I first saw the movie a couple of months ago and thought the ending was lazy, cheap, and underwritten.
Then, when I thought about it a few days ago, I realized that in comparison with the rest of the movie, which was masterfully written, why would an ending like that happen?
Is this Kubrick's ironic sense of humor or something along those lines?
The ending is one of the best parts of the movie and yes, contrary to what another poster said, it is ironic. The heist was meticulously planned right down to the minute and came off without a hitch, but everything after was a disaster. Johnny purchased the suitcase in a hurry (the exact line from the narrator is "he purchased the biggest suitcase he could find," implying that it wasn't the best or most secure suitcase, but rather the biggest one that he could find in the small window of time he was working with) and it caused his worst fears to be realized, resulting in the money blowing away in the wind. With the fruits of his labors gone he doesn't even bother to try to escape from the police. It's brilliant.
A "lazy," "cheap" or "underwritten" ending would involve some stereotypical shootout as a result of some heretofore unseen witness recognizing and reporting Johnny, or perhaps the motel clerk calling the police on him for a reward or something like that. The ending the story was given was far more poetic and unconventional.
The same happens in The Primer, at first the protagonist is acting like he knows what he's doing, smug even, like he's at the top of his game, but then everything unravels so quickly that he just can't keep up and makes a lot of rushed decisions that ultimately lead him to his doom. The message is very clear if you think about it, "don't bite off more than you can chew". Or any other idiom you can think of really. Yes, the ending is anticlimactic, probably to shake up the audience a bit.
shareSince, as the previous poster pointed out the mastermind of the robbery HAD to be caught this was an effective way to end the film. It is certainly plausible, and I think creative.
shareJohnny was never supposed to leave with all the cash. It was supposed to be divided between everyone, thus leaving him with a smaller amount which he possibly could have taken with him on board the flight. When he realised that everyone else was dead, he panicked, picking the biggest suitcase he could find simply because he knew he had to get to the flight on time. It probably didn't occur to him that he would not be allowed to take that heavy a suitcase with him on board.
The ending was simply to show how the best laid plans do not always work out, and the absurd ways in which even the most complex plots can get unraveled.
Well said. A rather effective conclusion to a compelling and innovative film.
shareTotally disagree with the comments that say that Johnny was defeated by a dog and a suitcase. His greatest mistake is letting Sherry go after he discovers her spying on the plan, in what is probably the most important scene of the plot. That choice ultimately leads to the killing of his partners, which leads to Johnny keeping the whole $2,000,000 instead of splitting them, which in turn leads to the need of a large suitcase that can't be transported as carry-on. The dog is just a great bit of irony, but in the story as a whole that irony is only possible as a result of the unresolved business between Johnny and Sherry.
share