Film ending that are open to interpretation? Good? Bad?

It actually extended beyond what we saw on the dvd. At least it was supposed to anways. It would have only just been them being chased some more by the birds as they were leaving in the car but it still would have left the attacks unexplained. But yeah, it was better to not know why they attacked in this film than to have known.

I thought Blade III was too open-ended. just so I know, are people generally considering the theatical release and ending to be canon, or the director's cut?



P.S. Canon = : an accepted principle or rule b : a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms for those who don't know

__________________

I wouldn't say most films are open to interpretation in the way you're suggesting. But i'd agree some very good ones are

I think a lot of 'formula films' rely on a tight resolution, and prefer to keep things pretty clear for the most part - with the only ambiguities/mysteries being the 'how will success be achieved' ones. Barriers-to-resolution and all that.

'Lead-by-the-nose' films such as these can't tie up all their loose ends, even when they want to, but i think they leave a lot less room for interpretation than you're suggesting.

Hell, you can even know the ending in advance and still be drawn in, when it's done well. And that does perhaps illustrate your point about even firm endings leaving room to interpretation. You couldn't really say the Zulus won the battle at the end of Zulu, and be right . [But that's not to say that you wouldn't be left with ideas to ponder and extrapolate about the nature of war tho].

I don't think endings like 'Bruce Willis survives and looks to have got it back together with his wife' are awash with possibilities and angles tho

So, in answer, i'd say: "yes-n-no"

__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here

Limbo
Sex and Lucia
Vengeance is Mine

...some favorites. Go watch these movies you peapods.

Good point. I remember a similar debate coming up here about War of the Worlds. Just as with the aliens in that film, if birds were to suddenly start attacking people, it's likely we wouldn't know why. Even if scientists were on the case, field research becomes difficult when you've got hundreds of winged beasts coming at you and out for blood. Ever if we were to get some explanation, it would have to come from scientists blabbering on in a completely dull and trite manner. We've seen that so many times, that it's refreshing when a filmmaker doesn't need to rationalize everything.

__________________
"Like all dreamers, Steven mistook disenchantment for truth."

I think people are getting away from the point of this thread...

I was not referring to films that do not end with a conclusion to every story line...(ie in The Birds - why did the birds start attacking, or did we overcome the scenario....this are not important, or relevent)

I was referring to the films that provide endings that can be interpreted differently by each viewer...and I'll use the example of 2001: A Space Adyssey again...some may say it means "this" some may say it means "that"

Let's stay in topic people!!!

__________________

You're asking for way too much.

Ok, here's an open end...well sort of...there is a conclusion of sorts, but still leaves the door open for sepeculating what might happen next...you might like.



He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not (2002)

Also...
Gone With the Wind (1939)
All About Eve (1950)

Oh yeah, and Kiss Me Deadly. What the **** was that ending all about? I love it though. Makes the homages in Pulp Fiction and Repo Man more entertaining too.

Loving Annabelle when Simone gets arrested at the school and Annabelle runs up to her and they share that last embrace.

Not so much the ending, but really the whole movie plot with Donnie Darko really flew over my head. I actually had to google for explanations after I finished watching it. That and Matrix Revolutions had people crafting their own little theories about the whole situation and explanation.

The HULK with the whole lightning bolt for a dad thing, matrix revolutions ,liked that they kinda killed of neo sort of, but it just seemed rushed and shabby at the end,BATMAN & ROBIN,think i dont need to explane that and dont know if anyone cares about this film MEN AT WORK, i like the film just the dumb comical ending makes me cringe!

You know, if I'd had to guess (when I was younger) how I'd feel about open-ended endings at my current age, I'd have assumed I'd like them more as time went on, if only because most people who watch a lot of movies seem to. So far, I don't think I do. I think I might like them less, actually. I see the appeal clearer than I once did; I see how refreshing it can be to see something different, but I suspect the sometimes-infatuation with open-to-interpretation endings might have more to do with the sheer fact of its variety than with any actual increase in quality.

a lot that have endings that are open to interpretation..in most cases these are the kinds of movies that i like..the ones that dont give you all the answers when the movie ends

here s a few i can think of from the top of my head

Ingmar Bergman's Through a Glass Darkly
Broken Flowers
Lost In Translation
a few Woody Allen movies
the birds is one of those movies as well....
Barton Fink
one or two David Lynch movies (lost highway rather than mulholland drive..i thought mulholland drive was quite straightforward...)

__________________
My 100 ALL-TIME FAVE Movies

Thankfully, we don't have to choose between endings that are open to interpretation, and ones that "give you all the answers." I'd say most films leave something to interpretation, though I'm thinking mainly of ones that leave something crucial unspecified, or many, many things, for that matter. Those are the ones I usually dislike as much (or possibly more) than I did when I was younger.

I don't care for films that explain every little detail or beat you over the head with their messages, either. I think it's a lot easier to say something obvious, or to say nothing at all (and leave the audience to fill in the blanks), than it is to tell a genuinely compelling story with its own point of view. Those are the kinds of films I still value most...and that surprises me. I'm surprised I haven't much changed my mind about this.

A little intellectual stimulation now and again is most definitely a good thing. I dont think it's very entertaining to always be spoon fed all of the answers whilst watching a movie. From time to time it's nice to watch something that ends and leaves you thinking about what you have just seen. In my experience these are the movies that I remember far more.

Of course you might not want to experience this all the time. Movies number one priority is to entertain and I'm sure there are some who find movies of this kind either hard to follow or not what they want from a film. and that's fine.

I enjoy both kinds...

Two films of this kind that spring to mind are Tarkovsky's Stalker and Bergman's Persona. Two great films in my opinion and films that definitely are up for interpretation. Whether or not there are answers for the questions you are left with at the end is another story.

Gah. None of us are talking about the same thing, are we?

I'm sure 95% of the people here would agree that they don't want every little thing explained, or that they don't want to be "spoon fed" anything. I don't think that's under dispute.

Nor are any of us against thinking. I just find that thinking about what I've been told to be a more satisfying and impressive act than thinking merely to try to guess what might have happened. Lots of movies have closure and still leave us thinking.

In other words, I think there's a fine line between generating discussion and inviting some interpretation, and just not having an ending.

The majority of the population prefers to be spoon fed though.

__________________
"Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

I think movies that allow for interpretation can be really excellent, and I should clarify that my problem with The Birds isn't that the reason for the attacks is never explained. My problem is that watching the whole movie just to see the people get into a car and drive away isn't exactly a thrilling movie experience.

One recent movie that I thought took the "open to interpretation" idea and made it work really well is Doubt. There is certainly no spoon feeding in that one.

__________________

I think films that are abstract on some level from the jump tend to lend themselves better to open-ended finishes. If everything we've seen leading up to the conclusion has been fairly easy to explain, and we're suddenly left wondering what became of the characters and stories we've invested in, that can sometimes be irritating. But if we understand from the outset that a film is going to at least mildly enigmatic, the open-ended finish tends to feel more appropriate. BrotherBlue mentioned a great example of this with Persona. (I'd like to also comment on Stalker, but I've only seen it once and thus feel like I'm completely unqualified to say anything; perhaps more than any other film I've seen, it seems to require rewatches to tap into the layers within.)

This thread happened to begin with a mention of 2001: A Space Odyssey, but there's a pretty clear idea of what went on there.

__________________
the angel stayed until something died, one more murder suicide

I love movies that are thought provoking and may be a little challenging while watching. Also movies with some symbolism that must be analyzed have a lot of power generally speaking. However, movies like Mulholland Drive in which the storyline is laid out in such a random, confusing manner are not to my liking.

Thats exactly what bothers me about the movie. It seems as if (to me) you had to get online and view these discussions in order to understand Lynch's "point" (if you want to call it a point). As I have said in many other posts, maybe I'm just not smart enough to get it. I dont buy into the fact that it can be a "masterpiece" if there is no plot/point

__________________
Latest Review: The Ugly Truth