MovieChat Forums > Suna no onna (1964) Discussion > SPOILER-questions about the ending of th...

SPOILER-questions about the ending of the movie


The last scene before the certificate in shown on the screen. Is that scene shortly after the woman's being taken away, or is it 7 years later? More importantly, did the woman die or survive? The baby could not have lived, since this was an ectopic pregnancy. I am guessing the answer is that it is not important to the movie's message, but feel free to share your opinion. I suppose one could argue that she did live, since he chose to stay, though I know that there were other reasons for him to stay.

reply

I saw this movie back in 1988(!) so my memory might be a bit off (but I've never forgotten this film). What I recall is that the certificate (I think it's a Missing Persons report) states that the man has been missing for 7 years. The implication is that he has stayed in the dunes all that time.

And that scene IS important to the message of the film. Basically the guy was unhappy with his life before he ended up in the dune house. Though he struggled mightily to get out (at first) he eventually relented and finally found a degree of happiness and satisfaction with his life there (especially when he found he could get water out of the sand). At the end, when they take the woman out to have the baby, they left the rope ladder dangling so he could have climbed out. But he didn't and that is confirmed by the final shot showing he'd been missing for 7 years.

reply

Just watched the movie yesterday, it was awesome of course. Here is what I think the answers are:

1. The baby would not have survived, you are right, since it was an ectopic pregnancy and 1964. However, there have actually been cases of ectopic pregnancies ending up with a baby that lives in the past couple of years.

2. I believe that the woman was taken away for medical attention maybe 1 year into the man's stay in the hole, probably less. I base this on a few elements: First, it seems like it is the man's first sandstorm season. On the day she is taken away, the man is frustrated at the weather and the woman simply says it is December. If he had been in the hole for 7 years he would be used to the weather patterns. Second, he seems to still be perfecting the bucket at the time, which I doubt would take 7 years. Third, they just get the radio. She brings this up early in his capture and I would think she would have been able to get it within a few months. Finally, the relationship/reaction between the man and the woman when she is being taken away for treatment doesn't quite seem to be like that of two people who have been living together for 7 years. This could be a cultural and era misconception on my part though. Still, I would say the woman is taken away about a year into his stay.

3. This leads me to believe that the certificate is actually about 6 years after he is taken away (1 year in hole + 6 more years missing = 7 years). I believe that the point of the certificate is to indicate that he ended up staying in the hole for years after she was treated, which leaves me to believe that she did live. I think that the two of them continued to live and work in the hole, basically being content just to have each other.

I think it is also just to emphasize his changing feeling. How he chose not to escape, instead to wait for the woman to come back. And then how he is thinking to himself how he really wants to tell the villagers about his water pump and then escape after that. And as he is thinking it he is thinking "I'll do it tomorrow, maybe the day after that...etc" he is becoming complacent and does not show the desire to escape that he once had. He is satisfied by his life in the hole. Just compare how excited he is about showing off his water pump to how he wanted to get published in a book early in the movie. The accomplishment seems to now hold the same value to him.

Thanks if you read this all, sorry it went on so long.

reply

I assumed that was his seven year old son looking at him from above and that only the woman had died.

reply

Very good deduction - I think you're probably right. Very different outcome to the Rudyard Kipling story on which this film is based.

reply