Nocturnal Animals : Interpretation- Every Character is a reflection of Susan

Susan is every Character in the story.

She is that which was taken away from from Tony. (Wife and Daughter)

She is the one that took it all away by leaving him and getting an abortion. (The Gang)

She is the weak one who could not see her own strength and fight for what she loves. (Tony)

She is the one who helped Tony realize he was weak and needed revenge. (Bobby)

And they're all dead. Just like Susan is now dead to him (No show).

That's why its called Nocturnal Animals. Because they all represent her.



Boom. Roasted. Movie solved. Everyone go home. We're done here.

Good one! While not agreeing with everything I'm pretty convinced that the relation between two layers (novel and reality) is not a straight forward 1:1 thing and that Susan is found in many of the novel's characters.

I think the story lends itself to multiple interpretations, which is cool in my book. This interesting interpretation is an interesting one that holds some water. Thanks for sharing.

You're overthinking it, and don't understand the writing process. This theory is nonsense - all these characters are actually Edward. It's widely recognized every character in a novel is a different internal aspect of the author. They might be based on other people, but the source of these archetypes is the author himself.

Every character is Susan = Overthinking nonsense.
Every character is Edward = Totally reasonable.

Cool great super. Thanks for your input!

She criticized him for only writing about himself so he changed and wrote about her.

Sorry for thinking and stuff.

---

Sorry for thinking and stuff.

---

If you don't have experience, your thinking won't be very useful - you'll just come to glib or erroneous conclusions. It's obvious you haven't done any writing or you wouldn't propose this idea.

If you say so big guy.

OTOH, O Humble One, if you want to believe you're the only person who has 'solved' the movie and everybody can 'go home', go ahead and give yourself a pat on the back.

If you think you are entitled to the high ground in this conversation then that's all I need to know about your opinion.

Thanks again for your input. Enjoy your weekend.

Try to think this through logically.
Edward sits down at his computer - supposedly he's going to write a novel with multiple characters, all based on a woman he hasn't seen or spoken with for 20 years. When these characters open their mouths, they're going to say his words, fostered by his imagination. These characters are actually going to be him, far more than anybody else. After 20 years, he has no idea who she is.
In any case, Ford has said the novel describes how the divorce felt to Edward - like an abduction and murder. Tony is clearly a proxy for Edward.

"You're overthinking it, and don't understand the writing process. This theory is nonsense - all these characters are actually Edward. It's widely recognized every character in a novel is a different internal aspect of the author. They might be based on other people, but the source of these archetypes is the author himself."

Clearly you're the one who began the conversation by criticizing another posters opinion. Then you went to declare that unlike you, they couldn't possibly understand the writing process.

Frankly, you sound incredibly prissy.

"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it." Norman Maclean

Here's an exercise for you - try writing 5 pages of fiction with 6 characters, all of whom are based on somebody you haven't seen for 20 years. See the problem? Now try writing an entire novel in that mode - it's guaranteed to be a mess.
In any case Ford himself said the novel is based on how Edward feels about his divorce etc - so Tony clearly corresponds to Edward. It's not that complicated.

---

Every character is Susan = Overthinking nonsense.
Every character is Edward = Totally reasonable.

Cool great super. Thanks for your input!

---

HAHAHAHAHA. That poster is ridiculous. I think you're spot on.


There will be bloodbut you will be loved.

Not every character is Susan & not every character is Edward; the novel is analogous to their relationship though..

It's not a coincidence that the muscle car the douchebags are driving appears in the scene where Susan breaks up with Edward. Neither is the use of the red couch being used in the scene where she criticizes Edward's writing also being where the body of the wife in the story is found on. The symbolism isn't exactly the most subtle..

You're both wrong. Edward is the writer and it's the story how some people took his wife and child away from him. It is overthought nonsense in both cases.

---

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

---

I love that interpretation! And it explains why he stood her up at the restaraunt and why the novel was cathartic for him.

A good one. While the color use is very different from the book and Susan's life, Susan is associated with dark colors.

Maybe that would be the reason why the characters you depicted are animals that are nocturnal?

Cool theory. I like it.

---

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

---

I think you completely missed the point. This movie is all about how evil women are.

Sorry bud I'm just a guy who watched a movie, not your therapist.

---

This movie is all about how evil women are.

---

Hahahahaha . . . speaking personally, women are a source of great friendship and pleasure to me. If women are treating you badly, it's probably a reflection of how you're treating them. Did that thought ever occur to you? I thought not.