Am I the only one that feel that you never fully get this question answered, we know that he (Dafoe) was hunting the tiger for the red leaf company. But I never felt got the reason for it, and it sounds like they just wanted it gone, but why kill it ? was it because it would stop the logging in the area?
sharecloning was mentioned but i'm not sure that's why, great movie though
share[deleted]
Well, I think it was a major flaw of the movie that it was never properly explained why everyone was so keen on the tiger. Maybe this is explained more convincingly in the book but I for one am tired of these flimsy plots involving a nasty biotech company. It makes no sense whatsoever for a biotech company to want to have a wild cat - for what exactly? To clone it and sell it to zoos? Ridiculous.
Leaving that aside, I also thought killing the tiger in the end was a pretty stupid thing to do. As he said to Jack Mindy: They will keep replacing the hunters until they find what they are looking for. That means, irrespective of whether the tiger is dead or alive, the hunters and their destructive influence on the community etc. will continue. What is more, wouldn't it have made more sense for him - at the end of his journey - to change sides and work with the government in protecting the tiger? He could have saved an almost extinct species, which would have been quite a benefit for humanity. Instead, he kills it, burns it and scatters its ashes. WTF?
I also thought the sub-plot with the angry loggers (how many times in movie history have we seen the locals-threatening-the-stranger-in-the-pub scene?) didn't make a lot of sense and neither did Jack Mindy's role: Why did he keep Lucy drugged up so she would neglect her kids and put up Martin David in her house?
I like Willem Dafoe and his piercing looks managed to hold my attention even when he was walking around in the wilderness scribbling in his notebook for what seemed like hours - but other than some nice nature shots, this film is pretty dire.
[deleted]
Simon - many thanks for your elaborate post. I do not agree with all your points but posts like yours here make IMDB such a great place!
You are right: I always interpret films on a literal level first and then (where possible) on a metaphorical / allegorical / theoretical (however you want to put it) level. The issue is - I can't just brush away all the glaring flaws, plot holes or weaknesses on the literal level and pretend all that is shown on screen is just a metaphor or symbolism for a wider, more intricate philosophical point. The two levels have to work together.
You say:
[I] see it as a symbolic movie where the biotech firm's motives are less important, they just represent the way we people build almost psychopathic-like corporations, that destroy everything in it's path.
I can see where you're coming from but that is exactly what I criticise: I find it lazy to use yet again the cliché of that nasty biotech company (because they do those nasty things to fluffy animals). First, on the "literal" level, it doesn't make sense at all; it's ridiculous. If you accept that, why couldn't they have used something else if the important point really was a more theoretical / metaphorical one? Why not use an individual's greed or jealousy or guilt or lust to tell a story about how such motives can have a devastating effect on "everything in its path"?
And, let's go one stage further. You also say:
He kills, burns and scatters the ashes of the tiger to be rid of it. This way the animal will 'stay pure' by giving it's life to a hunter and not to a lab that has unholy things in mind.
What if the "unholy thing" was a cure to cancer? Or Alzheimers? Or something that would rid the world of hunger? Again, you fall for the cliché that the company, by definition and convention of every screenwriter on the planet, has to be shady, greedy, evil. Why?
And why is killing an animal in cold blood helping that animal to "stay pure"? Doesn't it deserve to take its chances? If we believe the film (well, the literal level), that species has avoided human contact for eight decades. Against that background, killing it just seems cruel, selfish and completely unnecessary.
And, with all due respect, I am not American and I watch a lot of films from all over the world. So please spare me the predictable lecture on "depth (or lack thereof) in American vs foreign films". As mentioned above, I can see why you took away your own interpretation from this film. You stated you reasons for doing so and that's great. But my point is that - absent a generous, adventurous "no holds barred" interpretation on a level that is detached from what is portrayed on screen - the film, in fact, lacks in depth or any sort of wider meaning or message because it is ultimately let down by an incoherent plot that leaves the viewer with more questions than anwers.
In other words: This is one of those films where some in the audience are tempted to believe that the film is a lot smarter than it actually is.
[deleted]
"He kills, burns and scatters the ashes of the tiger to be rid of it. This way the animal will 'stay pure' by giving it's life to a hunter and not to a lab that has unholy things in mind. It will be a part of the 'circle of life' in a lack of better words :) "
im sorry but this made me so angry.
its crazy to think that "oh,the tiger" (or any other living animal) freely gives it life to oooh the big hunter.
that makes me so mad.
[deleted]
I believe it was said that they were after a certain venom it secreted to immobilize its prey.
shareyes. this was quite clear. why is it so difficult to understand?
the firm is a 'military' biotech company. i don't think they'll be doing cancer resarch!
it is stated that the tiger produces toxins with which it paralyzes its prey. can you not make the necessary inference to military use?
the firm does not need the tiger itself. on the contrary it must be killed off; for good. otherwise there isn't much of a point. the firm wants to own the only sample of the DNA in the world, so they can monopolize it. kind o like Monsanto and their corn seeds. the firm might simply produce the toxin from the DNA information; or they can use it to clone the animal in a lab environment, and then have the animal produce it naturally. if it remains in existence in the natural environment, then it will be up for grabs.
the firm, if you've actually watched the last scene, is not going to send anymore 'hunters'. the firm knows, or believes, the tiger is the last remaining one. David tells the firm that 'the tiger is gone forever', and implies that they will not be getting any DNA samples from him. He cremates the animal, in order to get rid of all traces, remains.
as for simon's posts, i agree with most of it. you have summarized the film well and put forward a very good interpretation. the film is truly well-made in that it works on both literal and literary levels. the cremation scene is a great example of the two layers working in unison.
and some of you, including simon, i think, seem to be confused with the 'locals'. they are warring factions against each other as well. the loggers want jobs and not tax-funded environmentalism. the 'greenies' want to protect the forest, or more specifically, the wild life it contains.
as for the greens or sympathizers lurking in this thread and saying things like 'the evil corporations will kill the animal, so we need the wonderful government to step in and protect eveything', are you so friggin stupid to think that a government or state is going to sacrifice economic, military power to save an animal (when they have mass-murdered humans to no end the past 100 years)? like the state itself is not going to contract a *cough* biotech firm, subsidize it and then use the economic commodity to better its political power in the world? i'd say the tiger, or any such animal or natural resource is much safer in the hands of a profit-making firm than either an evil state or a bumbling social democratic goodie goodie bureauacracy; relatively speaking.
and the tiger was really cute. too bad it had to be sacrificed that way.
Yeah was specifically stated that they were after its venom which was why the whole thing was so depressing they didn't even care about the animal or cloning.
shareThe version of the movie I saw did not mention toxins. I am 100% sure, I just watched it. It was also 10 minutes shorter than the listed run time of 1:40.
As far as the movie's meaning, I think it's fairly irrelevant what the firm actually wants. We know they want to exploit the tiger for some horrible end, possibly cloning it and keeping it alive generation after generation in captivity to harvest it for some rare material/substance.
David decides that death is better than this. If he left the tiger alone the firm would keep sending hunters until they got what they wanted. David yells this to Jack as he leaves him.
If he could he would, as one of the Australian scientist/stoners says, "point it west and tell it to run." But he's a realist and obviously the tiger isn't going to do what he tells it.
In a way this is all very symbolic because we are assuming that the tiger he killed was the last tiger. Either way, the meaning seems fairly clear.
The version i saw yesterday was 1:44, and they did indeed mention the toxin.
shareWhy do, or should, the viewer know everything? The biotech company wouldn't give out the exact reasons why they want it. Why would they tell the hunter all their plans?
Be reasonable now.
I think the loggers were acting as sort of a red herring, to keep us thinking it was them that killed Dafoe's predecessor.
I was also confused about why they wanted it so badly, but the military application to use it's venom makes sense, though I don't recall it being mentioned.
Which leaves me with Sam Neil's character, his motives confused me as well but I think he was simply in love with the mother.
Its at 01:10:33 from the beginning of the movie,
the tiger uses a toxin to paralize its victims, thats why the company wants it.
Are you sure? I keep seeing people saying it was for the toxin but I don't recall hearing that either.
Also, Tasmanian Tigers weren't toxic in real life, which again makes me doubt this.
Maybe I genuinely missed that bit.
I thought it was never explained exactly why they wanted the samples and thus left open to interpretation.
Toxin was mentioned. It was naive of the hunter to believe the company would give up the hunt. They would keep at it in case there were two tigers left.
share"It was naive of the hunter to believe the company would give up the hunt."
Yeah, I thought that too. If their mission to find one was so important, they're not just going to give up because the hunter said they should.
Lucy told Martin that her husband was trying to protect the tiger from Red Leaf because they wanted to exploit the tigers toxin, that's why he was killed. Martin did't know the exact reason Red Leaf wanted it until then.
share[deleted]