What was the deal with the ending line of the movie: "Thanks for the rain" "Hey yeah it is raining" I couldnt tell if it was actually physically raining, or if it was supposed to mean something. Either way what was the meaning behind it?
shareAccording to the director's commentary on the DVD, there was no particular dialogue planned for that scene, and as they were sitting there it actually started to drizzle. Therefore, no real meaning.
shareYeah, I was sort of confused about that whole scene too. I mean, was that there to show that they were together? Maybe I'm missing something...
shareMy interpretation for the line was that it was a sexual reference. Andie's character states earlier in the film that she hasn't had an orgasm before and now we see her with James Spader. I think the rain represents the repressed feelings she had that could only be released by Spader's character both emotionally and sexually. Jokingly he brought the rain but seriously he opened her up like a rain cloud. thanks for the rain, thanks for the "O"!
shareI believe the line is actually, "I think it's gonna rain," which she says just as a casual observation, to which he replies, "It *is* raining." The scene was ad-libbed but I suppose you could argue that since the clip was left in (and not edited out to the cutting room floor) that it was kept in part for the allegorical connex to the story.
I think that to search strange meanings to that ending is going too far. In my oppinion, it just represents that some time has passed, and they are having an absolutely rutinary conversation, showing us that their problems have passed.
Good film.
I think that it also shows that they're going to be ok in the future. It's not so much the words that convey that feeling, but the way that they deliver it. Oddly enough, there's a bit of hope in those lines.
shareI don't think the dialogue in this film is that happenstance that the last lines of it are going to mean absolutely nothing.
I do agree that the way they say the lines may be as important as the words. And I agree with you that hope for their relationship is definitely conveyed.
In a movie that has sex as its subject as much as this one does, I don't count out the noted sexual explanation, of rain as sex, orgasm.
But you could extend that further, that Graham has opened up the floodgates for her not only sexually, but emotionally as well.
I think perhaps the lines also reflect what they each bring to their relationship. She is a worrier. She is thinking about what is going to happen. It is going to rain.
He lives more in the moment. It is raining. They aren't any longer just thinking about being in a relationship with one another, being attracted to one another: they ARE in that relationship.
They complement one another.
What is it with Andie McDowell and rain? Wasn't her rain comment in 'Four Weddings And a Funeral' recently voted the worst delivered line in cinema history?
Seriously though, I presumed a significant period of time had passed since the previous scene and therefore I didn't read any more into it than the two of them just having a casual conversation.
As somebody hinted at above, the rain being an orgasm metaphor? - "It's already raining" - I don't know about that but I wouldn't rule it out, I am open to any suggestion when it comes to great films.
[deleted]
I also think the rain discussion is a good example of indirect dialogue, whether it was ad-libbed, or whether Soderburgh wrote it. What I saw happening in that scene was the two of them touching. They clasped hands as she walked up, and he ran his hand up and down her arm and snuggled with her a little (IIRC). Dialogue was almost not necessary, but the scene would have felt funny if they didn't say *something.* Talking about the weather in order to say *something* is so cliche it's almost a statement in itself. Like a big flag that says "Hey, it's not the dialogue that matters here!"
shareI think rain in SLV is a metaphor of cleaning, being washed clean, rebirth and such.
shareThe line was DEFINITELY "...it's going to rain"
One person hears it wrong and it takes 10 replies before someone corrects it... geesh! (rolleyes)
I am sure that his line was that it was already raining.
Am astounded Andie's character in "4 Weddings" failed to notice the rain. Maybe here she could be excused.
He touches her arm, there is obviously some affection.
I hope that her new job involves recycling garbage, otherwise she would be a really pointless person who pretends to care about stuff and does not.
I thought Laura San Giacomo got the better role by far.
[deleted]
OMG, the woman even named her first daughter Rainey.
She has a real thing about rain, obviously.
I'm watching the movie now...the last lines are:
ANN: I think it's going to rain.
GRAHAM: [laughing] It is raining.
ANN: [nodding, smiling] Yeah....
[cut to credits]
You are watching and typing at the same time! Wow! Great multi-tasking!
shareThank you. In addition to watching the movie and typing, I also had the television on - and I was listening to Christmas music. Oh yeah, I was cooking dinner, too.
shareGoodness! edh368, you are indeed a multi-tasker! Are you many-armed, like an Indian goddess or an octopus?
shareOh, no, radiantrose, I've just learned to move my normal human parts very, very quickly, like Muhammed Ali. He famously said he could turn off the light-switch and hop into bed before the room got dark. My multi-tasking talent is more like that.
Of course, by moving at the speed that I do when I'm in multi-tasking mode, slight misjudgements can result in some very nasty collisions with solid fixtures.
When I walk into things, it is usually because I have pre-menstrual syndrome/tension and cannot understand why the stupid furniture will not get out of my way!
shareI hope your furniture forgives you (and vice versa)...
I see, RR, that this movie is listed among your favorites. It is among mine, too, which I define as a movie that I can watch more than twice and still find it entertaining or interesting.
A question, then, along the lines of the rain, which seemed to have puzzled some people, but this having to do with Graham's money.
What is the significance of the two scenes (at least) where Graham and money are involved? We see the sideways glance Ann gives to Graham when he ups his offer for the apartment so he can live there month-to-month. Later, Ann questions Graham before she makes her tape about where he gets his money. Does Graham lie when he says he keeps it under his mattress, and that it won't run out? Yet Graham, when having dinner earlier in the movie, is troubled by the fact that he may have to get more keys in case he gets a job where he might have to open or close. And then John asks Graham if he pays taxes.....
What's going on here? Is it just curious filler?
Answer only if PMS has subsided.
I deigned to forgive my furniture, but it did not reply. Sulking, perhaps.
I assumed that Graham and John both went to quite a posh school and therefore have wealthy parents. I assumed that Graham has some kind of trust fund and does not need to work for money.
I don't think that any of the lines are just filler. I think that Steven Soderburgh (if I spelt that right) thought very, very carefully about everything.
The supposition that Graham has some sort of trust fund does not fit with the line he speaks at the dinner table with Ann and John and the fact that he might get a job - unless it was a mistake that was left in and the movie was not as carefully thought out as we'd like to think (this is, after all, a first-time director). There are always some mistakes directors make that have made it through to the final version; or else we would never have a "goofs" section on IMDB.
The line Graham spoke had something to do with if he gets a job and has to open or close, then that is another key he will have to keep track of. Trust funders who don't have to work usually don't, and they especially don't work at jobs that require them to have a key when they don't want one. They will simply do something else. I think that this line ends up being a mistake that gets left in the final edit, because it doesn't jibe with what appears to be the fact that Soderbergh wants to subtly shows us that Graham has money.
As I think about it now, in order for the director to help us believe that Graham and Ann might hook-up, he uses simple animal sociology/biology. In scenes after the dinner, Graham draws a look from Ann when he ups his offer for the apartment, and Ann tests Graham further before she makes her tape by asking him about the source of his money. No female leaves an upwardly mobile situation (i.e. - husband or boyfriend is rich or on social fast-track) UNLESS a better (or at least equal) deal comes along; in this case the intriguing male also has to have some financial or social assets. Women seldom, if ever, trade down, even if there is abuse in their current situation. So the director needs to show that Graham has a little something else besides his mystery, artiness and the his/her opposing hang-ups to hook Ann, or Ann's interest wouldn't seem so genuine...
So, if we are to buy it, it must be shown, ever-so-subtly (a line here and a line there) that Graham may be in the same class financially as John, even if he is not as classy a dresser, and is not just some sexually hung-up vagabond who drives from place-to-place in his car....
"Show me the money!"
Maybe he wants a job because he's fed up with being asked what he does for a living and not being able to reply. That got me down when I was unemployed.
I feel that the line about maybe getting a job is not a goof at all.
I would not like to generalise about women and their financial requirements, particularly as Ann goes back to work.
What is your evidence that abused women are unlikely to leave if they think it will mean less money? Is there evidence that their motives are financial rather than the usual sad delusions that the man will stick to his promises to turn over a new leaf?
Well, I can tell you this much. I have a copy of the published screenplay (which you can still get) and it includes a production diary by Soderbergh. In it, there are references to the fact that originally Soderbergh considered filming a scene which addressed Graham's backstory more. He says that it would have been much more explicit about the breakup with Elizabeth (including the fact that their union produced a child which, I think, was born brain damaged and died shortly thereafter!). Also, Soderbergh mentions that Graham's income was going to be explained as the settlement from some kind of auto accident. Personally, if he had included this stuff then I could agree with the suggestion that he was making freshman mistakes, over explinaing every bit of minutiae. Mercifully he chose to excise the exposition.
I never had the impression that Graham and John went to a particularly prestigious school. I always felt (and still do feel) that Soderbergh alludes to Graham's finances in an intentionally oblique way, heightening his aura of mystery and the indeterminate quality of his character. It suited who Graham was for him to not explain himself. My own assumption was (and still is) that Graham is living off some kind of psychological disability. That makes perfect sense to me and with every passing year only seems more fitting and more up to date. He is, after all, emotionally paralyzed, and that's only on the surface of what we can see. The trust fund idea distracts from and diminishes the real point.
Thank you, noveltyvalue. I hadn't considered that. Certainly, people don't necessarily feel like explaining that they are receiving benefits on the grounds of psychological problems.
The death of a child would explain a lot of Graham's problems, although someone could have problems without experiencing such a tragedy. It could put someone off having sex in case someone conceived again.
I wonder if Ann was on the Pill, they did not seem to discuss contraception, if they did indeed beep, as in John's exclamation, "Well, at least I know he didn't beep you."
And if there had been a brain-damaged child, maybe it would have been the hospital's fault. They might have given both parents money as part of a settlement. So, there wouldn't be any need for a car accident backstory.
How much money could a car accident have brought Graham? He does not seem to be physically damaged.
A car accident backstory would have been very interesting, given Spader's decision to be in "Crash".
Does anyone from this board want to go to the "Secretary" board to answer my thread on whether anyone there has seen "sex, lies and videotape"? Pretty please, if anyone has time.
PS The dead baby back story would also both explain the black shirts (mourning) and it would be another reason why John's claim to have slept with Elizabeth would really hurt. If there was even a hint that John could have been the real father.
But I still think John and Graham went to a posh school. Didn't it have a private chapel?
Yes, but I watched the film on Monday. Although when I saw the film I got that she was saying it was going to rain, after reading this strand, it did occur to me that her accent is so strong that it really does sound like "thanks for the rain"!!!!!
Maybe the story about her dialogue in "Greystoke" having to be dubbed over by Glenn Close makes sense now.
How do those cute mark-up things work? Does anyone know? I went there, clicked on one, nothign seemed to happen and when I clicked on "back", nothing happened either!
Glad I didn't lose the message, though. Must go!!!!!!!!!!
Directors commentary states the entire conversation on the porch was not in the script - it was improvised by the actors. But, yes, it's supposed to be implied that Ann and Graham become a couple. The entwining hands bit is in the original script.
shareWell, that may be so, but I did read an interview with Steven Soderbergh (had to check the spelling) which clearly said that originally, Graham left town without getting together with Ann. I don't know when that got changed, if it did. I read the article just after visiting my newish born nephews in hospital, so I think the article appeared in "The Guardian" Weekend Section, Saturday 22nd February 2003. I haven't got an amazing memory for newspaper articles, I just remember when my nephews were born.
shareI've heard about it being ad-libbed etc but my interpretation of the line(s) in question as an addition to them becoming a couple etc, is that Andie's character, who was previously thinking about things far too much, finally let loose. Not even feeling the rain would be a fairly good piece of symbolism to contradict how she was earlier, when she would probably have known WHEN it was going to rain and how many inches of rain would fall!
He liberated her.
"He liberated her."
-----
Well, that would be fair. She certainly liberated him!
----------------------
Don't dream it, be it.