O, the absurdity! O, the ambiguity!

Jim, I think the problem may be that people aren't trained to look at subtext anymore. Or at anything other than the surface. And, when there are attempts made - like in high school English/Literature classes - they are outright rejected by the majority of people, who can't believe anyone would spend several hundred pages telling a story only to have it mean something entirely different from what the plot gets across.

And, in that same vein of thought, how do you know what the story/film/painting means anyway? Does it mean anything? No, it's just entertainment. All of these views have been echoed countless times in every discussion I've ever had about my degree in Film Studies. People just don't get interpretation, and don't think it's important anyway, so they don't bother with it.

I guess that is probably why I had to sit through so many requests for refunds after people sat through NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD and they didn't get the endings, and therefore it sucked and they wanted their money back; not thinking that watching the movie in the first place was what they were actually paying for, and not understanding that when I told them I didn't care that they didn't like it. I was just being rude to them at that point.

This is a little smug and self-congratulatory, isn't it? Fair enough, the irony in your previous article was pretty bloody obvious. But to mock people for not getting the joke, or to wax lyrical regarding your superior cognitive capabilities, seems somewhat mean-spirited and more than a little egotistical.

JE: It's simple clarification -- and self-defense. When people leave comments on my blog calling me "dumb" for something I wasn't saying and THEY didn't take two seconds to understand, I think I have a right to set the record straight and point out what I was actually doing. This is a back-and-forth conversation -- and, in any such conversation, the main thing is to add pertinent information with each exchange. I criticize those whose comments say nothing more than (in effect) "you suck," because that's not a level of discussion I normally find acceptable here, and I have the right and responsibility to say so.

Jim,

I too, hate ambiguous en..

In my experience, sarcasm is lost on people when it's in print.

@Matt on December 2, 2009 10:56 PM
Jim, I think the problem may be that people aren't trained to look at subtext anymore.

As someone once said, it's only subtext if it's subtle.

Wait a minute, people didn't get the ending to "There Will Be Blood"? That was one of the least ambiguous endings in movie history!

The only way it can be understood is as satire...

Gosh, Jim. First you reveal your poor analytical abilities (not to mention your lack of writting skills), and then you go ahead and give away the ending! How about a spoiler warning! How was I to know that this post was going to discuss details relevant to its topic!?

I want my money back.

P.S. Your reviews are constantly filled with your opinions. Try learning how criticism works.

Well, no matter how obvious you think the irony is, there'll always be someone who doesn't get it. I'm not sure if this says something about the people who don't respond to irony regardless of how obvious it is, or if it says something about the Internet where you'll find the most incredibly absurd articles and arguments which you just wish weren't meant to be taken seriously.

It wasn't that complicated a joke. Just because Jim didn't say O INCIDENTALLY GAIZ THIS POST IS A JOKE LOL!!!! doesn't mean it wasn't obvious. I despair of people who need everything telegraphed to that extent.

There should more lists counting the "Top Ten Most Mediocre Films" of the year / decade / all time to celebrate the films that are truly outstanding in their normalcy.

JE: That's a great list title -- much funnier than one we usually employ, which is "the Oscar nominations."

Actually, I can sympathize a bit with those who didn't get the point. I'm a regular reader, and I still got through the intro and the first entry before realizing what was going on. I think for me, it was using Psycho and Mullholland Dr. (i.e., movies held to be great) as examples of ones that "get it right," so to speak, that tripped me up.

No doubt those filmgoers then went out for a meal and after consuming it, decided they didn't really enjoy it after all and left without paying the tab.

It's the sort of behaviour that's becoming more prevalent in an era where everyone asumes they are the centre of the universe.

Ah well...

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080921/COMMENTARY/809219997

Did you know Roger Ebert is a creationist?

Now THAT article was dumb.

btw you forgot to end your post.

NO! Why did you end it like that? What could there possibly be nothing other of? Operations? Openings? Opti-Grabs? The ambiguity is killing me.

Matt's comments about the reaction people had to two great film's with unconventional or challenging endings reminds me of the heads exploding around me (including those of my then-fiance and her friend) after a screening of John Sayles' LIMBO.

(Sort-of spoilers for that film coming up...)

They complained that the film had no ending. I disagreed. I said that it of course did have an ending. It just stopped short of telling you explicitly what the ultimate fates of the main characters were. I tried and tried, but I just couldn't get them to see my point that the director chose to end the film the way it did for a reason. Matt is right - most people see movies as nothing more than the depiction of a series of plot points. Stray from that, and it freaks people out.

Longtime reader, first time writer. Loved this article and even more so the confusion on many people's parts, but I did want to clarify one thing (at the risk of possibly entering the forest of the dense myself): What is your opinion on the end of Psycho? Or I should say the ending just before the ending. I know the psychatrist's explanation seems ridiculously overstated, even more so as time has passed, but do you think we are meant to take it in a serious vein or is Hitchcock merely tweaking the need to explain away such things. Which of course, the final voiceover and closeup of Perkins' face undercuts, I think.

Always eager to see what you have up your sleeve next.

Cheers,

Brett Beach
Portland, OR

"There are no other op-" And Then what? Worst ambiguous ending to a post Evar!

Sorry. But seriously, it actually doesn't surprise me that people might not have understood the joke. Haven't you ever told a joke to someone, only to have them repeat it back in a less-subtle way? That happens to me all the time, and I know I've been guilty of it myself more than a couple times.

The difference between understanding a joke and "getting" a joke is being able to project the intention of the author; other than that, there's no difference between implied things, and things we infer. Irony complicates that task, but it's not an easy thing to begin with either.

Jim,

Although I was initially confused, I am now convinced that by “-” at the end of your last sentence, you really meant “tions.” I have become convinced of this fact by all of the previous articles that you have written where you have referred to or discussed the concept of “options” – usually writing the word in its complete form. Clearly, your previous interest in “options” has led you to end this post with “options.” Additionally, I think it’s worth pointing out that the entire post leading up to your final sentence utilizes a consistent writing pattern in which each sentence ends with a complete word followed by punctuation (usually a period) of some kind. As a result of this pattern, I now know that you indeed wrote “options” followed by a period at the end of your final sentence. Although many might be confused by the absence of the complete word “options” or a period at the end of that sentence, closer analysis has proven that “options” followed by a period is what you truly meant. That is clearly the real ending to this post.

No doubt, something you say in the future will corroborate this point.

PS – Is it true that you initially intended to end your piece with not just one dash (“-”) but three (“---”)? If so, this seems to imply even more strongly that you were indeed suggesting the word “options” followed by a period when you wrote “op-” at the end of that last sentence. No other explanation fits.

Your dissection of the response to your blog is reasonably insightful, however, you fail to explain the core issue for those not initiated into the original article. You do hint at the underlying disconnect, but to reduce ambiguity, you might have explained it outright.

While I'd like to say this blog's ambiguousness is about a 5, that would be generous. It's probably closer to a 7. The original article was a solid 5, making this one 2 more ambiguous.

I am, as a Canadian, using the metric ambiguousness scale - US Standard conversion would tend to make this article look slightly less ambiguous - probably a 6.

Jim, the 11 Ambiguous Movie Endings was one of the funniest pieces I've read in a long time, and you demonstrated a lot of thought and a strong control of your prose. That being said, I think that the majority of people out there these days have absolutely no idea how to read between the lines of a story and are not well-informed enough to know when people are kidding or making a joke. Take for example the hoards of people who inundated NASA with emails after trailers for the movie 2012 told the unread masses that the end of the world was nigh.

Of course these people didn't take it for the satire that it is. Satire is meant only the affect the people who agree with it to begin with... the others who read it simply aren't in on the joke.

I understand this problem all too well. I have a sense of humor, maybe because I'm 19, where I will try to imitate classic films and joke, obviously not at all meaning a word I say. But people respond to me as if I'm serious and perhaps off my rocker. Only a select few, I would call these my friends, get it. At first, I thought it was because of the young age group I was telling these jokes to. I thought, adults would get it, sure. But if adults just don't get the intended silliness of your article, I'm just not so sure. Perhaps people either take things too seriously, or, even worse, just don't think, as with "No Country for Old Men" and, another one, "Persona".

I think you might give a little more benefit of the doubt by considering the context here.

As you admit, this was an article written for film geeks, "insiders," who know good and well that you're not an idiot. IMBD readers might not know who you are or be familiar with the idea of a satirical article like that one.

"Satire in film criticism? Whaaaa?"

Those guys encountered you out of context,skimmed the article, and then fired off a quick "what's this idiot's problem" post before moving on to see what new funny cat videos are up today.

I'd give them credit for being less stupid that you do. They just didn't read carefully.

Of course the trouble with the internet is that the quick fire consumption of information encourages this kind of habit, and there is a glut of people who will engage in debating on message boards after getting sucked into a conversation after such a superficial encounter with information. They don't take the time to backtrack and do a little critical work before wasting people's time.

Of course, there is a small subset of people who carry this strategy of engagment waaay tooo far. You'll find them in line at Sarah Palin's next book signing.

The pattern of encountering info that lead people to make assinine comments to your article does not mean people are stupid or incapable though. They were just in a situation where you gave them something they didnt expect.

Although I would wonder how someone could think IMBD would link to an article complaining that the ending of "Casablanca" was "ambigious."

Sigh.

JE: I did say that "we" (and I do include myself) sometimes type before we think, and that once the readership went beyond the movie blogosphere I'm accustomed to addressing here, that's when people started hurling insults and misunderstanding the intent of the post. But if somebody reads a piece of nonsense like, "The difference between a good ending and a bad ending is how good the ending is," and takes it seriously, that needs to be addressed. It's like, I don't know, claiming you have experience in foreign policy because you can see Russia from your house -- not an acceptable level of discourse.

I'd be curious to know how many of the knucklehead comments on that post were from regular readers of this blog. I've been with Scanners since it's inception, and all I had to do was read the title, see the frame grab, and scan the first sentence. I knew the score.

That doesn't mean, by the way, that you're too predictable.

You have to remember that this is the Internet. There's plenty of even sillier film criticism out there that is written with utter sincerity. It's sometimes difficult to ferret out the satire from the stupidity.

JE, in response to Jamie on December 3, 2009 3:13 PM
But if somebody reads a piece of nonsense like, "The difference between a good ending and a bad ending is how good the ending is," and takes it seriously, that needs to be addressed.

Except that the level of public discourse has been at precisely this level for many a year now. The problem wasn't that you were satirical, it's that your satire wasn't satirical and heavy-handed enough.

I think the real crux of the problem is your assumption that it's ambiguity the stumps audiences. It's not. People don't dislike No Country because they are unsure of the fate of anton chigur (it's clear, he gets away) or lewelyn (he dies) or his wife (chigur looks at his sole, case closed) or even the old guy (lost faith basically). There are few, if any, ambiguities in the whole movie. Audiences who were disappointed with the ending were disappointed because it changed tone from a tight thriller/suspense to a , well, meditation on an old guy's faith. yawn. I liked the movie anyway (ending and all).

JE: Me too. And I've been saying the same thing about the ending of NCFOM: People may say they don't like it because it's too "ambiguous," but if you talk to them a little you discover what they really don't like is that there's no cathartic Good vs. Evil confrontation. So they find it unsatisfactory in that way. Coincidenally, today I just came across a whole new reading of the ending of NCFOM that I'd never encountered before, at a site called "The Film Talk": "No Country for Old Men: The only film I can think of that climaxes with a serial killer giving up violence without being forced to do so by a gun or handcuffs." http://j.mp/6Dh4lV

I didn't get that it was a joke until the end of the first paragraph, but only because of the inclusion of Mulholland Drive. When people started calling that a great movie I thought they were joking. Then they kept saying it and saying it and I finally realized they were actually being serious. So when someone invokes Mulholland, I don't know what to think.

It's not that I don't get the movie, it's that I do, and David Lynch's whole method, which is to throw random crap out there in an attempt to seem deep and mysterious. I realized this one day when I saw one of his paintings. It was a blank canvas except for the words "The Number Three" across the middle. That was the painting. Yes, very deep, David. It's the kind of thing me and my friends might have painted while stoned in high school. You seem to have tricked some people, who enjoy finding depth in movies, into thinking your movies have some, but I've got your number.

Just in case anyone thinks the above is sarcasm, it isn't. If the man never makes another film that will be a gift to the art form.

Can you imagine? One of the writers of 1994's "It's Pat!" complaining that nobody understands good, subtle writing!

JE: Ad hominem, thy name is Dexter!

TZ it's not that Lynch takes random crap in an attempt to make it deep and mysterious. But maybe he is...It is for the audience to try to comprehend what is going on. That is what makes his films tick because it forces the passive viewer to become an active viewer and engage with the film.

What he does is challenge conventions by taking traditional modes of story telling (Hollywood narrative) and turns them upside down. His films are rich with complexity that beg people to try to pick them apart, some times in vain.

There is more to a film than its plot. That is what most people tend to overlook, and easily at that - try reading between the lines.

Why is the frame arranged or lit a certain way?
What is the significance of these particular motifs that occur throughout the film...accident? coincidence? probably not...

Think Mcfly, think!

As far as his painting that says "The Number Three", I haven't seen it but I'm sure it is the greatest piece of art work in the last thousand years.

Sure, sometimes you don't wanna think and you wanna just enjoy the story and characters - that's fine too, but don't knock complexity, it's more complex than you think.

"there's no cathartic Good vs. Evil confrontation"

There are at least a half-a-dozen good-evil confrontations, at least in the sense that the poor bastards don't have much of a choice in the matter (except for lewelyn, of course...or does he?). But it can be argued that catharsis is a necessary component of all movies, and in that NCFOM is arguably lacking.

"The only film I can think of that climaxes with a serial killer giving up violence without being forced to do so by a gun or handcuffs."

It probably sounds snobby to put down another's interpretation of a movie, but I am of the school that believes that what you see (and hear) is what you get. (this is this!). I don't remember anything in the movie to support this ending.

Gosh, if they think that's bad, they haven't seen nothing! I once read an article by this guy who literally advocated baby eating! I know the economy is bad, but come on!

Ordinarily, I'd chastise people for being morons because they couldn't tell you were satirizing (I mean, I certainly could), but in a world where Armond White writes the stuff he does without any apparent irony, the lines get seriously blurry.

If you don't appreciate "ambiguous" endings or think they are somehow against what a movie should be, then you don't understand film. Not that art has to be ambiguous to be art but the artist clearly chose a to do it for a reason. And by the way, just because the screen suddenly turns black and rolls credits doesn't mean the story was not finished! Lets look at "NCFOM". Tell me one character in that film whose story was not completed.
On the other hand, if you don't care about art or interesting filmmaking and you just want to "be entertained", that's fair. Just don't complain about ambiguity. You get it or you don't.

T.Z. I mostly agree with you about Lynch. I too don't buy that simply because something seems mysterious, when it's nonsence, makes it deep. That's why I don't like Lost Highway and I lost interest in Inland Empire. As I said in another thread, I don't think that ambiguity is automatically a good thing.

That said, there are two Lynch films I really love; Blue Velvet which was actually incredibly coherent, and Mulholland Drive. I love MD because of the small moments; the passion, the lust, the cinematography and the dream-like energy of the film. I also love the performances. While it doesn't say all that much at all, what differed it from Lost Highway or Inland Emprire is that Mulholland Drive was IMO more coherent, better structured and not as self-indulgent.

T.Z.: "You seem to have tricked some people, who enjoy finding depth in movies, into thinking your movies have some, but I've got your number."

Wait. So, you bought the "Number Three" painting?

;)

No, you were right to go with "Worst Ambiguous Endings." The satire is more effective if you have "Casablanca" and "The Godfather" on a "worsts" list. Besides, you know you get a kick out of pissing off literalists.

Dear Elitist,
I once wrote a satire. It was about how regular film-goers were fed up with smart-ass film critics. No problemo: all the regular people agreed with what I said and wanted to watch movies with me instead of reading those snarky show-offs. Stop stylin', Jim, you just gotta know how to to be a regular Joe.
Unambiguously,
Plain Jane

I think it was Barry Humphries in the documentary "Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation!" who remarked (I'm paraphrasing), "There is always a portion of the population who regard satire as documentary."

Tess, please, nobody believes you wrote a satire. And there are plenty of regular people who prefer thinking about movies to being mindlessly herded from one crappy blockbuster to another.

...unless that comment right there was the satire, and my sarcasm meter is on the fritz...

Mr. Emerson, I believe you are the lastest victim of those unfortunate souls who are "humor-impaired". Now I have long since outgrown Dave Barry's writings for the most part, but he did do a column years ago about dealing with the folks who did not understand that he was trying to be funny with his "Mr. Language Person" and critiqued his intentionally-wrong grammar. Barry proceeded to have the remainder of his column "Closed-Captioned for the Humor-Impaired", explaining the jokes in parentheses and capital letters after each line. Perhaps this is what you need to do. The next time you do a humorous entry in the blog, after each joke, have an explanation in capital letters so that those who are humor-impaired will understand your intent.

If I may ask, what is that attached picture from?

I mentioned IMDB in a comment on that post long before Wednesday, talking about how few people seem to understand that a movie ending does not always have to spell everything out for the audience or engage in easy moralizing. I had no idea this would happen, but hell, it proves my point.

Joshua Gordon: Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, I say with 98.4% certainty.

JE: It's simple clarification -- and self-defense. When people leave comments on my blog calling me "dumb" for something I wasn't saying and THEY didn't take two seconds to understand, I think I have a right to set the record straight and point out what I was actually doing. This is a back-and-forth conversation -- and, in any such conversation, the main thing is to add pertinent information with each exchange. I criticize those whose comments say nothing more than (in effect) "you suck," because that's not a level of discussion I normally find acceptable here, and I have the right and responsibility to say so.

I don’t disagree with any particular point in the above, Jim. Just that your post responding to the comments of IMDB users is effectively a more erudite version of “No, you suck!” - which won’t exactly help educate the authors of ‘thick-headed comments’, only make them feel stupid and embarrassed. At best, they’ll just remove themselves from the debate and stop venturing an opinion at all, which I imagine is rather the opposite to the intended effect. More likely, given the general propensities of Internet forumites, it’ll just provoke a declining spiral of more aggressive and unpleasant responses.

Don’t feed the trolls, as the saying goes.

The post ended with
"(This post is set entirely in Sarcastica Regular.)"
...Seriously...how did people not get it???

Jim, the problem lies in the fact that you weren't expecting the Spanish Inquisition. (You'll know better next time.)

Just to echo Devin's frustration I had with people hating John Sayles' film "Limbo." I saw it at a preview with Sayles in attendance, and most of the Q and A was about "what happened next?" "Why didn't you do X or Y at the end?" Sayles avoided giving a straight answer, and good for him. The reviewer in my local paper at the time, the Toronto Globe and Mail, gave the film a bad review and expressed fury at Sayles for not wrapping things up in a neat bow - a cop-out, I think I remember him calling it.

I personally really liked the ending. The movie was about telling stories: how we do it, what effect that has on us, how it helps us to face impending doom. The journey, not the destination. And doesn't the title give you a bit of hint as to what the film is about?

JE: Indeed, the whole movie -- about lives in limbo, temporally and emotionally and geographically disconnected -- culminates in that ending. I found that movie (one of Sayles' best, I think) deeply disturbing. Couldn't shake it, and still haven't entirely been able to figure out why...

Not completing an ending is not ambiguous, it's incomplete. So the joke at the end of this post doesn't make sense. I enjoyed the nature of the OP as the joke is based around the misuse of the term "ambiguous". Thing is, I would like to see an actual list of most ambiguous movie endings (not bad endings per se, just ambiguous, good or bad). I would start with 'Being There'.