Nocturnal Animals : Pretentious garbage

Not turning up is entirely the point; it's his raison d'etre, his coup de grace. His convoluted plan of revenge by way of art can only be completed if he doesn't turn up.

It's similar to Brad Pitt having to kill John Doe in order to complete his 'work of art' in Se7en. Everything leads to that final act of free will.

Not having that, although we'll probably never really find out.

IMO It's too weak as a final message and doesn't adequately explain her reaction.
She could have easily emailed him again and tried to track him down.

And my theory is a better comparison to the finale in se7en.

Saying you're going to meet someone and not showing up in this context does not fit your descriptions of the point he was supposedly making.

I'm not certain his motive was entirely to avenge what she did to him. It was almost a gift to her, with a bit of pain and hurt mixed in.

The book was an intense allegory of what he went through since she did what she did. A story so well written with hidden messages that he was confident would make her feel something and to bring some of the young Susan he fell in love with back. He knew this had worked to some effect when she contacted him but could not have known for sure how much and how it had affected her, although we, as the viewers did.

So based on this I'm not sure what he could have gained from not turning up if his motive was purely revenge.

IMO. He wanted her to look at herself and consider her choices and even to feel pain and anxiety, but he could only achieve this if he drew out the old Susan.

There's no way the book was a lets get back together and start again message, just so he can stand her up.

Whatever Edwards fate, she had come to some conclusions with her life and was not going to go back to the life she has.


i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

You're overthinking it buddy.

And I didn't mean it was literally like Se7en, I meant it in the way that someone else has to behave in a certain way for the final piece of an antagonist's 'plan' to come to fruition.

Also, how can he be dead from cancer when he replies to her email just before meeting her?

But hey, we're never going to agree, so best we leave it, eh

yeah,
he kills himself after he got the reply

i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

Right, that's what happens in the book. The book is explicit about this, the film is not. Therefore it is open to interpretation in the film. I prefer to think that not turning up is the bigger Up Yours! than topping himself. But, hey, each to their own here

But why on earth do you think he has cancer?

because the book is a message to Susan.
After 19 years something must have happened in Edwards life to write this book now. What type of thing could happen to someone that would make them want to revisit something after so long.

In the story, Tony only gets to address his tormentors fully when he learns Andes has terminal cancer. Without this it looked like he was not going to get justice/revenge.


Also Edward's not killing himself because he's still screwed up about Susan. He's doing it because of the cancer/or something else.

If Edward sees himself in Tony then there must be something in the death of Tony that is a clue to Edwards fate. Tony didn't intend to die in the book but did die after achieving his aim (so to speak). Therefore, was Edward happy to die after getting the response from Susan after reading the book.

It's not an up yours he's after, he wants her to feel something, to feel moved by the story and how her choices have affected others and so on. He wants her to look into herself and find the young Susan he once knew.

i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

It's another interpretation of the film, to be sure.

I wonder though, whether the book told Edward's story from the perspective of a potentially neutral third person, or Susan, or Edward himself.

You see if you only have Susan's version it is not reliable. In the film Edward is completely absent. We can't read the motivation of Edward from anything int he film save the actual text of the book, the dedication, and his emails.

From those alone it is very much unclear whether he is angry, sad, or doesn't really give a toss.

How the book told the story could be entirely different, and should be interpreted independently, but is interesting nonetheless.

Couldn't agree more.

---

The two of you killed everything I ever loved. **** you both.

---

It's telling that the only commentary you can put forth has nothing to do with the story itself.

I disagree really liked it

A lot of people with different ideas about what happened to Edward, and why he didn't turn up, and a lot of reading his character and motivations despite the fact Edward isn't even in the film apart from two emails, and his book.

I read this as the story of a cynical woman filled with regret, who made a singular bad decision, and fell into the trap of a life she never wanted, lacking the courage to escape.

In her desperation, and disillusionment with her career, and marriage, she mythicises a relationship which she had years ago. the subject of which, Edward, is only ever present in the form of two emails, his book, and her memories, and interpretation of his textual character as 'Edward'.

We cannot effectively judge Edward, or his motivations based on her version of him.

He might have not turned up because he was dead, but he spent a long time and had a massively successful career since she dumped him decades before. So why would he, it was twenty years ago. Was he like her, filled with all the same regrets, and anger?

Or was her version of him romanticised. Did he move on, being hardened by her betrayal, perhaps become as cynical as she was, and this is why his career had flourished as an academic. In which case why would he kill himself? His not turning up might just be that he disregarded her feelings, because he didn't really have any romantic feelings for her, and dedicated the book to her solely because she was the inspiration.

There were some long scenes, and I found the scene on the highway very hard to watch, as these scenes always are (Strawdogs, anyone?). However, people that say this film had no plot, was style over substance, or make similar accusations probably just walked into the wrong film, and frankly didn't get it.

This film is rich for analysis. Strong, interesting analysis. I thought about some of it, but all I needed was the first scene with the naked women to sell me that this was a very clever director.

I agree with most of what you say and my theory about Edward's fate is just that. I suppose because I cannot see the reasoning to stand her up as part of some sort of revenge.

---

His not turning up might just be that he disregarded her feelings, because he didn't really have any romantic feelings for her, and dedicated the book to her solely because she was the inspiration.

---

I can totally see though,how he could be indifferent, as you've described, and that I am probably overthinking it.

The film is clearly centred on Susan's thoughts and feelings and memories. So I could see that all we are witnessing is a catharsis of a woman reaching middle age and having regrets, with the book helping this along.

The very dramatic last scene could, I suppose, be her realising that she can't just go back/it's not going to be easy, as the damage is done.

The book though is the product of Edward and we can only speculate on any hidden meanings or reflections of true events within. But there definitely were some.



i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

Absolutely Edward is manifest in the book, and her experiences of him provide one context. What we infer is limited to that.

But from those having read or been told of the book it appears logical that he has cancer, but even this can be obvious, and read as being even more complex.

If the book contains metaphors, why can't it be one. Why when so much is metaphor, is cancer literal, and not metaphorical.

I knew from the first scene (which felt very David Lynch), and the shot of here being blinded by her own fancy automatic gate, that this was a film that would reward a deep analysis.

I am however well lazy, and will look forward to reading more active and busy minded intelligent interpretations of this film.

I guess my question about this movie is, So what? Who cares? The most interesting, more relatable, more admirable character, Edward, is missing. . .

This movie has a lot of great performances, not only from the leads. Beautifully shot. The music was a bit overwhelming at times for me. But this is really a very simple movie with a dangerous back story within. There are no zombies or some action hero in a mask or some weather disaster or virus taking over the world. Spoilers ahead.Just the story about a guy who fell in love with a woman who left him for another man, aborted his child, and basically said he was nothing as a man, which was in itself brutal. It took him 19 years, but this was his gift to her, and it was compelling and again brutal. He let her know that she killed them, his daugher, and him. But he did avenge their deaths resulting in his own. That he was emasculated no more. And then he stood her up and left her haunted.

---

but I think there's a lot of Emperor's New Clothes mixed up in all these "brilliant" and "mesmerising" comments.

---

That's exactly the vibe i got watching it the parts don't add up too the sum of the whole .This movie appeals to intellectual morons with room temperature IQ's i turned it off after 15mins i felt my iq's decreasing it was insulting to someone of actual intelligence .

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.

So sayeth the genius.
So thirsty for knowledge in life he/she watches a film for 15 minutes then wastes his/her time commenting on it.

i'm tired of dancing here all by myself

I am guessing this guy never saw the movie, but maybe the trailer? Can you turn this off after 15 minutes? Isn't it shown in theatres which require paying at the box office and you'd have to walk out not turn off.

The only good part was the book part. The beginning made me want to turn it off. I really didn't think that was necessary. It does get better though.

If you have a movie where the book containing the overly obvious metaphor physically cuts the person about to read it, you know it's going to be pretentious as hell. "How To Win Awards: Remedial Version".

Quidquid Latinae dictum sit, altum viditur.

---

If you have a movie where the book containing the overly obvious metaphor physically cuts the person about to read it, you know it's going to be pretentious as hell

---

That statement is just silly, but it does show you yourself read Tony & Susan before seeing the film giving you a skewed view from the film and not being able to see the film as others that did not the book do.

You're narrow vision is certainly your weakness.

This film boils down to a statement about how people deal with relationships and do so in a sophisticated way. One person describing how they felt when the other crushed them. Susan walked away from a relationship even though she loved Edward, leaving Edward extremely hurt and changing his life forever. Edward did an amazing thing, writing a book that crucifies Susan.

Again, my feeling is you've never been in a relationship like this and simply cannot relate, which leaves you out of the circle. Your feeble, shallow thoughts on this film show just that. I haven't read Tony & Susan, but just from what I have read there certainly are some differences between the two, so relying on the book to judge the film does not seem valid. Ford made this bitch his own.

just garbage

More like 10 years younger, which in my opinion in the younger scenes he did look that age.

Hater