I really liked this movie a lot, Loved the performances of all the actors and even the story, but was not quite convinced with the ending. It would have been really nice if they had killed Eden Fletcher(As he was one of the main reasons for Mike Burns death). Did anyone felt the same?
shareNo, I loved the ending. Killing Eden Fletcher would have been satisfying, but perhaps a little too satisfying, if you get my drift. It would have made the film too much like a standard Hollywood movie where we have to see the "bad guy" get what he deserves. It's more realistic this way -- it seems the slick big shots like him always manage to survive. I was just content to see that smug smile wiped off his face at the end.
share[deleted]
When I saw the movie the first time, yes, but after multiple viewings I considered it one of the most satisfying endings I have seen (for such a downbeat story).
You have to remember while Fletcher was the driving force behind Mikey's "40 lashes", it was Sgt. Lawrence who caused the public outrage over Stanley's "deal", and Officers Dunn and Gordon who presided over the flogging itself. These 3 characters did not survive.
On the other hand, Fletcher now has quite a mess on his hands. He runs a town without a police force, and could no longer point fingers at Stanley, because hey, he fired him. I picture a lynch mob (including family of the slain police) dragging Fletcher out of his office.
However, I suppose it is ambiguous as to what happens to all the remaining characters after the credits roll.
it was worth it just to see the look on Fletchers face as he sees the mangled and mutilated bodies of the policemen thrown in Mikeys jail cell.
two kinds of people in the world,those with loaded guns and those who dig...you dig.
I liked the ending as well. Sort of like the ending of "The Graduate". No point in adding a coda. It is best left with loose ends.
This movie is a story of contrasts. The natural beauty of the land -- the outlaws even make mention of the beautiful sunset at one point. The stars in fields of blue seen from under a withered tree then from behind bars. The genteel Christmas setting and the savage attack.
The outlaws destroyed the attempts at beauty and order, best represented by the trail of destruction at the end when the bad man stomps through the rose garden and the fence.
The aborigines had life worked out for themselves until invaders came to disturb it (destroy it). They did not wear shoes until they were told that they must.
I don't think it is a story about these guys or what happened to them next so much as one about one part of mankind's efforts to build and another part's efforts to destroy. So what happened at the end for these people was not the point.
I agree as I wanted to see him "get his" also. Charlie should have killed Stanley and not his brother. They could have gone their separate ways but that would have been too predictable I suppose.
In Love With Alan Rickman
Huh?
Why do you suppose Stanley deserved to die while Arthur deserved to live? The former might be a brute in some ways - but the latter is clearly a monster.
Arthur was still Charlie's brother and blood is thicker than water. Stanley was responsible for Mikey's death because he did not stop it. Okay he could not have stopped it but Mikey was his responsibility and died whilst in his custody after being brutally whipped. He had to pay for that, he was the boss man afterall.
In Love With Alan Rickman
If Charlie would have shot Stanley instead of his brother, I think it would have ruined the ending. Charlie was clearly trying to battle his internal demons between kinship and morality, and to do anything other than what he did would have been a major detour from the point of the story.
shareYeah, the rather implausible ending ruined an otherwise fine film for me.
In the opening scene, as Captain Stanley viciously beats on them, Charlie snarls, "Touch my brother again and I'll kill you."
As the film progresses, we get to know a bit more about the lawman - we see his humane qualities and witness how he tries to prevent Mikey's flogging.
However, Charlie knows NOTHING about this - so why would he have anything but undiluted hatred & bloodlust towards Stanley? Surely he'd hold him fully responsible for Mikey's death?
Whether he'd be party to the rape or not is another question - but for him to walk into that room, ingore this man he promised to kill, especially now that hes ostensibly reneged on the proposition - and execute BOTH his brothers - wtf ?!!
It reminds me of the Hays Code enforced endings they tagged onto film noirs in the 40s - to show how the bad guys always get their comeuppance.
It wasn't an implausibility, the moral aspects of the movie just went over your head.
In addition, Samuel wasn't one of the Burns brothers.
Yeesh, if you thought the ending was implausible, you totally didn't understand the whole movie. Frankly, when the movie ended, I wanted to stand up and cheer, because for once, they got it right -- the ending was absolutely perfect.
I hazve no problem with Charlie killing his brother (I actually thought that was the predictable bit), but I wonder whether they wimped out slightly by letting Stanley live.
As an alternative, I was thinking that Charlie could have shot him after his brother. He goes out, his brother dies, and then Charlie suddenly gets shot. Canera pans round to reveal Stanley's wife holding a gun, cuts to a close up of her shell shocked face, the end. I think that would take the film to its logical conclusion of brutality and brutalisation.
Your penchant for bloodthirst (Charlie killing Stanley) would have ruined the whole point of the film. And what did Stanley do precisely to deserve a beating and murder attempt?
shareEr, the other guy , the rapist,was NOT his brother. Keep up !
shareIt did cross my mind that Charlie would think that Stanley was responsible for the flogging (and it certainly appears to cross Stanley's mind as he is lying on the floor at the end watching Charlie walk in). But the surprise of what Charlie does next made sense to me. I think that when he cried for Mikey, he was also crying for himself and what he had become. His original departure from the gang was because of his distaste for the violence and depravity which was spearheaded by his psycho brother Arthur. This is shown in flashbacks like when he walks through the house of the murdered family. Later, when his brother is killing the bounty hunter and getting pleasure from inflicting more pain, Arthur says something like "when are you going to stop me?" The answer is given at the end. He stops Arthur, his other brother (?) and his life of crime all at once. It would make sense that he shows compassion for Stanley as part of his new persona. Also, I think the threat of "touch my brother again and I'll..." could be interpreted as bluster rather than a serious threat because after all, he's handcuffed at the time.
Bottom line, I did like the end. It was poetic. They were watching the sunset together (again) but this time he had carried out the mission. It must be reminding him that if he had done it during the last sunset, a lot of pain and bloodshed could have been avoided. He might have even arrived back in town before Mikey's flogging and Stanley would have been able to justify the whole "proposition." I also think it is implied that Charlie is thinking about suicide as he says "I'm going to join my brother now" or something to that effect.
Just one person's opinion.....
A perfect ending would be that Arthur Burns,his gang and a million Irish Catholics ride in save Mike and shoot every Brit and black in Australia and Australia becomes part of EIRE!
Indeed, the captain showed that he had a compassionate side in several scenes. We'll never know if he would have made good on his proposition, however.
shareAnd she's off again - once for all, Arthur was a stone killer, psychotic and vicious, no one liked him not even his own family. And it was only a matter of time before some mob surrounded Arthur and tore him to pieces, a demise which he richly deserved, rather than the gut shooting he actually got - very painful and protracted, of course, but not nearly as excruciating as he deserved. I only hope you are never the victim of someone like Arthur and have cause to regret your 'liberal' stupid and wildly outdated stance on 'murderer as society's victim'. Because, believe me, there are Arthurs out there wherever you live.
BTW, IMHO, Stanley and his wife both survived to move to somewhere much nicer, say Sydney, where Mrs STanley's standards could be met with more ease, or even back to England to Sonning, Esher or Hayward's Heath - all very nice in those days, today, not so much.
Hear hear.
shareI actually loved the ending. I am really amazed more and more each time I see this film.
shareI thought the whole movie was as good as scripts get. Despite the brutality of those in charge, its not them that are keeping the land uncivilized. Regardless of societal interpretations of their schematic for "civilization", they have a particular idea of what that should be. Charlie Burns had already come to agree with that in spirit by his actions before the film starts, when he apparently decided to stop riding with his brother and to take Mikey with him. It is during the movie that he moves from no man's land in between the British authority and his brother. By the end, he comes to realize in a broad sense that the Arthur Burns's of the world are no good as well as realizing that it was Arthur, ultimately, that killed Mikey in the reality of Australia as it was then.
"What difference does it make what you say about a man?"- Tanya
sheywhat, I'd love to hear your opinion about John Hillcoat's directing The Road in relation to The Proposition. I'm assuming you've read the book?
If I only had a little humility, I'd be perfect.
Yes, I'm on pins and needles (the kind you can be on spread out over many months) for both The Road and Blood Meridian. I was excited the first time I saw Hillcoat was fronting The Road and then, just to show you that I've probably thought about it too much, Neil Marshall's second film came out. He directed another Australian film, The Descent, that came out right around when TP came out. They were both the highest kind of two different genres. If you haven't seen TD, I highly recommend it but then Marshall's second film came out, I forget what it was called, but it looked horrible even in the minimal time in the trailer and then it got universally panned by critics. I didnt' even see it. But that's neither here nor there accept in my mind. I pray that Hillcoat doesn't do that with his second film. As for his doing The Road, just the look of TP was great and the landscape has a mind of its own, so to speak, and it will be totally different in detail in The Road but it definitely will need to be a major character. If you were to hammer down genre for the story, if you didn't just throw your hands up and call it a drama then you would be best to describe it as science fiction. As such, the set is going to be crucial- very very very crucial! If Hillcoat can create an otherworldly atmosphere that is ever present in the journey of the father and son and the cast can embody the tense and dismal will to survive...
Its strange but just in terms of Hillcoat's TP and Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, it causes one to ponder for a second if the two respective McCarthy books they are directing aught not be switched. Haha! I know things don't work like that but the Blade Runner experience aligns better with the material in The Road. Not that the stories are anything alike. Only that the entire world in Blade Runner is bleak and it serves as a major character and, of course, its a sci-fi. Such is the Road. Then Blood Meridian has the wide-open starkness of The Propisition and, of course, they are both Westerns in spirit, if not by legitimate proxy to our western states. But it is what it is and as far as it goes, I'm looking very forward to both films and pray that they follow in behind No Country and not All The Pretty Horses. The Coens set the bar pretty high so even if Hillcoat approaches that level of respect for the source material, it will be a treat.
I've been a fan of Viggo Mortensen since Penn's The Indian Runner and he's proved his talent in several rolls with a particular nod to Eastern Promises where he was in perfect form. He should be able to hold the necessary desperate tension of the father trying to keep his son alive while also carrying you know what to do you know what if necessary. (Didn't want to have to put a spoiler alert on this for the last sentence. You've read The Road?)
"What difference does it make what you say about a man?"- Tanya
Yes, I'm on pins and needles (the kind you can be on spread out over many months) for both The Road and Blood Meridian.
I think, on your common point of the violence in both works, they should look to the Coen's example with No Country where they slowly faded from the graphic violence until the end when it wasn't even being shown (barring the car accident which is a different kind of violence). As well, they should be attuned to the obvious fact that there is more going on within, or from, the violence. There are great stories in both and the violence is an unavoidable tool. One of McCarthy's great strengths in the book is the beauty of the language which, regardless of the subject being violent, it never can rise above the beauty propelling it. On film, its an entirely different story simply because so many movies are violent and its more challenging to separate yourself from that of those showing violence with no other purpose than to fill the minutes of the entertainment. The term gratuitous violence gets used but I don't see it being any different than "gratuitous love" or "gratuitous wealth" or "gratuitous beautiful person" or etc...
Obviously, Blood Meridian would follow the Judge around and take part in the wake of his sinister intentions. I think that will be the movie's main thread with the other main characters trying to save themselves, haha! There are some definite priceless scenes that jump out. Casting for the Judge will be extremely important to the chemistry of the film.
"What difference does it make what you say about a man?"- Tanya
I think, on your common point of the violence in both works, they should look to the Coen's example with No Country...
One of McCarthy's great strengths in the book is the beauty of the language which, regardless of the subject being violent, it never can rise above the beauty propelling it.
Obviously, Blood Meridian would follow the Judge around and take part in the wake of his sinister intentions.
Casting for the Judge will be extremely important to the chemistry of the film.
"Perfectly stated, shey."
That's my favorite part of your post Cog.
Seriously though, yes, it was funny to read so many threads about the violence in No Country and I kept thinking that they showed precisely enough to make the point and that the movie was perfectly balanced and restrained in the use of violence in the adaptation. That same skill will have to be shown in both Blood Meridian and The Road. But more so for Blood Meridian. After all, look at the first word in the title. But in both works, there's an epic and dramatic story being told. That's what I hope/believe that Scott and Hillcoat will concentrate on.
The Road does hinge quite a bit on the boy. Children are always an easy place to go wrong in a movie. (It feels mean saying that. No offense to the kids but a bad actor is a bad actor.) But very much so in that story because the screen time and the core of the drama will come from the dynamic between the father and the boy while they try to survive and even maintain a misshaped and gutted relic of civilization.
I would have to say that Judge Holden's intentions are sinister. He wants to control on one hand, of course, but within his control he likes to unleash mayhem. Since you're not to the end, I can't quote the kid from a moment which sticks out in my mind as much as Judge Holden ordering all the men to piss in the gun powder he made while they were under siege. Anyhow, its a very telling moment and gives an insight into those two and their place in it all. Of course, Holden is enigmatic, articulate, thoughtful, intelligent, and curious but I don't think that keeps him from being trouble. Ha! Whoever gets that role is going to have a once in a life time opportunity to embody one of the largest larger-than-life characters in anything I have ever read. Ahab comes to mind from Moby Dick as far as that aspect of things are concerned. Not comparing the books, per se, just the overshadowing nature of the two central characters from the two works.
Don't read this.
Getting back to this movie: I think that an ending that asks a question ("What are you going to do now?") moves out of many people's comfort zone, or thumbs it's nose at their expectations. They then post their idea of what the ending 'should have been', as if the process should be interactive. I thought the ending fit the film perfectly.
It's so lonesome in the saddle since my horse died.
Agree, Byzantine - the ending couldn't have been more appropriate.
If I only had a little humility, I'd be perfect.
I am loathe to ask this on a board for the Proposition, but...
Do you think that Ray Winstone would be a good choice for the Judge?
It wasn't this film that put the thought in my mind... I'm not sure what it was... perhaps reading the book and reflecting on character experiences of films past did it to me...
I would've liked the ending better if Charlie would have killed Stanley too. Charlie obviously doesn't have a problem killing people, so why let the man that put your brother in that dangerous situation and got him killed, live? That didn't make sense to me. Killing Stanley wouldn't had made the movie too Hollywood, since his wife got raped and Charlie would still be the only surviving Burns brother, it's not like the movie's ending would've been too happy. letting Stanley live seemed kinda anticlimactic to me.
shareWhen the movie began, Charlie had stopped riding with Arthur because he wanted to leave that lifestyle behind. By the time he decided to kill his brother, it was because Mikey was dead and he blamed Arthur more than anyone else for that. That is why Charlie shot him at that point. If Stanley had been at the jail when everybody else was put down, he might have faired differently. But by the time Charlie got all the way out to the house, he had come to be thinking about one thing. Not to mention, if he kills Stanley, another Stanley replaces him and maybe even hunts him down for the jail killings. I doubt Stanley is going to be charging Charlie with anything after saving his life and preventing/stopping the rape of his wife.
And as far as the actual unfolding of the final scene is concerned, it would ruin the hole immediate calm that was created after that final shot. It became so calm and then Charlie, relatively calmly, says "I'm going to go be with my brother." And then the scene of them sitting and looking out at the wide open outback... Imagine this other shot in there of him killing Stanley? When would he kill him? Before or after he shoots Arthur? Does he shoot him in the head? Then does he kill Mrs. Stanley since she's a witness? Its over for good the way Charlie leaves it.
Don't read this.
" Charlie obviously doesn't have a problem killing people, so why let the man that put your brother in that dangerous situation and got him killed, live?"
Arthur and Charlie put Mikey in a dangerous situation by committing crimes and taking him with them. Stanley made it possible for Mikey not to be executed at once, which I think shows some leniency considering the period. The easier and likelier way would have been to hang them both at once.
Well I suppose he knew Stanley only did his duty. And seeing how he had been beaten to a pulp and his wife was raped in front of him he figured he had gotten enough.
Somebody here has been drinking and I'm sad to say it ain't me - Allan Francis Doyleshare
[deleted]
I did not expect, anticipate, or desire Eden (the *beep* Governor or whatever he was) like every other poster on this thread. He wasn't really part of the drama, he was just a douche who represented the evils of authority, mob rule, and vengeance seeking.
Really he did what any sheriff would do back then. Mikey used to be in the gang, im sure he robbed if not murdered people. Zero tolerance for that *beep* in any western-type society. They never made Mikey sympathetic to me, its just tragic because it ruins the proposition and makes Ray Winston out to be a liar.
[deleted]