainstream than The Straight Story? Come on!

Obi-Wan Kenobi?

I would classify these movies (w/ an ending) that have certain tendencies to fall among supporters for being an incoherent mess:

Andrei Tarkovsky's Solaris and Stalker
Apocalypse Now
Breathless (Godard's)
Neon Genesis Evangelion (the later half of the series) and the "movie"
Persona
The Wind Will Carry Us

Others that I think are more accepted as "open to interpretation" because the director is considered to be 'sound,' fan base or whatever.

Blade Runner: Director's Cut
Rashomon
2001: Space Odyssey
Un Chien Andalou (I don't know if this movie can even qualify)

I don't think anyone would accuse Andrei Tarkovsky, Francis Ford Coppola, Jean-Luc Godard, Ingmar Bergman, and Abbas Kiarostami of making incoherent movies.

I hope not but the endings of listed movies certainly can be qualified as an "incoherent" to some (esp. those who aren't familiar with the directors). Like at the end of Breathless Jean Seberg's character imitating the Bogart/character Michel's lip-rubbing. Is she suppose to be a femme fatal? Does she feel sorry for Michel or liberated? And something like that.

Well, it IS DVD Talk.

Naomi Watts + Laura Herring + psychosexuallesbianmelodrama = mucho marketable mainstream

David Lynch is actually the reason I started the thread, but I didn't want to mention anyone in particular in the first post so I could hear what others thought first.


Edit: Read what others wrote...not hear what they thought. My super human powers have their limits.

A comments on a few of the movies already mentioned:

Donnie Darko - I really like the movie, so I lean towards "open to interpretation". It's not a perfect movie, but I can make enough sense of it. I guess if I like a movie it's open to interpretation, if I don't its an incoherent mess. Funny how that works.

American Psycho - I think the ending is pretty clear to me, but I can understand how people can have different ideas on the end. I read the book many years ago and thought the book ending was more clear.

David Lynch = incoherent messes. I doubt he even knows what's going on.

Memento - clear ending (and a great one at that).

I'm a huge Lynch fan, and I can't think of any of his films that I'd consider an incoherent mess. In fact, they're all quite understandable, and this is the key, ONCE YOU PUT SOME THOUGHT INTO IT. But that's the problem, isn't it? Most people want escapism from movies, not art. They want to "turn their brain off and enjoy it". Fine for some, but I can't turn my brain off (comedies excluded, for obvious reasons). I want something to make me think and spark my imagination and cause me to analyze the mise-en-scene in detail. Maybe I'll have to watch it over and over to truly appreciate it, but that's fine. If I can figure a movie out completely on the first showing, odds are I'll find it rather dull, at least since I hit age 18 or so.

Perhaps that's why all my favorite directors are all auteurs.

I take it that you've never actually met a member of the general public.

Wow, what a juicy topic!

First movie that comes to mind is Eyes Wide Shut

I remember reading a post about a year ago about the possibilities and it blew my mind.

I've been thinking about this since I saw the thread this morning and I think anything, no matter how good or bad, can be considered open to interpretation as long as you can figure out three solid theories that can be figured out solely based on what happens during the movie. If you need any sort of outside information, I would consider that a cheat and not really an interpretation of what you saw and more of a theory on what the filmmakers were thinking.

The only incoherent mess David Lynch ever made is Inland Empire. Everything else he's done has been generally pretty brilliant, especially Eraserhead, The Elephant Man, Blue Velvet, Lost Highway, and Mulholland Drive.

Eyes Wide Shut is a good catch. There's a lot going on in that movie.

Pulp Fiction re: What's actually in the suitcase?

Reservoir Dogs re: Whether Mr Pink lives or dies at the end.

It's good that Tarantino himself has said there is no answer to those questions and that he prefers to leave it up to the fans to decide.

I guess its that kind of thinking that started this thread. Does he really want to leave it up to the fans, or can he just not "complete" the movie?

Tarantino's movies have always been hit or miss with me on whether or not I like them.

Which may be why directors like Lynch and Spielberg NEVER do commentary tracks for DVDs.

Next - totally open to interpretation.

Since they never finished the story, I tend to favor inept writing. Give some closure.

Good call on this and Pulp Fiction BTW.



I think 7keys is right, if it's a film you like it's "open to interpretation". If it's a film you don't like, it's "an incoherent mess"

I like listening to other people's theories on movies: Wallace's soul in Pulp Fiction sounds far fetched to me, but the Dream in Mulholland Dr. makes perfect sense to me.



I'd consider Donnie Darko an incoherent mess.

I'd consider Limbo open to interpretation.

If the general public doesn't like Tarkovsky, Godard, and Kiarostami, then I have no desire to meet them!

Darn. I love Tarkovsky and Kiarostami... but I've grown tired of Godard. (I'll take my French leftist film essays from Chris Marker thank you very much!)