MovieChat Forums > Misery (1990) Discussion > Had Annie LIKED the ending of Misery's C...

Had Annie LIKED the ending of Misery's Child...


Would she have taken Paul to a hospital?

The majority of the film after the discovery of Misery's death shows Annie as overly crazy over the death of a fictional character. She then becomes fixated on Paul "making things right" by writing that new book that would have brought her back to life. She clearly dosen't want the outside world to know that she's been keeping the world famous author in her house and goes as far to not have a phone so that outside contact would be rare.

Now lets say that Annie had a different reaction to the ending of Misery's Child. Rather then going nuts over the death, she took it as a good story. Do you think she would have eventually let Paul go? She might have been unstable, but she still trying to keep him alive. If not for the book, then what else?

Do you think she would have let Paul out if the ending was fine for her?

reply

[deleted]

Right, she knew she couldn't free him after weeks/months of imprisonment. She also knew that it was only a matter of time that her cover would be blown, or that she would have to kill Paul, as indeed she planned to do. At least at the level of her insanity as portrayed...however, had her grip on reality been even less strong, her fantasy would be enacted, as you said, "The ultimate prize was in her possession as the author of the books" ... poor Paul as the goose who laid the Golden Egg ... and, under Annie's care and supervision would continue to lay Misery-eggs for the rest of his days. A really horrific thought...

:)

reply

That's a good question and I wish I could disagree with the other posters just for contrast but I can't. She was a nut and I'm sure would have kept him for as long as she could.

~~~"Who do you think you're dealing with? Guess again."~~~

reply

I think she would've let him go if she liked the ending and he didn't kill off Misery.

reply

She lies even before knowing the ending of the book by telling Paul the phones were down etc, she was a nut as you see with the newspaper clippings her finds.

If the book had kept her alive I reckon she would have kept Paul drugged up when he became fit enough and maybe even used the old sledge hammer to keep him immobile and under her command.

If all that failed she had the gun just needed to put bullets in it ..

reply

I think she would have wanted the satisfaction of having Sheldon write a Misery book in her own house. After that, who knows. I think she would have still had him destroy the book he was working on as well.

reply

No way. She knew there would be others coming by looking for Paul. It was only a matter of time. Once she got the ending she wanted she would probably read the book, cry, get hysterical, and be momentarily happy. But then she'd kill Paul and probably herself. She would never let him go of her own free will.

-Di

reply

Yeah it's all about the book, in the perfect world she would have kept him alive, but she knew he would get better and leave. The sheriff was the only one who thought he was alive, until he came, Paul getting better was the only concern. If he would have never recovered she would have kept it going, if the sheriff didn't catch on, but letting him go never.

reply

Annie was a psycho. Even if Misery's Child was satisfactory to her by Paul not killing off Misery, she still would've kept him captive. Maybe Annie might've been a little more benign with some outbursts here and there, but still, she would've kept him captive and killed him latter on; just like she did with those patients and infants that were under her care. Paul was just that; a patient under her care.

reply

No. She couldn't have. People would have found out that she was keeping him a prisoner.

-I was born in a crossfire hurricane.

reply