Ebert and the ending to "Seven" (SPOILERS galore)

[Gaith]

Quoth Dean Ebert:

Good as it is, it misses greatness by not quite finding the right way to end. All of the pieces are in place, all of the characters are in position, and then - I think the way the story ends is too easy. Satisfying, perhaps. But not worthy of what has gone before.

An interesting perspective. I think that the setup of the ending is about perfect, and love how Doe manipulates Mills into killing him. But Ebert may have a point... what if, after shooting Doe, a totally crazed Mills had then turned the gun on himself? I know these noir movies exist in a kind of alternate universe, in which life is never fair, but the movie makes a big point of more or less existing within the US legal system, and if something like this happened in real life there isn't a governor in the country who wouldn't give Mills a full pardon for his crime. His personal tragedy would of course still be devastating, but he'd be famous, easily able to afford the best counseling possible, and (when he's ready) find a new girlfriend also.

Seven's ending is certainly satisfying, as Ebert says, but after watching the brain-blastingly raw climax of The Mist, in which

Spoiler: The Mist

The father shoots his only son, prospective female companion and other two survivors, only to learn that the threat had ended and that for a little more patience on his part, they all could have lived

, I might just agree that Fincher's movie could have used a little bit more kick at its finish.

Thoughts?

 

[Rii]

"What's in the box?!"

Sorry, just had to get that out of the way. I really should watch this film again, back from the days when Fincher made interesting movies.

Oddly enough I never seem to quite be in the mood.

Re: the topic at hand ... I think it might've been too much. The emotional equivalent of ROTK's multiple endings syndrome.

 

[Gaith]

I hope you're not referring to Zodiac. Seven is a great flick, but Zodiac is a great film.

And yes, Pitt's "Awww! What's in the box? Awwwww!!!!" is pretty awesome in how he allows himself to sound like a crazed little girl.

 

[Rii]

I hope you're not referring to Zodiac. Seven is a great flick, but Zodiac is a great film.

I enjoyed Zodiac well enough at the time - certainly moreso than Benjamin Button which I got bored of and switched off halfway through - but it wasn't particularly memorable for me. I should probably rewatch it. Of Fincher's work in the 00s, to borrow a phrase from Kieron Gillen re: Starcraft 2: I see the craft; I'm not sure I care. Long story short, I'd take any of his 90s films (incl. the recut Alien 3) over anything he did in the 00s.

Fortunately redemption is just around the corner. I was vaguely mortified at the thought of American sensibilities being turned to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, but Fincher is perfect for the task. His Jules Verne and Bobby Fischer projects are promising also, assuming they ever come to fruition.

Fincher's best 00s work:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6e5gA_WPKI[/yt]

 

[JacksonArcher]

Zodiac is a really great film. Dense, multi-layered, and fantastically paced. Some truly haunting imagery and sequences.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I have to disagree with Ebert on this. I thought the ending they chose (they considered several different endings) was pitch perfect for the film.

I'm curious to know how Ebert would have ended the film.

 

[Gaith]

Well, he says "All of the pieces are in place, all of the characters are in position", so it seems fair to assume that he'd keep most of the ending intact, including the box and its delivery... it's what happens after that he'd modify, imo.

 

[TheBrew]

Slightly OT, but odd timing with this thread considering I just watch the Shatner parody this morning.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Well, he says "All of the pieces are in place, all of the characters are in position", so it seems fair to assume that he'd keep most of the ending intact, including the box and its delivery... it's what happens after that he'd modify, imo.

I figured that's probably the case, but I'm curious what he would do then.

 

[Too Much Fun]

I tend to agree with Ebert, but I don't know what he was thinking in this case. I wish he would have been more specific about what he would have considered a better ending. As it is, I think "Seven" has one of the best 'surprise' endings of any movie I've seen. Reading Ebert's judgment of it, I couldn't help but think, "What the hell do you want, Roger?". For the life of me, I can't imagine a better ending to that flick. Morgan Freeman's freaking out and telling everyone to get the hell away when he realizes what's been done is so classic.

I guess it would have been nice (at least for Pitt's character) if the killer had not been shot dead. I imagine that being sent to prison (and therefore not being able to fulfill what he believed was his 'destiny' of dying as his executioner 'becomes wrath') would have driven him mad, and that's totally what he deserved after all the pain and suffering he caused. However, I still think him getting what he wanted made for a terrifically effective ending.

 

[The Evil Dead]

I like the scripted alternate ending where Somerset shoots John Doe. The police watching from the helicopter frantically asked, "What are you doing!?" and Somerset replies "Retiring" basically sparing Mills a life in prison/a ruined career and taking away John Doe's attempt at completing his "opus" by not allowing Mills to become Wrath.

 

[Goliath]

I haven't seen The Mist, but I have to disagree with Ebert in this case.

I vividly remember the first time I saw Seven. I found the ending riveting, and the climactic scene--where Mills shoots John Doe--literally jaw-dropping.

Holy shit, I thought: He shot him!

Gaith, while I think I understand your objections, I would reply in two ways.

First, I think an ending where Mills commits suicide would have been one shooting too many. After the way Fincher had built up to the point where Mills shot Doe, having Mills shoot himself would have felt like a cheap shock.

Think about Scorsese's ending to The Departed, for example--the weakest part of an otherwise very fine film. When I saw that in the theatre, the audience actually started laughing. It was just too much. Now that I've seen the original Infernal Affairs, I think Andrew Lau and Alan Mak handled that scene more skillfully than Scorsese did.

Second, while I think you're correct about the way such an officer would be treated in the real world, I don't think that detracts from the moral failure and defeat which Mills' actions represent.

Seven is a classic tragedy, in which the villain (Doe) triumphs by exploiting the heroes' tragic flaws: Mills' anger, and Somerset's despair. (It's worth noting that, in Catholic theology at least, despair is also considered a very mortal sin)

The key scene, it seems to me, is the scene in the bar, where we see the confrontation between Mills' naive, youthful optimism and Somerset's jaded, middle-aged pessimism. Mills accuses Somerset, essentially, of deserting his post, and of trying to rationalize his own desertion.

"I don't think you're quitting because you believe these things you say," he says. "I don't. I think you want to believe them, because you're quitting. And you want me to agree with you, and you want me to say, 'Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're right. It's all fucked up. It's a fucking mess. We should all go live in a fucking log cabin." But I won't. I don't agree with you. I do not. I can't.'"

Doe, in essence, is Somerset's dark half. He too believes the world is all fucked up, and he's determined to teach the world a lesson written in blood. And until he meets Mills, Somerset is content to just retire, go live in his log cabin, and let the world go to hell. "I can't get involved in this," he says.

It takes the death of Tracy Mills, and David Mills' violent revenge on Doe, to make Somerset realize that he was wrong: that there are good things and good people in this world, even though both are imperfect. And that it's his duty to fight the good fight, and protect them from people like Doe, if he can. "Ernest Hemingway once wrote, 'The world is a fine place and worth fighting for.' I agree with the second part," he concludes.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I like the ending. Doe promised two more bodies, so it wouldn't have worked if Doe had merely been injured. And not only was he killed by Pitt, but the death epitomizes wrath. I don't think the ending should have been changed. However, maybe it could have been given more punch somehow. Also, everything after Doe is killed, which is all of one minute of footage, is bullshit, and I'll go out on a limb and say that I'm sure the filmmakers knew that. The last minute was there just to let the idea of what happened sink in. The Hemingway quote, while adequate, was hardly powerful enough, nor did it really follow from the what just happened. It was just something for Freeman to say to close the film. If the film works, the viewer is so riveted by the idea of what just happened that they are almost unable to listen to (or even hear) the quote, let alone fathom the words, because the depth of what just happened is still sinking in. And that, is far more haunting an ending than what the quote was trying to say.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

I thought it was an utterly perfect end to a nearly-perfect noir crime film. I wouldn't have changed a thing.

 

[Ward Fowler]

I like the scripted alternate ending where Somerset shoots John Doe. The police watching from the helicopter frantically asked, "What are you doing!?" and Somerset replies "Retiring" basically sparing Mills a life in prison/a ruined career and taking away John Doe's attempt at completing his "opus" by not allowing Mills to become Wrath.

I agree that this is obviously the superior ending. However, Brad Pitt threw his weight around and got it changed to what we saw. It's a shame because the original ending that you described had a certain poetry about it.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I disagree,. The ending we got was better. The last killing was meant to be a manifestation of wrath. In order for that manifestation to occur it had to be someone who was truly emotional, and Pitt was reacting to what Doe had done to his wife. In this alternate ending, it would no longer be wrath really (unless wrath was now a pussy sin) because Freeman would be reacting to Pitt reacting to what Doe did.

What made the ending work, too, was just how snotty and arrogant Pitt was being to Doe in all previous scenes - THE FACT THAT HE COULDN'T FATHOM THAT HE COULD DO IT

 

[Othello]

Love Ebert but disagree strongly with his take here. Loved the ending...

 

[Goliath]

I disagree,. The ending we got was better.

I agree. The original ending was not without its charms--but it reminds me too much of the forced happy endings in too many classic noirs.

The theatrical ending, by contrast, was a much better match for the tone of the film.

One other thing I liked about it was that it treated its subject matter with the seriousness it deserved. The original ending reminds me too much of the cheap shock endings at the end of movies like Die Hard and Lethal Weapon.

I was willing to forgive Powell shooting Karl in Die Hard, because it was a redemptive moment for a character we'd come to care about: having taken life by mistake, he now was able to save life.

But the ending of Lethal Weapon--blech.

 

[Gaith]

I disagree,. The ending we got was better. The last killing was meant to be a manifestation of wrath. In order for that manifestation to occur it had to be someone who was truly emotional, and Pitt was reacting to what Doe had done to his wife.

Indeed. Somerset shooting Doe would have Hollywood been crap on a stick.

After the way Fincher had built up to the point where Mills shot Doe, having Mills shoot himself would have felt like a cheap shock.

Something to consider, aye, but I'm not sure I agree. And The Departed was cheap nonsense.

Seven is a classic tragedy, in which the villain (Doe) triumphs by exploiting the heroes' tragic flaws: Mills' anger, and Somerset's despair. (It's worth noting that, in Catholic theology at least, despair is also considered a very mortal sin)

Catholic dogma also considers suicide deeply wrong, so in a sense, Mills killing himself to end his pain would have fit into Doe's theory of an irredeemable world even more.

But I agree with your Somerset analysis. It's why, contrary to what FSM says, there should be at least some sort of coda to wrap up his character arc.

Second, while I think you're correct about the way such an officer would be treated in the real world, I don't think that detracts from the moral failure and defeat which Mills' actions represent.

Was it a moral defeat, though? Sure, it wasn't the Jedi Way, and as a human being, Doe deserved a chance to plead insanity to a jury of his peers. But let's keep it real: he wasn't insane enough to not know what he was doing, was totally guilty, could never be released, and deserved to die. If anything, society at large would doubtless treat Mills as a hero for gunning the bastard down and saving the taxpayers the expense of a trial and lockup. So in a sense, I might argue that there wasn't enough "moral failure and defeat", whereas Mills committing suicide in a moment of crazed panic would definitely have been.

 

[Goliath]

Was it a moral defeat, though? Sure, it wasn't the Jedi Way, and as a human being, Doe deserved a chance to plead insanity to a jury of his peers. But let's keep it real: he wasn't insane enough to not know what he was doing, was totally guilty, could never be released, and deserved to die. If anything, society at large would doubtless treat Mills as a hero for gunning the bastard down and saving the taxpayers the expense of a trial and lockup.

Maybe. But as a police officer, that wasn't his choice to make. By shooting Doe, he set himself up as judge, jury, and executioner--just as Doe had done.

That is to say: by shooting Doe, Mills degraded himself, and reduced himself to Doe's level. And to make matters worse, when he did so, he was carrying out Doe's will, and executing Doe's own plan.

Doe wanted Mills to kill him, in order to show the world that everything and everyone was ugly and rotten and sinful--except Doe himself. In his own twisted moral universe, Doe was a martyr--indeed, a Christ-figure, giving himself up to the vengeance of wrathful men with the meekness of a sacrificial lamb.

The only way to defeat Doe, in that situation, was to prove him wrong. To prove that everything is not ugly and rotten and sinful. That a man can suffer the worst provocation imaginable, and still do his duty. That when you've lost everything else, honour still remains.

Tragically, Mills was not equal to the task. Despite his idealism and fine qualities, it was made clear by scenes earlier in the movie that he simply could not control his anger. So, instead of choosing to hand over his gun to Somerset, he chose to murder Doe.

And all for nothing. Tracy was still dead, and, looking at his face afterward, it seemed clear to me that Mills himself derived no satisfaction from what he had done.