SCREEN-L Archives

October 1994


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
"Richard J. Leskosky" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 20 Oct 1994 10:08:19 -0500
text/plain (28 lines)
On Wed, 19 Oct 1994, Shawn Levy replied to my posting of the same day:
>I think that the ending of the narrative (i.e., not the
>ending of the actual chronology) leaves us with a moral, not a cop-out.
>We know that of the two characters who leave at the very end of the film,
>one dies and one changes his life.  This knowledge helps us see a message
>in their departures, namely, stay in the life and you will die.  The two
>characters who leave -- one to roam the earth like Caine, one on a
>chopper -- are alive morally and physically.  The one who sticks to his
>ways dies.  EVEN THOUGH he's the most loveable, he is still (how else to
>put it) a Reservoir Dog, destined to die.
Ye-es but.... does the character die because of sticking to old ways or
because a Pop Tart pops out of a toaster at the wrong moment?  It's the
inverse, as it were, of the "miracle" scene which occasioned the change in
the other character and seems ironically to validate the dead character's
argument that the "miracle" was a mere fluke.
I also wonder how long this particular thread can continue without a
Richard J. Leskosky
Unit for Cinema Studies, UIUC
office phone: (217) 244-2704
FAX: (217) 244-2223