|
>The "storm is real" folks have correctly pointed out that >Curtis' wife was supportive of him throughout the movie, and >that is indisputable, but I think the key difference in the >last scene is that Curtis had finally explicitly "let her in" >to his world. The important change isn't in her character - >she always wanted to help - but in his, because he had now >opened up and was willing to accept her help. Correct me if >I'm wrong, but doesn't the scene preceding the final "storm" >show Curtis seeking professional help with his wife by his >side? That was the turning point. I just love the poetry of >him no longer having to "weather the storm" of mental illness >alone.
True, but Curtis is honest with her starting way before that, when he confesses why he's been acting erratically. He also has her on board when she comes back after the firing and after the Lions Club. It just doesn't seem like he's "on his own" even before the consulting scene before Myrtle Beach.
I will say the moment in which he acknowledges he can't do it and hands her the key to very actively help him is a crucial moment, and very well may qualify as a turning point from her active participation in them trying to have a normal life to her active participation in them trying to help him since he'll never have a normal life. There is a shift there, and maybe that shift provides justification for your take.
>The movie isn't exactly fresh in my mind. I'll need to watch >it again to look for some of the specifics of the last scene >that you guys have pointed out. Frank, is it possible that >the camera spent more time on the wife and the daughter in the >final scene because it was the first time they were seeing >"the storm" from Curtis' point of view? I don't know...again, >I'll have to re-watch.
I think if it was, Nichols would have still made Curtis the focus of most of the frames, and he's not. He's not even looking at Sam or the daughter as they see the storm, and he's the last one to notice the storm.
>I sort of come down on Will's side that if the storm is real, >it changes way I'd interpret the whole first part of the film. > It would basically mean he was a prophet, wouldn't it? So, >was he right to move his dog outside, because there was a >possibility it would attack the family? Was he right to build >the storm shelter, since the storm he imagined actually came?
You don't have to be a prophet to see that shit is falling apart in this country. Everyone acknowledges throughout the movie the economic recession. However, the family still plans a vacation, the church members believe they're safe, the hagglers at the market try to get laborers to sell their work for less than it's worth knowing their backs are up against the wall.
I realize this is referring to the allegorical apocalypse and somewhat dodging the question, but I think it's an important angle to consider.
As far as the literal visions and apocalypse... it's hard to say. "Prophet" seems to imply he was certain it was real and that he wasn't crazy, when really he's not sure of it at all. He's also having visions of doom even when they're unwarranted-- he's out of touch with reality and his predictions and feelings aren't always accurate. He's definitely mentally ill... it's like I said above, the streetcorner doomsayer WILL be right eventually, even if he's obsessed and paranoid and out of touch with societal norms. >>"But as long as they're seeing the same thing I >>think there is a resolution and the possibility of hope in >the >>film." > >To go back to Nichols' statement, if the storm was real, >apocalyptic or otherwise, I wouldn't see much possibility of >hope in that. Curtis had visions of massive storm that was >going to kill people, his vision came to fruition, and, the >end? I think the fact that Curtis is finally actively letting >his family in to his world to help him weather the storm of >his illness fits a lot more in with that possibility of hope. >Yes, storms will continue to come, but as long as Curtis and >his family are "seeing the same thing", it will be easier for >Curtis (and his family) to cope and make it through.
But I see the apocalypse at the end and I still feel... even if not hope, that same sense of togetherness, that theme of the-American-family-trying-as-a-unit-to-fight-off-collapse, etc. They may not be able to make it, but their bravery in facing it and trying to work together to avoid it is admirable. I might even say the film finds the innate human desire to press on with family life despite impending doom admirable as well. So I do understand that sense of hope even if I think... it won't end well for them, lol.
>You guys with an opposing viewpoint might be right, but I >think there is too much substance on this side of the argument >to discount it entirely. > >Again, I need (and can't wait) to re-watch the movie.
I think the more I talk about it that it's hard to fully remove one's self from the literal or the allegorical read. We can prefer one to the other, but Nichols has woven them together so tightly that it's hard to say "full doom and gloom" or "full hope." He's not sane, but he might still be right.
The Blu-Ray of this film... is gorgeous, btw. Strong recommendation for purchase.
My movies: http://russellhainline.com My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/ My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide
|