|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 25, 2017 2:19:47 GMT
Hey there, anyone has seen this movie or read the book by Barnes? Sense of an ending? Have a question about the end. I really liked the movie. A lot. Just wondering about how to interpret the story. Who was the father of Adrian Jr? Adrian or Tony? And did Tony also hook up with Sarah or just Adrian Sr?
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 26, 2017 8:01:22 GMT
Hey there, anyone has seen this movie or read the book by Barnes? Sense of an ending? Have a question about the end. I really liked the movie. A lot. Just wondering about how to interpret the story. Who was the father of Adrian Jr? Adrian or Tony? And did Tony also hook up with Sarah or just Adrian Sr?
... just viewed the film last night, and I was going to start a thread to see if anyone else had seen it. I thought that Adrian Jr.'s father was Adrian—I thought that that was what the film suggested and that there was a visual resemblance between Adrian and Adrian Jr. Also, Sarah probably would not have named her child Adrian Jr. if the father was not Adrian.
That said, there are enough ambiguities regarding identity and the past's recollection that one cannot discount most any theory. Actually, I thought that the film struck an ambiguous note as to whether or not Adrian and Sarah necessarily consummated their relationship.
Let me ask you a question: so was Tony's brown-haired companion his second wife? And I guess that she was not the mother of his daughter, right?
The Sense of an Ending is an intriguing film. I love the concept—senior citizens trying to make sense of their romantically haunting, college-aged youth—and some of the emotions are quite strong, the interactions quite chilling or ironic. There is palpable humor as well. At times, the film is very engrossing.
Based on an initial viewing (I will consider seeing the film once more), I deem the movie "decent/pretty good." My basic issue with the movie is that the construction feels too slack or lackadaisical to me—The Sense of an Ending fails to consistently maintain its tension. Some scenes are quite tense, but then the tension will ebb and the film will meander for awhile or play too lightly. As a result, what could have constituted an arresting film instead serves as an intriguing one.
That was my assessment, anyway.
Did you see Indignation from last year or 45 Years from 2015 with Charlotte Rampling? I thought that those films were similar in certain senses yet more consistently tense. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 27, 2017 2:24:46 GMT
The Sense of an Ending is an intriguing film. I love the concept—senior citizens trying to make sense of their romantically haunting, college-aged youth—and some of the emotions are quite strong, the interactions quite chilling or ironic. There is palpable humor as well. At times, the film is very engrossing.
Based on an initial viewing (I will consider seeing the film once more), I deem the movie "decent/pretty good." My basic issue with the movie is that the construction feels too slack or lackadaisical to me—The Sense of an Ending fails to consistently maintain its tension. Some scenes are quite tense, but then the tension will ebb and the film will meander for awhile or play too lightly. As a result, what could have constituted an arresting film instead serves as an intriguing one.
That was my assessment, anyway.
Did you see Indignation from last year or 45 Years from 2015 with Charlotte Rampling? I thought that those films were similar in certain senses yet more consistently tense.hey, thanks so much for answering. To your question: no, I think he was only married once, to that lady, whom he was telling the story and who was also the mother to his daughter. I am fairly sure about that part.
I have seen 45 years and also thought about similarities. I think 45 years was more powerful in a way, but both movies were very good. |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 28, 2017 4:10:58 GMT
hey, thanks so much for answering. To your question: no, I think he was only married once, to that lady, whom he was telling the story and who was also the mother to his daughter. I am fairly sure about that part. I have seen 45 years and also thought about similarities. I think 45 years was more powerful in a way, but both movies were very good. Thanks for the answer. So why was "Margaret Webster" not involved in her daughter's pregnancy, not actually in the hospital room during the birth like Tony, and so forth? Was she estranged from her daughter? If so, do we know why, or does the film keep the matter a mystery? And what about the dialogue early on regarding Susie Webster's mother (Tony's ex-wife) being mentally unstable or something? Or did that rhetoric amount to a figure of speech?
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 31, 2017 4:52:45 GMT
For the record, I did view the film once more, and there is certainly no doubt about the identity of the brown-haired woman. Although the Fergusons lived in the countryside, I wonder if Sarah Ferguson's promiscuity pertained to the rise of "Swinging London." |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 31, 2017 5:17:42 GMT
So why was "Margaret Webster" not involved in her daughter's pregnancy, not actually in the hospital room during the birth like Tony, and so forth? Was she estranged from her daughter?
I believe the daughter mentioned the mother was a workaholic and "never there". |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 31, 2017 5:53:25 GMT
So why was "Margaret Webster" not involved in her daughter's pregnancy, not actually in the hospital room during the birth like Tony, and so forth? Was she estranged from her daughter?
I believe the daughter mentioned the mother was a workaholic and "never there". I caught the "workaholic" comment. I do not recall a "never there," but you may be right. Viewing the film again, I now do not believe that the daughter and mother were estranged; they just, perhaps, were not especially close. The mother has some foot injury at the start of the film, as we first see her on crutches, and thus Tony is stepping in for her at the pregnancy classes and so forth. But the mother is still involved in the pregnancy. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Apr 3, 2017 3:18:23 GMT
yeah I agree, they were not really estranged. with some time having passed, i think i like the movie even more than before. it certainly makes me think about the way we all edit our memories.
|
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 3, 2017 23:40:07 GMT
yeah I agree, they were not really estranged. with some time having passed, i think i like the movie even more than before. it certainly makes me think about the way we all edit our memories.Yes, that point was an excellent one—how our life stories are actually the stories that we choose to tell. The film certainly suggests the possibility of an "unreliable narrator," and there are enough ambiguities regarding certain plot points to reinforce this concept. For instance, Tony tells his ex-wife that "strictly speaking," he slept with neither Sarah nor Veronica. However, flashbacks suggest that he slept with both of them. Ultimately, what do we believe? There are hints of Akira Kurosawa and Rashomon in there. Had the narrative structure proved tighter and the film's mood been more focused, The Sense of an Ending may have managed to make a more searing statement in that regard. Instead, it settles for more of a slightly whimsical suggestion, but that suggestion is intriguing and worthwhile regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 3, 2017 23:48:54 GMT
What about the letter that the young Tony writes? Do you believe that he actually sends it? For later on, the film shows him ripping it up. Was that act just a precursor to a later copy that he types and sends, or was it wish fulfillment on his part (Tony wishes that he had torn up the letter rather than sending it), or did he actually never send it?
I am guessing that he did in fact send it, since he references it to Veronica in the cafe, and her response does not suggest confusion. But perhaps he never had the nerve to send it, the nerve that he later imagined he did possess. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Apr 5, 2017 6:37:42 GMT
What about the letter that the young Tony writes? Do you believe that he actually sends it? For later on, the film shows him ripping it up. Was that act just a precursor to a later copy that he types and sends, or was it wish fulfillment on his part (Tony wishes that he had torn up the letter rather than sending it), or did he actually never send it?
I am guessing that he did in fact send it, since he references it to Veronica in the cafe, and her response does not suggest confusion. But perhaps he never had the nerve to send it, the nerve that he later imagined he did possess. yeah, I didnt get that part either. We first see him write the nice postcard and then he gets the nasty letter from Veronica herself - so I believe he did send the nasty letter and the version where he wrote the nice postcard "old pal, its ok, enjoy" or something like that, is maybe just his mind trying to convince him he took the high road and trying to make him forget about the nasty letter that he wrote and sent..
There were many ambiguities in the film at first I thought maybe it is a flaw but now I think it was meant to make the viewers think about the concept of what an unreliable narrator our own minds are… I think I will end up reading the book, too. |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 5, 2017 7:47:55 GMT
yeah, I didnt get that part either. We first see him write the nice postcard and then he gets the nasty letter from Veronica herself - so I believe he did send the nasty letter and the version where he wrote the nice postcard "old pal, its ok, enjoy" or something like that, is maybe just his mind trying to convince him he took the high road and trying to make him forget about the nasty letter that he wrote and sent..
There were many ambiguities in the film at first I thought maybe it is a flaw but now I think it was meant to make the viewers think about the concept of what an unreliable narrator our own minds are… I think I will end up reading the book, too. Yeah, I would agree with the part in bold. I also concur about how the movie invites audience participation. I missed the part about Veronica's letter, though—from their student days? What does she tell him? I recall Adrian writing Tony a letter informing the latter of Adrian's relationship with Veronica. |
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Apr 5, 2017 20:35:25 GMT
yeah, I didnt get that part either. We first see him write the nice pos tcard and then he gets the nasty letter from Veronica herself - so I believe he did send the nasty letter and the version where he wrote the nice postcard "old pal, its ok, enjoy" or something like that, is maybe just his mind trying to convince him he took the high road and trying to make him forget about the nasty letter that he wrote and sent..
There were many ambiguities in the film at first I thought maybe it is a flaw but now I think it was meant to make the viewers think about the concept of what an unreliable narrator our own minds are… I think I will end up reading the book, too. Yeah, I would agree with the part in bold. I also concur about how the movie invites audience participation. I missed the part about Veronica's letter, though—from their student days? What does she tell him? I recall Adrian writing Tony a letter informing the latter of Adrian's relationship with Veronica.
Oh I mispoke - I mean: the letter Veronica brings him (the nasty letter he himself sent before) |
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Apr 6, 2017 20:50:04 GMT
Oh I mispoke - I mean: the letter Veronica brings him (the nasty letter he himself sent before) Oh, so that is what that letter happened to be; I was never clear on that point. Thanks. |
|
