http://www.indy.com/posts/4456 en-us Jay.Harvey My favorite open ending is the one to "Some Like It Hot," with Joe E. Brown grinning from ear to ear (as only he could do) as he reminds Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon that nobody's perfect. Great comedy is cherished for resolving tensions that often remain disturbing when handled in a serious drama. The ages-old farcical theme of men in drag is perfectly pitched to its era in "Some Like It Hot," when issues of sexual identity and liberation were about to explode on the American scene. Billy Wilder plays lightly with the serious matter of what sort of identity circumstances and social conventions may force us to assume, and how very close to indefinite traps such assumptions may become. So, after we've been laughing with (and at) Lemmon's and Curtis' discomfort posing as women throughout the film, at the very end we see them facing continued entanglement in these roles at the hands of their rescuer. The genius of "Some Like It Hot" is that the comedy is heightened rather than depleted as we are invited to consider what this unexpected complication in their lives may mean. It feels both open and conclusive at the same time. And it's funny as hell. Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:54:51 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/4456#comment_12930 http://www.indy.com/posts/4456#comment_12930 joe.shearer A lot of people get mad about an open ending. Too many people want a clean ending with everything spelled out for them. Like people have said here a lot of people go to the movies to "turn their brain off," which I think is unfortunate for the movie industry and for society in general. I'm all for turning the brain off at times, but I don't want all of my movies to be like that. I want some diversity. "There Will Be Blood" didn't quite have an open ending, but it wasn't terribly final either, so in a sense it falls into that category as well. It's hard to pull off those open endings because the studios tend to hesitate at anything that's non-traditional in that sense. They want the good guy victorious, the bad guy beaten, and the damsel with the good guy. I think that's a strategy that hurts a lot of movies, though. For instance, how often do you see a multi-film story arc? For instance (SPOILER ALERT) in a movie like Transformers, why did they have to kill off Megatron? We know there's going to be something to bring him back for the sequel...why not just have him escape and flee Earth? To me when you know there's going to be a sequel, you should plan for the sequel (as they did for the Batman and Superman franchises). In short, open-ended is good, and Hollywood is short-shrifting itself by veering away from it. Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:32:01 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/4456#comment_12912 http://www.indy.com/posts/4456#comment_12912 pherkless I just went to see 'No Country For Old Men' and was shocked at the ending. It was a good movie and the actors did a great job! Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:38:01 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/4456#comment_12907 http://www.indy.com/posts/4456#comment_12907 JL Kato By open end, I'm assuming you mean a movie that ends with its major plot lines unresolved. "2001: A Space Odyssey" had an intriguing open ending, if I may understate the case. I doubt that a sequel was planned, but when one came along, I saw it and promptly forgot it. (Or was it just the book -- I dunno. Like I said, I forgot about it.) Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:40:38 -0500 http://www.indy.com/posts/4456#comment_12766 http://www.indy.com/posts/4456#comment_12766