From a normal movie perspective, Armie Hammer's character is just old fashion cheating. Amy Adams overhears the woman on the call but doesn't say anything. There's the phone call scene where he is in an elevator with a woman. I also think Armie Hammer's character is a vampire. The jerk characters knew they were vampires and stripped them naked because they knew the sun would kill them in the morning.
#Nocturnal animals ending death skin
They were embracing each other because they were trying to cover each others skin from the sun. You know is the story within the story, the 2 female characters die? How are they found? Naked and embracing each other in the bed of a truck. Does that number sound right? How old is Amy Adams' character suppose to be? But that number makes more sense if she is an unaging vampire. In the beginning of movie, Amy Adams tell Armie Hammer she hasn't seen her ex-husband, Jake Gyllenhaal in 20 years. By waiting til the morning, she effectively let her self die because the sun is going to kill her.
The restaurant has floor to ceiling glass windows. She waited all night in the restaurant and starts to cry when it is close to morning. I know this sounds crazy, but my theory is Amy Adams' character is a vampire. I would love to see what others have to say on this! Hence, any correspondence too from Edward was a just a hallucination and hence no one showed up at the dinner where we see Susan waiting - because there was no Edward, and because the entire thing was a concept she had birthed in her mind to help her make sense of the things that were happening in her mind. Hence, in that sense, the entire retelling of Nocturnal Animals, the manuscript, is just being played out in Susan's mind and how she ruined Edward's life (metaphorically depicted by the three nocturnal animals that they found on the road that uneventful night). I believe that the entire manuscript, the title 'Nocturnal Animal', and even Eddward existing as a writer after 20 years was all a concept in the mind of Susan. She had no gotten sleep for a considerable amount of time and hence had been seeing things. He is now a nobody.īut Susan, now troubled in her own married life (and having inklings that she does not love her new husband and vice versa), begins thinking of Edward again and the life they had. The man, the author Edward died when Susan left him meaning that he perhaps stopped writing and took Susan's advice. Okay here is what I think about the ending that no one has yet pointed out as a possibility - There was no Edward to begin with. Love the move too, very dark and twisted! There's no need for him to show up and explain his feelings, because his story already mirrors the brutality, devastation, and general apathy he was subjected to by Susan, and now he's made her feel the same way, which best of all is not giving her the respect to show up. Edward's story was not a love story, but a revenge story that shows how far she hurt him. She's convinced herself she's fallen back in love with Edward.Īnd then Edward stands her up. This gets her hopes up to the point where she initiates the dinner as she believes this to be true.
As she gets hooked by the fantasy and intimacy of the story, her hopes of reconnecting with Edward (or some version of him) equate to a belief that he's trying to "win" her back. Because Susan is a depressive narcissist, Edwards revenge is to write the most personal and captivating story that has the capacity to move her. The main characters are copied after them, the setting is modelled after the town they grew up in, etc. She's not supportive of Edward in his career or their marriage, cheats on him, goes for an abortion and leaves him out of it, and is generally a jerk to all her art world underlings.Įdward's novel is incredibly personal to the both of them. Susan is a pretty awful person in the present and through flashbacks. I haven't seen the movie for a couple years, but the short of it is that the entire premise was Edward's highly orchestrated revenge on Susan for being a horrible partner to him.
0 kommentar(er)
