Have you ever been frustrated at how a good movie ends? What am I thinking? Of course you have. We all have. Sometimes I get it so bad that I want to smash my DVD player. I manage this anger by taking my dog for a walk. And on that walk I'll have a conversation with myself about why the writer did that to me. What I've discovered on these walks is that there's usually a reason for this storytelling tactic - maybe not a good one, but a reason nonetheless.
I had this exact experience and reaction to Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers. A great movie (Bill Murray is perfect) that has one of the most frustrating endings I've ever seen.
In a nutshell: this is a story about a lifelong bachelor who gets a mysterious letter from an old flame that tells him he has a twenty year old son. The letter is unsigned and gives no details. Our bachelor then goes, with help from a wannabe-sleuth neighbor, on a trip to visit old girlfriends that could have sent the letter.
Now, what do we want from this story? Allow me: we want to know, 1. who wrote the letter?, 2. does he really have a son?, and 3. will he find his son?
MAJOR SPOILER WARNING...
Jarmusch has decided to answer NONE OF THESE QUESTIONS.
Seriously, we fade out knowing nothing about what actually happened, or with any hint about what will happen.
I couldn't believe it. Apparently my dog couldn't either since he was standing at the door before the first end credit rolled.
So off we went or our frustrating ending walk. And do you know what happened? It all started to make sense.
Broken Flowers is not a story about a letter, a mysterious author, or a possible son. Broken Flowers is a story about how this lonely, lifelong bachelor "reacts" to the possibilities of these things. Answering the questions would actually take away from this character focus.
I didn't love Broken Flowers as much as most, but I applaud Jarmusch's complete dedication to the story he wanted to tell and the focus it needed to be told.
But still... I want to know.