Tuesday

I think there is indeed a difference between when a film ends and when a film finishes, as discussed last night. A film ends when the credits start rolling, but has it really finished? (We shall leave aside movies such as Austin Powers that include jokes during the credits, or X-Men: The Last Stand that has an important plot point after them.) What this has to do with is consistency, coherency, and completeness in the plot. The audience has to feel satisfied (not necessarily 'happy') when they leave the theatre. For studios, the walk of the moviegoer from the cinema to their car/bus/train is very important. If you're talking about the film then, they've got you hooked. And the best way to get you talking then is to have made the ending impressive. Now it doesn't have to tie up all its loose ends, be funny or clever. On the contrary, I think the best endings are those which leave things open. It's how they leave them open that's important. Manhattan is perhaps one of the best examples for this. In many films, however, you can't help but feel uneasy. What happens after the end of Return of the Jedi? Many directors/writers resort to killing their main character. But does this finish everything, or merely end it? Often when I'm enjoying a good film (because I do enjoy bad films too) I begin to worry about the ending. It could ruin everything that has gone before. It, in many ways, forces into the open the philosophy/outlook of the writer, which had been concealed up to that point. It's the mark of a good filmmaker.