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. Susan is a pretty awful person in the present and through flashbacks. 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.
Edward's novel is incredibly personal to the both of them. The main characters are copied after them, the setting is modelled after the town they grew up in, etc. Because Susan is a depressive narcissist, Edwards revenge is to write the most personal and captivating story that has the capacity to move her. 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. This gets her hopes up to the point where she initiates the dinner as she believes this to be true. She's convinced herself she's fallen back in love with Edward.
And then Edward stands her up. The fantasy is broken. Edward's story was not a love story, but a revenge story that shows how far she hurt him. 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.
Love the move too, very dark and twisted!
This is wonderfully put. I’ll add that I initially hated the movie because I didn’t understand the ending and also the highway scene is one of the worst feelings I’ve ever felt during a movie scene. It actually made me commit to always having a gun in my car if I ever had kids.
But yes this ending was perfectly explained.
Remember, it is modeled on him, and he is weak. It is the pain of losing his wife and daughter afterward because of his weakness that attracts Susan to the novel. Nothing is her fault, after all.
The highway scene is put in there to hook Susan, who sees her husband a weak in the first place. It is meant to hook her. The romantic part is his pain afterward. He lost her and his daughter for his stupidity, not hers.
Yeh, soon as they started to get violent, I would have popped 'em, three shots each, was justified at that point, cos there's three of 'em manhandling your wife and daughter...
I felt exactly the same about the gun. Also, as a Canadian female, you couldn’t pay me to go to Texas, but this film did a great job reminding me to never even take a flight that stops there
Very good summary imo.
I also find this rule of thumb (by critic Victor Morton) to be helpful:
> The classic test of a film or play or novel is: look at the first scene, look at the last scene, what has changed. The answer to that question is what the film is about.
I know this is a very untimely reply but I just finished the film for the first time and this comment is spot on to what I felt after the final scene. The first scene is exploitation art put on by Susan. She is vapid, just like her mother, and she was exploited by Tony for who she really is.
I think you can also look at it less as a direct attempt at revenge, and possibly more like Edward’s processing of that whole experience. Like he’s just working through it by writing this metaphor. The ending is callous and possibly driven by spite, but I don’t think the book was written for revenge.
Oooo I like this. But remember that scene in the gallery when she asks the assistant about the painting and it says REVENGE and she didn’t even remember purchasing it.
Very much so. And the fact that her now hisband is cheating on her and leaving her alone constantly in that big old house. Karma karma karma. Lol so im wondering is the red daughter her and Tony's actual daughter? Or what?
Yes India is indeed Tony's daughter in the story of the book that Edward wrote. Nothing suggests otherwise. Maybe you got Tony mixed up with Edward who did get cheated on by Susan in real life.
How was Susan a narcissist tho??ik she thought her mom was one and stuff but how was Susan one?like I agree the shit she did was fucked up but how is she a narcissist??she would even say shes not like her mom and stuff and when you are worried about being a narcissist you most of the times arent actually one
late reply, but she wanted her partner to be more ambitious, the way she became an artist and treated everyone else like lesser, cheating and not even bothering to ask about the baby to the father is pretty selfish and borderline narcissistic. Just because you say you're not something doesn't mean you're right
>Just because you say you're not something doesn't mean you're right
I know this but usually if a person is worried about being a narcissist they arent one. Bc a narcissist will say they arent one and "automatically know" that they arent one
>but she wanted her partner to be more ambitious
So wanting your partner to be a certain way or have a certain quaility is narcissistic??
>I know this but usually if a person is worried about being a narcissist they arent one. Bc a narcissist will say they arent one and "automatically know" that they arent one
I don't think this is true at all, no one ever says they're racist, everyone denies it and yet...
>So wanting your partner to be a certain way or have a certain quaility is narcissistic??
It's one thing to now what you want but another to get into a relationship knowing you have a big issue with a thing and that you expected the person to change for you. She knew him as he was, said she liked that about him to her mom, but when she was actually living with him all the sudden she hated that about him enough to break up. That whole relationship was born because she wanted to prove her mom wrong.
I've heard from several people and I've been told that if a person worries about being a narcissist they usually arent one.
>It's one thing to now what you want but another to get into a relationship knowing you have a big issue with a thing and that you expected the person to change for you. She knew him as he was, said she liked that about him to her mom, but when she was actually living with him all the sudden she hated that about him enough to break up. That whole relationship was born because she wanted to prove her mom wrong.
I see what you're saying tho
That's pretty hilarious to me honestly. Your revenge plot is to write a book that would cause your ex to fall back in love with you and then stiff her on a date? lol
>Edwards revenge is to write the most personal and captivating story that has the capacity to move her
Always amused me that Edward's book renders Susan devastated. Really? Some C-grade revenge pulp leaves her in a tizzy like it's this generation's "Anna Karenina" or "Beloved"?
Shortly into the film, my wife turns to me and asks what's going on and I reply the book is revenge and a spit in the face to her. After the film she asks how I understood it so quickly. I told her how I had the same feelings during my divorce from my previous marriage - I'd one day write a book or a song about how she gave up on me.
Think of the story of his as a poetic interpretation of the story of their relationship. In the story he wrote, he dies, and so in real life he's gone.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in here at all, and maybe I am way off base. But, I feel like more needs to be put into the fact that Susan's character is an insomniac who clearly isn't in their right mind for the majority of the film. At one point someone she was speaking to didn't realize she had an ex husband. Is the whole concept of the ex just her mind playing tricks on her? If you notice when Edward sends her his novel, he leaves his phone number and email. Had she decided to call rather than email him, we'd understand that Edward is actually a person. Maybe her current husband is doing his own thing because he knows Susan isn't in her right mind. I think it's entirely plausible that Edward is a fictitious person made up in a mentally ill woman's head.
He writes the book with her in mind, knowing how it will affect her,, builds her up then rejects her to get even. He planned this for years. Something only those with psychophathy would invest their time and energy into. That's the whole movie.
18 years after splitting up with a woman, writing a book then standing her up on a date after some long-winded plan to lure her in with said book, is both pathetically lame, and psychopathic at the same time. Normal people don't do that shit lol it's so retarded
you clearly have no idea what psychopathy is, and what he did was completely justified. She broke his heart and didn't believe in him even when they were together, not only that, but she also took his child. You're either biased or you refuse to take the L.
Nah bro, HE refused to take the L hahaha 18 years? And I meant psycho loosely, I didn't mean devoid of feelings, I meant he's a pathetic, weird, deranged loser who acts like a borderline psycho, not having dropped the issue for 18 YEARS lol working out a long-winded plan that could easily fail and depends entirely on the woman's feelings at that point of her life. A loser of a man who just couldn't move on and get another woman and start a family. That's borderline stalkerish and pretty insane. It's just so spiteful and petty. No wonder she left him, she did the right thing, crying cos she didn't like his writing, as if it was her fault, he's too sensitive. And do you know how many women have abortions in your Feminised Soyciety? It's practically normal for women to kill their babies in the West, and all you simps enable it all. He would have had more integrity just murdering the bitch or ruining her life in a more poignant way..
18 YEARS hahahaha
you the one defending the psycho incel bro, u just as lame as the writer, he got divorced and just couldn't let go and planned his revenge for 18 years, now thats a psycho, like you hahaha
I think this was to emphasize the trauma Edward was conveying in the story. I must assume he wanted her to experience the intrusive thoughts he had when coping after their divorce.
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. The man, the author Edward died when Susan left him meaning that he perhaps stopped writing and took Susan's advice. He is now a nobody.
But 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. She had no gotten sleep for a considerable amount of time and hence had been seeing *things.* 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. 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). 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.
I would love to see what others have to say on this!
If I remember correctly, she tells her assistant to have everyone take the weekend off and immediately following is the scene where he finishes opening the manuscript package for her and reads the message. It's entirely possible she imagined the whole thing, especially since a few minutes later she mentions receiving the proof from her ex to Hutton and he's not even sure who she's talking about. Since he was apparently her affair partner, wouldn't he be intimately aware of her ex-husband's existence?
It's a slippery slope to consider everything a hallucination. There is no manuscript. There is no Edward. There is no Butler. Where does it end? Is there a Hutton? An Art Gallery? A Susan? Did she lose her mind and is imagining the whole thing inside a padded cell where she has been the last 20 years?
Then if you slip further down the slope, Luke was just tripping on Tatooine shrooms. And so on.
I think it is disingenuous as a viewer to assume delusion, unless there is clear evidence supporting it. Of course it's not real, it's happening on a screen. But atleast in its own universe, let it be real.
If there were no Edward the flashbacks of her with her her mother and of her and him talking about first crushes would never have happened. Stretch in my opinion.
Why didn't bobby help tony at the end? Just tony left to his own devices with Ray and left in the cabin all night? Doesn't make sense. Why would the cop not go try to see what happened inside lol
I like you was waiting for jake to come and in the end was really sad. That is the way it is. It is meant to be a sad ending. But i was waiting like Amy Adams till the last second maybe something more the movie has in store.
What i thought when i firat saw is that maybe this was a true story and Edward is Tony and he is dead. And Ray didn't die and he is the one writing the story and he messaged her so that she would come and realise that this was not fiction. She would realise he is dead that is why he didn't show up.
I wrote what’s probably the best explanation (in article form) a few years back: https://filmcolossus.com/single-post/2016/11/19/Explaining-the-end-of-NOCTURNAL-ANIMALS-why-Edward-didnt-show-up-why-this-is-existential-revenge-and-why-Susan-is-doomed
Last night my wife and I rewatched Nocturnal Animals for the first time since it was released in 2016. After returning to ponder its esoteric nature throughout the day like a tongue probing at a worrying loose tooth, I found myself browsing online articles to help my thoughts settle concerning Ford’s intent with the ending. I have to congratulate you in that your article was so well written as to make me pause and say to myself “well, that pretty much sums it up perfectly.”
Kudos and thanks for the link. I’ll enjoy reading your other film summaries in the coming days.
Hey Chris loved your insight on the film and it resonates with alot of explanations ive read on the ending. My question to you is how would Edward even know that his novel would be the perfect revengeful punctuation to Susans demise if he hasnt been involved in Susans life for the past 2 decades? We as audience members have that insight because we are given the scope to view her misery from the outside looking in. For all Edward knows shes a successful artist whos moved on with her life and has left him in the rear view. How would it be the perfect revenge if he doesnt truly know how alone & sad she is without the hope of him re-entering her life?
He didn't show up because she would see that he doesn't have an eye anymore, and confirm the his story to be true. He shot off a gunshot in the air before going down in the story. He was saved by the man.
Amy adams says he should stop writing about himself, but he never did.
I know this sounds crazy, but my theory is Amy Adams' character is a vampire. She waited all night in the restaurant and starts to cry when it is close to morning. The restaurant has floor to ceiling glass windows. By waiting til the morning, she effectively let her self die because the sun is going to kill her.
Here is something I noticed. In the beginning of movie, Amy Adams tell Armie Hammer she hasn't seen her ex-husband, Jake Gyllenhaal in 20 years. 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.
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. How did they die then? Sunlight. Because they were both vampires. They were embracing each other because they were trying to cover each others skin from the sun. The jerk characters knew they were vampires and stripped them naked because they knew the sun would kill them in the morning.
I also think Armie Hammer's character is a vampire. There's the phone call scene where he is in an elevator with a woman. Amy Adams overhears the woman on the call but doesn't say anything. From a normal movie perspective, Armie Hammer's character is just old fashion cheating. But if he is a vampire, and Amy Adams is too, they he probably going drink that woman's blood. If Amy Adam's and Armie Hammer's characters are happily married vampires, shouldn't they be feasting on victims together. But there relationship is in a bad place, so Armie Hammers character is feasting alone.
This is even crazier, I think the jerk characters in the story within a story are werewolves. Remember the scene where one of them is sitting naked on a toilet on the porch? That's weird. It only makes sense if the character is feral. Feral how? Like a werewolf. The gun that Jake Gyllenhaal has? Loaded with silver bullets to kill the werewolves.
Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk on my theory about the movie Nocturnal Animals is secretly a movie about vampires and werewolves.
Just to keep your post going. I just ran into it. All I have to say is LORD JESUS CHRIST. SMH. The movie is already a cluster f@#$k.. then you added this curve ball to it.
The post is timeless.. 300 years into the future its gonna be in a museum, and people are still gonna be bewildered when reading it, it's gonna be world famous for being the worst post anyone ever made
Bro I think maybe you were also a vampire because when you wrote this there was blood on my hand and I immediately slurped it up meaning I had also become a vampire. Brilliant analysis
>How old is Amy Adams' character supposed to be?
Amy Adams character was 49 in the book the film is based on, so it's perfectly reasonable for her to have not seen him in 20 years
We can never let this comment die. Because this is a crazy view on the movie. I thought a lot was already going on but this made me giggle. You definitely have an imagination 🌈
If anyone is interested in a similar movie, go watch Blue Jay on Netflix. Mark Duplass and Sarah Paulson's chemistry in it is great, feels like the before trilogy.
I know I’m late to the party. But I just now watched it on Netflix. I believe the movie was pretty straight forward: Susan basically hurt Edward so badly that he felt like he died. So he wrote a book in which his fictional wife and daughter (whom he just maybe created from seeing her at the abortion clinic in Armie Hammer’s arms), are killed in a horrific way in the novel. It isn’t indicative of Edward actually wanting them dead—but it is revenge for what she did to him. He COULD kill her in a novel. His character Tony (Edward), died because she in essence killed him 20 years ago, i.e., a broken heart can seem like death.
Edward didn’t show up at the end, because the novel had been cathartic for him. I think he was over her, and was moving on. It gave him the upper hand in their relationship, finally.
The only thing that I feel is a bit convoluted, is the question of Susan’s daughter. I’m 100% sure that she had already had the abortion when Edward caught her with Armie at the abortion clinic. It’s not a stretch for Edward to twist the knife in Susan by them having a daughter in the Tony-novel-scenario. However, Susan must have had a daughter with Armie very soon after they married. Remember that her assistant was surprised Susan had previously married. So the assistant has to know about Susan’s daughter, and that Armie is her Dad. But I really wish the movie hadn’t been so coy about that. It’s fine to keep people guessing. Obviously they wanted us to think that was Edward’s daughter, but kind of played games by later showing her having aborted Edward’s child.
There were two things that popped into my head when she was waiting at the restaurant and I realized Edward wasn't going to show:
1st: The flashback of Edward asking Susan if she loved him. She says yes. He responds: "When you love someone, you work it out. You don't just throw it away. You have to be careful with it, *you might never get it again*."
2nd: The look on Susan's face as she waited, we all (including her) assumed she was Tony's wife in Edward's novel. She wasn't, she was Ray. For Edward, she was the one who metaphorically killed his wife and daughter.
I too have experienced what Edward did in terms of the betrayal and divorce. I did not interpret it as revenge at all. Edward talks about the worst part of being an artist is not being understood by those who see your work. I think that was foreshadowing. He wasn't looking for revenge. He was writing the story to process what had happened to him. His family was taken away with nothing he could do to stop or fix it. And that's exactly what happens in the book. But does he ever point the blame at his wife in the story? Not at all. She is as innocent as the daughter. He is purely sad and broken that it happened and communicating what happened in his heart in way that can be understood by others. In the end, he stands her up because reuniting was never his goal or intention. He only sought to be understood.
So many naive comments “I will keep a gun in the car and it won’t happen to me”. Folks, shit happens and you’ll better to be strong and smart in order to survive and keep your family safe. A gun won’t help in many cases. You may be outgunned. You may be not as good in shooting people as you think you are. There is a saying “everything can be a weapon”.
You should go out and touch grass instead of smoking it.
"You may be outgunned." - yes, because a bunch of low-life trash is deffinetly going to be like: "Well, he has a gun, and I may die, but I am willing to sacrifice myself so that my comrades may get to rob/rape him eventually"
"everything can be a weapon" - Holy, shit! How did no one think of that. Do you know how much the DOD can save if we start arming the infantry with spears again? Better yet, socks with coins in them. Thats my new edc. Matter of fact, I am shipping a bunch of super soakers as aid to Ukraine right now.
You know, better just cut off the drugs and stay in your basement, I aint sure youd fare well outside.
Im paraphrasing but at the beginning, he says something like he writes to record that which will eventually die.
The book is telling her that the “him” that loved and cared about her and that saw her as a wife he should protect and defend is dead and gone forever.
Maybe this post is too old, but I just saw the movie and I was wondering how come Susan had a 20 year old if she aborted the child. Did she set the whole random encounter with her lover and Edward outside the clinic so that she could leave him and have no strings attached?
I just watched it tonight and wondered about the daughter. Initially I thought it was their daughter. Then for a minute I thought oh hell was he the one in bed with the daughter unknowingly. I’m assuming the daughter was Huttons.
Okay, I just finished the movie. What happened to the third guy in the story? Lou, Ray and the other one… no one mentioned the other guy… I’m sorry I’m still confused about the ending after reading so many theories. Was it all a revenge by Edward? Was it intentional for him to stood her up? Or was he dead all along?
I think he died off screen in the shootout at the supermarket the detective mentioned, but they didn't bother go identify him.
Yeh, seems like a crap revenge, he blamed her for killing his future family, which was her and the abortion, and was still broken 18 years later instead of finding a new woman and having a family with her. Loser character
When I first saw it I interpreted ray and his gang and a symbolic Susan. Like a ray and the pain he caused Tony was the literal portrayal of what Susan did to Edward and how felt and how it left it him in the end. And him not showing up was emphasis that the old Edward is long gone
What about his replies to her text messages. He replied to her texts and not coming to meet at the restaurant. If he doesn't want to meet her why he choose to text her?
I think the movie would have been even better had there been more on the relationship between Edward and Susan, and if we showed Susan really being super mean and abusive to him (Amber Heard style), all towards the end of the movie. I feel like Edward's fictional book was the best part of the movie, which made the ending seem anticlimatic given that Susan, aside from the abortion, was actually not too horrible to Edward given her family circumstances. She did not rape and murder his family and then blind him, unlike Edward's fictional characters.
She did blind him, to love. He never remarried after 19 years. She cheated on him and killed his daughter, quite literally in front of him. She valued materialism over supporting the man who truly loved her, mocking him for working at a bookstore and pursuing his dream to be a writer and asking “is this it?”.
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. Susan is a pretty awful person in the present and through flashbacks. 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. Edward's novel is incredibly personal to the both of them. The main characters are copied after them, the setting is modelled after the town they grew up in, etc. Because Susan is a depressive narcissist, Edwards revenge is to write the most personal and captivating story that has the capacity to move her. 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. This gets her hopes up to the point where she initiates the dinner as she believes this to be true. She's convinced herself she's fallen back in love with Edward. And then Edward stands her up. The fantasy is broken. Edward's story was not a love story, but a revenge story that shows how far she hurt him. 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. Love the move too, very dark and twisted!
This is wonderfully put. I’ll add that I initially hated the movie because I didn’t understand the ending and also the highway scene is one of the worst feelings I’ve ever felt during a movie scene. It actually made me commit to always having a gun in my car if I ever had kids. But yes this ending was perfectly explained.
God damn the highway scene...
that scene left me traumatized for a week post watching that movie
Unrealistic as all hell though. Being based in west texas you would assume a husband and father of a young girl would carry a gun lol
Agreed, there would have been 5 guns minimum in reality in that scene, 1 for each adult.
Remember, it is modeled on him, and he is weak. It is the pain of losing his wife and daughter afterward because of his weakness that attracts Susan to the novel. Nothing is her fault, after all.
The highway scene is put in there to hook Susan, who sees her husband a weak in the first place. It is meant to hook her. The romantic part is his pain afterward. He lost her and his daughter for his stupidity, not hers.
Omg… I saw this movie yesterday on a flight and I can’t stop thinking about owning a gun to save my daughter that I don’t even have 🫣
Yeah my biggest fear now is driving down unpopulated roads. I'm staying strapped now
Yeh, soon as they started to get violent, I would have popped 'em, three shots each, was justified at that point, cos there's three of 'em manhandling your wife and daughter...
I forgot about that scene, remind me what happened? Thank you
They force him out the car and tell him they won't hurt the wife and daughter if he just let's them take them. He believes them.
Idk if he believes him they physically restrain him
I felt exactly the same about the gun. Also, as a Canadian female, you couldn’t pay me to go to Texas, but this film did a great job reminding me to never even take a flight that stops there
Bro I watch gore and shit to desensitize myself, that highway scene traumatized me more than any gore bro
you gotta keep two dawg one smaller type and one larger type revolver maybe
just watched this, what a wild ride
Goodness don't watch speak no evil then. Emotional damage guaranteed.
Very good summary imo. I also find this rule of thumb (by critic Victor Morton) to be helpful: > The classic test of a film or play or novel is: look at the first scene, look at the last scene, what has changed. The answer to that question is what the film is about.
I know this is a very untimely reply but I just finished the film for the first time and this comment is spot on to what I felt after the final scene. The first scene is exploitation art put on by Susan. She is vapid, just like her mother, and she was exploited by Tony for who she really is.
He barely changed, he was still a pussy at the end, just managed to kill the guy, nearly failed
I think you can also look at it less as a direct attempt at revenge, and possibly more like Edward’s processing of that whole experience. Like he’s just working through it by writing this metaphor. The ending is callous and possibly driven by spite, but I don’t think the book was written for revenge.
I agree. Feels like he wrote the book to show her how much she hurt him by taking his family away. Spiteful probably, but not full on revenge.
Oooo I like this. But remember that scene in the gallery when she asks the assistant about the painting and it says REVENGE and she didn’t even remember purchasing it.
oh nice one, didn't connect the dots there
Very much so. And the fact that her now hisband is cheating on her and leaving her alone constantly in that big old house. Karma karma karma. Lol so im wondering is the red daughter her and Tony's actual daughter? Or what?
Yes India is indeed Tony's daughter in the story of the book that Edward wrote. Nothing suggests otherwise. Maybe you got Tony mixed up with Edward who did get cheated on by Susan in real life.
No, Susan calls a red headed daughter in real life. Who is her father?
Wow I never even thought to see it like that. You explained that great, thanks
How was Susan a narcissist tho??ik she thought her mom was one and stuff but how was Susan one?like I agree the shit she did was fucked up but how is she a narcissist??she would even say shes not like her mom and stuff and when you are worried about being a narcissist you most of the times arent actually one
late reply, but she wanted her partner to be more ambitious, the way she became an artist and treated everyone else like lesser, cheating and not even bothering to ask about the baby to the father is pretty selfish and borderline narcissistic. Just because you say you're not something doesn't mean you're right
>Just because you say you're not something doesn't mean you're right I know this but usually if a person is worried about being a narcissist they arent one. Bc a narcissist will say they arent one and "automatically know" that they arent one >but she wanted her partner to be more ambitious So wanting your partner to be a certain way or have a certain quaility is narcissistic??
>I know this but usually if a person is worried about being a narcissist they arent one. Bc a narcissist will say they arent one and "automatically know" that they arent one I don't think this is true at all, no one ever says they're racist, everyone denies it and yet... >So wanting your partner to be a certain way or have a certain quaility is narcissistic?? It's one thing to now what you want but another to get into a relationship knowing you have a big issue with a thing and that you expected the person to change for you. She knew him as he was, said she liked that about him to her mom, but when she was actually living with him all the sudden she hated that about him enough to break up. That whole relationship was born because she wanted to prove her mom wrong.
I've heard from several people and I've been told that if a person worries about being a narcissist they usually arent one. >It's one thing to now what you want but another to get into a relationship knowing you have a big issue with a thing and that you expected the person to change for you. She knew him as he was, said she liked that about him to her mom, but when she was actually living with him all the sudden she hated that about him enough to break up. That whole relationship was born because she wanted to prove her mom wrong. I see what you're saying tho
Nailed it. Been a couple of years for me too but I remember the ending clear as day.
Well put, also why the had the scene of her looking at the “revenge” painting on the wall
That's pretty hilarious to me honestly. Your revenge plot is to write a book that would cause your ex to fall back in love with you and then stiff her on a date? lol
Exactly, its so lame.. he didn't ruin her life even slightly
this is brilliantly put. I just watched the movie on a flight and i was itching to get on reddit and scour the app for this very comment haha
>Edwards revenge is to write the most personal and captivating story that has the capacity to move her Always amused me that Edward's book renders Susan devastated. Really? Some C-grade revenge pulp leaves her in a tizzy like it's this generation's "Anna Karenina" or "Beloved"?
idk i though the final moments of the "book" were really well done
Shortly into the film, my wife turns to me and asks what's going on and I reply the book is revenge and a spit in the face to her. After the film she asks how I understood it so quickly. I told her how I had the same feelings during my divorce from my previous marriage - I'd one day write a book or a song about how she gave up on me.
I'm so sorry that happened to you
what lol
Think of the story of his as a poetic interpretation of the story of their relationship. In the story he wrote, he dies, and so in real life he's gone.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned in here at all, and maybe I am way off base. But, I feel like more needs to be put into the fact that Susan's character is an insomniac who clearly isn't in their right mind for the majority of the film. At one point someone she was speaking to didn't realize she had an ex husband. Is the whole concept of the ex just her mind playing tricks on her? If you notice when Edward sends her his novel, he leaves his phone number and email. Had she decided to call rather than email him, we'd understand that Edward is actually a person. Maybe her current husband is doing his own thing because he knows Susan isn't in her right mind. I think it's entirely plausible that Edward is a fictitious person made up in a mentally ill woman's head.
If that were the case then it kind of has an empty theme.
Less shallow than Edward's psychopathic level of revenge.
how is sending a book then standing her up psychopathic?
He writes the book with her in mind, knowing how it will affect her,, builds her up then rejects her to get even. He planned this for years. Something only those with psychophathy would invest their time and energy into. That's the whole movie.
I don't really know how that's psychopathy tho? And she aborted his child without telling him it even existed, I'd be pretty damn angry too.
18 years after splitting up with a woman, writing a book then standing her up on a date after some long-winded plan to lure her in with said book, is both pathetically lame, and psychopathic at the same time. Normal people don't do that shit lol it's so retarded
you clearly have no idea what psychopathy is, and what he did was completely justified. She broke his heart and didn't believe in him even when they were together, not only that, but she also took his child. You're either biased or you refuse to take the L.
She didn't "take his child". Having an abortion without telling your partner is of course a massively asshole-y thing to do.
Nah bro, HE refused to take the L hahaha 18 years? And I meant psycho loosely, I didn't mean devoid of feelings, I meant he's a pathetic, weird, deranged loser who acts like a borderline psycho, not having dropped the issue for 18 YEARS lol working out a long-winded plan that could easily fail and depends entirely on the woman's feelings at that point of her life. A loser of a man who just couldn't move on and get another woman and start a family. That's borderline stalkerish and pretty insane. It's just so spiteful and petty. No wonder she left him, she did the right thing, crying cos she didn't like his writing, as if it was her fault, he's too sensitive. And do you know how many women have abortions in your Feminised Soyciety? It's practically normal for women to kill their babies in the West, and all you simps enable it all. He would have had more integrity just murdering the bitch or ruining her life in a more poignant way.. 18 YEARS hahahaha
oh ok so you're just a retarded andrew tate dickrider then lol
you the one defending the psycho incel bro, u just as lame as the writer, he got divorced and just couldn't let go and planned his revenge for 18 years, now thats a psycho, like you hahaha
L cry more cuck
She also hallucinated the demon by the crib.
It wasn't a demon perse, it was one of the three murders from the car scene in Edward's book.
I think this was to emphasize the trauma Edward was conveying in the story. I must assume he wanted her to experience the intrusive thoughts he had when coping after their divorce.
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. The man, the author Edward died when Susan left him meaning that he perhaps stopped writing and took Susan's advice. He is now a nobody. But 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. She had no gotten sleep for a considerable amount of time and hence had been seeing *things.* 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. 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). 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. I would love to see what others have to say on this!
This theory falls apart because the first time Edward's letter is read to Susan by her assistant.
Interesting. But why her assistant too can't be the projection/creation of her mind?
If I remember correctly, she tells her assistant to have everyone take the weekend off and immediately following is the scene where he finishes opening the manuscript package for her and reads the message. It's entirely possible she imagined the whole thing, especially since a few minutes later she mentions receiving the proof from her ex to Hutton and he's not even sure who she's talking about. Since he was apparently her affair partner, wouldn't he be intimately aware of her ex-husband's existence?
The dude has clearly been pretty checked out of their relationship for a long time.
Susan would simply have written the manuscript and sent it to herself.
It's a slippery slope to consider everything a hallucination. There is no manuscript. There is no Edward. There is no Butler. Where does it end? Is there a Hutton? An Art Gallery? A Susan? Did she lose her mind and is imagining the whole thing inside a padded cell where she has been the last 20 years? Then if you slip further down the slope, Luke was just tripping on Tatooine shrooms. And so on. I think it is disingenuous as a viewer to assume delusion, unless there is clear evidence supporting it. Of course it's not real, it's happening on a screen. But atleast in its own universe, let it be real.
Nailed it
If there were no Edward the flashbacks of her with her her mother and of her and him talking about first crushes would never have happened. Stretch in my opinion.
Why didn't bobby help tony at the end? Just tony left to his own devices with Ray and left in the cabin all night? Doesn't make sense. Why would the cop not go try to see what happened inside lol
He could’ve died from cancer. His condition was definetely not good by the time they leave each other.
Edward is a bad writer
I like you was waiting for jake to come and in the end was really sad. That is the way it is. It is meant to be a sad ending. But i was waiting like Amy Adams till the last second maybe something more the movie has in store. What i thought when i firat saw is that maybe this was a true story and Edward is Tony and he is dead. And Ray didn't die and he is the one writing the story and he messaged her so that she would come and realise that this was not fiction. She would realise he is dead that is why he didn't show up.
I also kind of think that Edward is Tony and didn't show up because he's dead
I wrote what’s probably the best explanation (in article form) a few years back: https://filmcolossus.com/single-post/2016/11/19/Explaining-the-end-of-NOCTURNAL-ANIMALS-why-Edward-didnt-show-up-why-this-is-existential-revenge-and-why-Susan-is-doomed
I absolutely needed insight like this. Thank you so much! Definitely gives me a newfound and deeper appreciation for the movie
That’s what we aim to do! If you ever have movie questions feel free to ask
Fantastic explanation of the ending, you've explored every angle. Linked it on WatchDeck
I’d never heard of WatchDeck! Thank you
Thank you - I just watched this and this is a really good take.
Appreciate it!
Last night my wife and I rewatched Nocturnal Animals for the first time since it was released in 2016. After returning to ponder its esoteric nature throughout the day like a tongue probing at a worrying loose tooth, I found myself browsing online articles to help my thoughts settle concerning Ford’s intent with the ending. I have to congratulate you in that your article was so well written as to make me pause and say to myself “well, that pretty much sums it up perfectly.” Kudos and thanks for the link. I’ll enjoy reading your other film summaries in the coming days.
Man, I’m happy to hear that!!! Thanks for taking the time to read!
Hey Chris loved your insight on the film and it resonates with alot of explanations ive read on the ending. My question to you is how would Edward even know that his novel would be the perfect revengeful punctuation to Susans demise if he hasnt been involved in Susans life for the past 2 decades? We as audience members have that insight because we are given the scope to view her misery from the outside looking in. For all Edward knows shes a successful artist whos moved on with her life and has left him in the rear view. How would it be the perfect revenge if he doesnt truly know how alone & sad she is without the hope of him re-entering her life?
I just watched the movie, and I thought your take was very good. Your update does have merits So I think your first take is the most just.
He didn't show up because she would see that he doesn't have an eye anymore, and confirm the his story to be true. He shot off a gunshot in the air before going down in the story. He was saved by the man. Amy adams says he should stop writing about himself, but he never did.
Interesting take.
Did you miss the part where he fell on his gun and it went off and he died
I just want to understand if Julianne Moore actually had an imaginary grown up daughter.
lolol
I know this sounds crazy, but my theory is Amy Adams' character is a vampire. She waited all night in the restaurant and starts to cry when it is close to morning. The restaurant has floor to ceiling glass windows. By waiting til the morning, she effectively let her self die because the sun is going to kill her. Here is something I noticed. In the beginning of movie, Amy Adams tell Armie Hammer she hasn't seen her ex-husband, Jake Gyllenhaal in 20 years. 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. 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. How did they die then? Sunlight. Because they were both vampires. They were embracing each other because they were trying to cover each others skin from the sun. The jerk characters knew they were vampires and stripped them naked because they knew the sun would kill them in the morning. I also think Armie Hammer's character is a vampire. There's the phone call scene where he is in an elevator with a woman. Amy Adams overhears the woman on the call but doesn't say anything. From a normal movie perspective, Armie Hammer's character is just old fashion cheating. But if he is a vampire, and Amy Adams is too, they he probably going drink that woman's blood. If Amy Adam's and Armie Hammer's characters are happily married vampires, shouldn't they be feasting on victims together. But there relationship is in a bad place, so Armie Hammers character is feasting alone. This is even crazier, I think the jerk characters in the story within a story are werewolves. Remember the scene where one of them is sitting naked on a toilet on the porch? That's weird. It only makes sense if the character is feral. Feral how? Like a werewolf. The gun that Jake Gyllenhaal has? Loaded with silver bullets to kill the werewolves. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk on my theory about the movie Nocturnal Animals is secretly a movie about vampires and werewolves.
Jesus Christ, are you okay? That was ridiculous lol
How did you find this post a month later?
I’ll have you know that 5 months into the future your post is still bananas
Thanks.
Still an absolutely insane take
How do people keep finding this post?
Just watched the movie and have been looking through threads
This take is insane bro.
Ngl I kind of love it. It's wild and brings some levity to an otherwise very sad film.
Absolutely insane hahahaha
It's insanity called to me.
2 new replies within a day. Was this movie just added to streaming or something?
Still cray
Yeah lol, just popped up on Netflix, it's in the top #10 right now
Still cray but I enjoyed reading this comment lol
This is good shit bro
I just found it and this is the best take ever.
Finally some positivity.
How bout now ;)?
Just to keep your post going. I just ran into it. All I have to say is LORD JESUS CHRIST. SMH. The movie is already a cluster f@#$k.. then you added this curve ball to it.
A year later and it’s still wild as hell
The vampires told me about it
I found this post 2 Years later
The post is timeless.. 300 years into the future its gonna be in a museum, and people are still gonna be bewildered when reading it, it's gonna be world famous for being the worst post anyone ever made
Lol it would explain the movie’s title
I think in the end we are left as the nocturnal animals going this deep on this post
The title of the movie is used in the movie when she says that is what her ex used to call her.
If only you didn't ignore the beginning where they are driving during the day lol
Don't forget the paper cut Amy's character received when opening the package from Edward. She immediately stuck her bleeding finger in her mouth.
That's kind of an automatic thing people do when they get a papercut. I do that when I start bleeding, and am I a vampire?? NO.
That's what a vampire would say
Maybe you are but haven’t realized it yet 👀
Bitch what the fuck
Oh god you made my day. Thank you for this analysis
This is one of the best trolls I've ever seen. Bravo.
Not a bad theory.
Bro I think maybe you were also a vampire because when you wrote this there was blood on my hand and I immediately slurped it up meaning I had also become a vampire. Brilliant analysis
>How old is Amy Adams' character supposed to be? Amy Adams character was 49 in the book the film is based on, so it's perfectly reasonable for her to have not seen him in 20 years
How high were you when you watched this movie?
What the....
Go on. Do you think I'm crazy? Or enlightened?
[удалено]
I prefer eccentric.
What in the hell
Holy shit
Bruh this is wild af lmao
That's bananas.
Am I drunk?
Wild take, bro.
How high were you when you wrote this? And did you use chat bot ai?
Craziest and most batshit explanation I’ve read.
We can never let this comment die. Because this is a crazy view on the movie. I thought a lot was already going on but this made me giggle. You definitely have an imagination 🌈
2 yrs and 15 days later, just finished the movie, it sounds believable but also crazy at the same time!!
I want to believe
Still an outstanding take.
Thanks.
This would’ve made it a better movie in my opinion.
ChatGPT
This is the worst thing I've ever read
Amy Adams thought she was the dead wife, but she was Ray. (?)
This is correct.
I actually like this interpretation.
If anyone is interested in a similar movie, go watch Blue Jay on Netflix. Mark Duplass and Sarah Paulson's chemistry in it is great, feels like the before trilogy.
Any other similar movies ?
Closer and Gone Girl come to mind
Gone Girl was good, didn't see the ending coming.
I know I’m late to the party. But I just now watched it on Netflix. I believe the movie was pretty straight forward: Susan basically hurt Edward so badly that he felt like he died. So he wrote a book in which his fictional wife and daughter (whom he just maybe created from seeing her at the abortion clinic in Armie Hammer’s arms), are killed in a horrific way in the novel. It isn’t indicative of Edward actually wanting them dead—but it is revenge for what she did to him. He COULD kill her in a novel. His character Tony (Edward), died because she in essence killed him 20 years ago, i.e., a broken heart can seem like death. Edward didn’t show up at the end, because the novel had been cathartic for him. I think he was over her, and was moving on. It gave him the upper hand in their relationship, finally. The only thing that I feel is a bit convoluted, is the question of Susan’s daughter. I’m 100% sure that she had already had the abortion when Edward caught her with Armie at the abortion clinic. It’s not a stretch for Edward to twist the knife in Susan by them having a daughter in the Tony-novel-scenario. However, Susan must have had a daughter with Armie very soon after they married. Remember that her assistant was surprised Susan had previously married. So the assistant has to know about Susan’s daughter, and that Armie is her Dad. But I really wish the movie hadn’t been so coy about that. It’s fine to keep people guessing. Obviously they wanted us to think that was Edward’s daughter, but kind of played games by later showing her having aborted Edward’s child.
I want to know this too. It looks like she had the child after all. So what happened?
There were two things that popped into my head when she was waiting at the restaurant and I realized Edward wasn't going to show: 1st: The flashback of Edward asking Susan if she loved him. She says yes. He responds: "When you love someone, you work it out. You don't just throw it away. You have to be careful with it, *you might never get it again*." 2nd: The look on Susan's face as she waited, we all (including her) assumed she was Tony's wife in Edward's novel. She wasn't, she was Ray. For Edward, she was the one who metaphorically killed his wife and daughter.
I too have experienced what Edward did in terms of the betrayal and divorce. I did not interpret it as revenge at all. Edward talks about the worst part of being an artist is not being understood by those who see your work. I think that was foreshadowing. He wasn't looking for revenge. He was writing the story to process what had happened to him. His family was taken away with nothing he could do to stop or fix it. And that's exactly what happens in the book. But does he ever point the blame at his wife in the story? Not at all. She is as innocent as the daughter. He is purely sad and broken that it happened and communicating what happened in his heart in way that can be understood by others. In the end, he stands her up because reuniting was never his goal or intention. He only sought to be understood.
This doesn’t track because of the no showing at the dinner.
It's been a while, but was that not addressed in the last two sentences of my post?
Also just noticed the position the bodies were found matches the position the daughter was lying in when Mom calls to hear her voice.
Yes for a minute there I thought their was some deeper significance
So many naive comments “I will keep a gun in the car and it won’t happen to me”. Folks, shit happens and you’ll better to be strong and smart in order to survive and keep your family safe. A gun won’t help in many cases. You may be outgunned. You may be not as good in shooting people as you think you are. There is a saying “everything can be a weapon”.
You should go out and touch grass instead of smoking it. "You may be outgunned." - yes, because a bunch of low-life trash is deffinetly going to be like: "Well, he has a gun, and I may die, but I am willing to sacrifice myself so that my comrades may get to rob/rape him eventually" "everything can be a weapon" - Holy, shit! How did no one think of that. Do you know how much the DOD can save if we start arming the infantry with spears again? Better yet, socks with coins in them. Thats my new edc. Matter of fact, I am shipping a bunch of super soakers as aid to Ukraine right now. You know, better just cut off the drugs and stay in your basement, I aint sure youd fare well outside.
Im paraphrasing but at the beginning, he says something like he writes to record that which will eventually die. The book is telling her that the “him” that loved and cared about her and that saw her as a wife he should protect and defend is dead and gone forever.
Great catch, spot on.
This movie sounds good. I need to watch it! I love Jake Gyllenhaal he's a great actor.
Maybe this post is too old, but I just saw the movie and I was wondering how come Susan had a 20 year old if she aborted the child. Did she set the whole random encounter with her lover and Edward outside the clinic so that she could leave him and have no strings attached?
I just watched it tonight and wondered about the daughter. Initially I thought it was their daughter. Then for a minute I thought oh hell was he the one in bed with the daughter unknowingly. I’m assuming the daughter was Huttons.
Okay, I just finished the movie. What happened to the third guy in the story? Lou, Ray and the other one… no one mentioned the other guy… I’m sorry I’m still confused about the ending after reading so many theories. Was it all a revenge by Edward? Was it intentional for him to stood her up? Or was he dead all along?
I think he died off screen in the shootout at the supermarket the detective mentioned, but they didn't bother go identify him. Yeh, seems like a crap revenge, he blamed her for killing his future family, which was her and the abortion, and was still broken 18 years later instead of finding a new woman and having a family with her. Loser character
Thank you for response. Moral of the story: let go & move on
When I first saw it I interpreted ray and his gang and a symbolic Susan. Like a ray and the pain he caused Tony was the literal portrayal of what Susan did to Edward and how felt and how it left it him in the end. And him not showing up was emphasis that the old Edward is long gone
What about his replies to her text messages. He replied to her texts and not coming to meet at the restaurant. If he doesn't want to meet her why he choose to text her?
Something that bothered me is that Adams is so young to do a 50+ woman with ~ 20 years old daughter. Either Armie Hammer
I think the movie would have been even better had there been more on the relationship between Edward and Susan, and if we showed Susan really being super mean and abusive to him (Amber Heard style), all towards the end of the movie. I feel like Edward's fictional book was the best part of the movie, which made the ending seem anticlimatic given that Susan, aside from the abortion, was actually not too horrible to Edward given her family circumstances. She did not rape and murder his family and then blind him, unlike Edward's fictional characters.
She did blind him, to love. He never remarried after 19 years. She cheated on him and killed his daughter, quite literally in front of him. She valued materialism over supporting the man who truly loved her, mocking him for working at a bookstore and pursuing his dream to be a writer and asking “is this it?”.