There are things in life that are easy to let go. And there are also, naturally, things in life that are not easy to let go. While Don Draper's quote - "Just get out of here and move forward. It never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened." - is great life advice for nearly every conceivable situation, there is still one particular thing that continues to bother me to this day. That particular thing is the ending of the Dark Knight Rises.
I wrote about this in an earlier review of the movie. But, I'm not through. And, yes, spoiler alert. But if you haven't watched the movie yet (it's been half a year), and you're going to be all, "Don't spoil it for me! I still want to watch it!", I have two responses. The first is that you probably don't care about it enough anyway, so it's no big deal. The second is, go screw yourself. Cheerful remonstrations aside, the reason I am returning to this issue is because I had a micro-mini-Eureka moment about 5 minutes ago juxtaposing why the LOTR ending worked so well and TDKR ending didn't.
Here's what I wrote about the ending of TDKR:-
"...I agree it covered up all loose ends and was a very neat ending to the Trilogy (more on this later). But to me, it's a bit too neat. At the end of the movie, Bane was defeated. Talia Al'Ghul was defeated. Gotham was saved. Lucius Fox got what he wanted. Alfred got what he wanted. John Blake got what he wanted. James Gordon got what he wanted. Bruce Wayne got what he wanted. Hell, even Selina Kyle got what she wanted. But how likely is this? In a world where I can suspend belief to believe that the Batman is real, I'm still finding it difficult to believe that after an epic war/battle such as this one, all the major 'good guys' got happy endings.
No one fell from grace. No one died. No one faced a moral dilemma and came out of it for the worse. In short, no one lost anything. I have never been in a war. Fine. But I find it hard to believe that everyone, even the "good guys" can come out of it never having lost anything. Even if it's just a little part of themselves. How is it that all the "good guys" can just move on so easily? Yes, I know Rachel died in The Dark Knight but that was a different "war". I'm talking about the "war" just in the context of TDKR. How can you go through so much sacrifice without it having a Dent on who you are? It was just too neat for me. I would have liked to have seen an ending like in the Godfather series, particularly in Godfather 2 - Michael Corleone sitting in his cabin at Lake Tahoe, on top of the world but bitterly alone (before you crucify me on a spoiler for Godfather 2, the movie has been out for 38 years. It's your fault if I spoiled anything for you). Sure, the man got what he wanted, but not without losing a huge part of himself."
It really does still strike me as incredibly unlikely that there is really no character character development (not a typo - I mean the character of a character) after such a huge battle between the forces of Bane and the Arkham Asylum-nites and Batman, future Batman, Selina Kyle and Gotham's finest. How does one really not evolve? How does one not be scarred for life? After going through so much, it seems exceedingly unrealistic for me - from a character development perspective - that everyone gets a happy ending. My bet is that it's meant to cater to wide layperson audiences who, as is expected, would prefer neat, happy endings for all our heroes.
BUT, just because it's a happy ending doesn't mean it's the appropriate ending. Yes, yes, 'appropriate' is subjective. Yes, yes, this is just my opinion (I hate rebuttals that go, "It's just your opinion." Well, thanks Captain Obvious. Who else's opinion is it?). However, it's still a legitimate argument. If a person has been a lousy athlete for the first 18 years of her life, what are the odds that she'll be an excellent athlete in College? Pretty shitty odds right? But, in movies, that person somehow becomes a star athlete in College, through the virtues of determination and hard work. She wins the State championship. Everyone's happy. Moviegoers feel good. You know what sucks about that scenario? First of all, if she was a lousy athlete her whole life, she probably will still be a lousy athlete in the future - athleticism is hugely dependent on natural endowments. Second of all, this shits in the face of all athletes who were good athletes their whole lives AND have put in the requisite effort to be successful AND have strong determination to succeed. What happened to them? Why shouldn't the story be about them? For more of this bullshit-type endings, please watch South Park's Stanley's Cup episode (Season 10, Episode 14). It's a mistake to believe that we, or the people who star in movies, are necessarily the protagonists of every story.
This leads me to a juxtaposition between the ending of the LOTR series and TDKR series. I've already described, in very brief terms, what happened at the end of TDKR. At the end of the Return of the King, we see that after the deed is done, the hobbits return to the Shire, about a year or so after their long journey. Here is a step-by-step version of what made the ending so brilliant (again, this movie has been out for 9 years), based on the movie. The book stuff comes a bit later.
1. The Hobbits return to the Green Dragon Pub. It's dusk in the Shire. Frodo brings 4 mugs of ale to the table, where Pippin, Merry and Samwise are seated. The 4 hobbits look around the table - they see their other fellow hobbits of the Shire, having fun, having a good laugh, enjoying the night, just like how they have enjoyed it so many nights before and will so many nights henceforth. But our 4 hobbits know what the other hobbits don't know which is how hard the battle was fought to ensure that there are many more nights like these. They look around solemnly, knowing how much loss and sacrifice they've had to go through (Boromir, Theoden, Haldir etc etc) and they're thinking, "Wow, we understand things and we are privy to things that these other hobbits will never have to know." In short, they're just like the stories World War veterans tell. They've been changed, for better or for worse. They toast.
N.B: It's one of the most beautiful scenes in the entire trilogy. In fact, I think it's Movie Kaki Karen's favourite scene in the trilogy.
Here is some dialogue from the book as the Hobbits approach the Shire on their return.
"Well, here we are, just the four of us that started out together," said Merry. "We have left all the rest behind, one after another. It seems almost like a dream that has slowly faded."
"Not to me," said Frodo. "To me it feels more like falling asleep again."
2. Frodo feels the stab of the Morgul blade on the 1-year anniversary of the stabbing. Frodo has been stung by Shelob, had his finger bitten off by Gollum and has been stabbed by the Witch King. Did anyone really ever think he could ever be the same again? Anyway, the movie shows that he's struggling with this.
This bit is explained even better in the book. Here's the bit between Gandalf and Frodo.
"Alas! there are some wounds that cannot be wholly cured," said Gandalf.
"I fear it may be so with mine," said Frodo. "There is no real going back. Though I may come to the Shire, it will not seem the same; for I shall not be the same. I am wounded with knife, sting, and tooth, and a long burden. Where shall I find rest?"
Gandalf did not answer.
BOOM! If I had just been as succinct as this in writing this thing out, you'd have finished reading this 10 minutes ago. This is essentially my point. Frodo is no longer the same. Neither is Bruce Wayne, Selina Kyle, Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, John Blake and Lucius Fox. How could they possibly be?
3. The Hobbits meet Bilbo, believing they're about to send Bilbo off Into The West. To the surprise of the Hobbits, Gandalf and Frodo leave as well. Here is the bit that kicks in. A neat ending would be everyone lives happily ever after in their own homes but they meet every now and then. Gimli goes back to Erebor, Legolas goes back to Mirkwood, Aragorn and Arwen go back to Gondor, Eomer goes back to Rohan, the Hobbits go back to the Shire, Gandalf just wanders about as usual. Tolkein could have done that. But no. He chose an ending which was the best fit. Frodo, jaded by everything, had to leave. He couldn't stay in the Shire after everything that happened. To the dismay of Merry, Pippin and especially Sam, Frodo took the ship into the West. Here's what he told Sam (who was devastated and distraught, as was a fair bit of moviewatchers who thought he should have stayed to complete the happy ending - you know who you are):-
"Where are you going, Master?" cried Sam, though at last he understood what was happning.
"To the Havens, Sam," said Frodo.
"And I can't come."
"No, Sam. Not yet anyway, not further than the Havens. Though you too were a Ring-bearer, if only for a little while. Your time may come. Do not be too sad, Sam. You cannot always be torn in two. You will have to be one and whole, for many years. You have so much to enjoy and to be, and to do."
"But," said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, "I thought you were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after all you have done."
"So I thought too, once. But I have been too deeply hurt, Sam. I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them."
Again, if I was as succinct, we would have been done long ago. But please ponder the wisdom of these words and please realize the truth in them. Life isn't a series of happy endings for everyone. People lose things. And sometimes, the right ending is the ending where somebody starts over, as Jennifer Connelly's character says in 'He's Just Not That Into You.' Damn right I quoted that movie. But it is true. Just because an ending is neat doesn't make it the right ending. It can be, but it's not necessarily so. The neat ending worked in the Harry Potter series. It works in most Disney movies. But sometimes, stories shouldn't end on a neat or happy note, simply because stories need to end in the way that life generally dictates that it should end. Consider the movies Zodiac, Se7en, the Godfather series and so on. Their ending works because it was what the setting of the movies called for. Or consider the Watchmen story. Or Stephen King's "It" where the Losers Club kills "It" but they end up losing memories of their childhoods and the friends they spent them with. The "It" ending kills me because it's so goddamn moving and sure, I wish they all could still hang out or whatever, but that ending would not have worked. I mean, after everything the kids in the Losers Club have been through and after all they've experienced and sacrificed together, it sucked that they all had to forget each other. But in the context of the story, it had to happen.
Before I end, please appreciate this quote from Stephen King, taken from one of his books.
'And will I tell you that these three lived happily ever after? I will not, for no one ever does. But there was happiness. And they did live.'
So, remember. Sticking the Landing (or ending for the non-metaphor inclined) is critical to any story. But the landing must fit the story that was told, rather than having a neat or happy ending just for the sake of having a neat or happy ending. Go with what fits.
No comments:
Post a Comment