It all fell with Goslings character, established very well as a psychological mess, NOT killing the daughter, but going for this cheesy way out.
Thankfully, Refn's clarity of vision eliminated this option as a narrative possibility. If the plot had unfolded in the manner you propose, the film would have fallen apart. Julian NOT killing Chang's daughter is the moment at which he is finally liberated from his mother's psychological orbit. It is Julian's first (and only) authentically active moment in the film. It is true that Julian is established very well as a psychological mess throughout the film. He is conflicted, but he is NOT a sociopath. He has a moral sense, though he has difficulty asserting it because he is psychologically eclipsed by his mother's charisma. This is why he is magnetically drawn to Chang. Chang is a titanic, imposing personality; a clear moral counterpoint to Crystal. Paradoxically, Julian's defeat by Chang in the fight was a victory for his character. Physically broken, he is spiritually reborn--liberated from his mother's destructive influence. This is also why Crystal scurries away like a rodent after the fight. She is powerless, and instinctively recoils from Chang's icy stare. Consequently, at the morally decisive moment in Chang's home, Julian laudably chooses righteous action. At last, Julian acts in open defiance of his mother's will. There is no turning back. By not killing Chang's daughter, he is consciously aligning himself with the austere morality of Chang
against the amoral depravity of his mother.
To say that Julian
should have killed Chang's daughter is to misunderstand his character (and the movie). The scene in Chang's heavenly abode is the turning point of the film. An invading force dispatched by Satan is trespassing sacred space. It's an eerie scene. Chang's home is God's kingdom--a site of social order and domestic harmony in the moral vacuum of Bangkok. Julian seems to recognize the moral significance of this space, and it effects a profound spiritual transformation for his character. It is as if simply being present in this sacred space of functional family dynamics (presumably lacking from his childhood) activates Julian's latent sense of justice.
By shooting the skull-masked intruder and thereby saving Chang's innocent daughter, he chooses life over death. The alternative would not have made narrative or thematic sense. By saying that Julian should have killed Chang's daughter, you're saying Julian should have chosen death over life--THE definition of nihilism. Killing Chang's daughter would have destroyed Julian's carefully-constructed character arc and derailed the entire narrative. While this act would have satisfied *Crystal's* desire to avenge her son's death in emotional terms, it would have made the movie a repulsive exercise in empty nihilism. It bears noting that the theme of the movie is spiritual redemption, NOT revenge. In other words, Julian killing Chang's daughter would have been a colossal artistic error and would have compromised the thematic integrity of the film.
With that achieved you could have left all the characters in deep, senseless peril, kill them off, don't kill them off, does not matter --> emptyness.
But this is why, contrary to much criticism, the ethos of the film is NOT one of despairing nihilism.
Only God Forgives is about the spiritual quest to
transcend emptiness. This is a film in which divine justice MUST triumph, in which chaos must be restored to order. It remains ambiguous what this means for Julian. Can Julian expect mercy and salvation from Chang despite being implicated in his mother's criminal activity? This is the moral struggle throughout the film, and Julian's ultimate fate remains unclear--in the classic noir sense. So the noir ending you felt lacking was the one delivered after all. There is no tidy resolution. Julian remains in moral limbo, and his salvation is uncertain despite his spiritual progress.
And you will know my name is The Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!
reply
share