The Red Violin - wtf ending?

[SSSnail]

The movie was great, but I just couldn't connect Samuel L. Jackson's role to the whole movie. And the ending was somewhat a letdown and confusing. So, he stole the violin? Then what? What's his connection? I thought he was going to give it back to the monks so they can bury it, but no.

Le sighs...

 

[0roo0roo]

Lol come to think of it I didn't even remember what the ending was anymore, I only remember snippets of that weird movie.

 

[Printer Bandit]

all i remember is having to read a lot in that movie.

 

[Locut0s]

Yeah I can't remember the ending either. I think he steals it so he can have it for himself? Anyway I DO remember liking the film a lot!

 

[ModerateRepZero]

nice with the spoilers that being said, yes the ending is that Jackson's character takes the violin from the auction to give to his daughter, probably as a birthday present?

 

[sdifox]

He is just the conduit through which the story flows. I did like the ending, instruments are meant to be played.

 

[Demo24]

nice with the spoilers that being said, yes the ending is that Jackson's character takes the violin from the auction to give to his daughter, probably as a birthday present?

Yep, this is what I gathered. He stole it so that his daughter could start the 'legacy' all over again.

 

[torpid]

It made sense for him to give it to his daughter if you look at the movie as a historical review of music in a few key contexts. I don't know how to describe it, but there's something just so fitting for a parent to give their kid a multi-million dollar instrument knowing that they will probably play it for a few years, abandon it, and move on with their life. Musical instruments are like Soccer here... for the most part, a fleeting moment in a child's life.

 

[Imp]

Forgot about this movie, it's great. I think I've watched everything past the mid-point at least 5 times, but only seen the first half-an-hour to an hour once. Always miss it when it's on TV.

 

[SSSnail]

nice with the spoilers that being said, yes the ending is that Jackson's character takes the violin from the auction to give to his daughter, probably as a birthday present?

Damn it, how did I miss that he's having a daughter? Makes sense now.

 

[sdifox]

Damn it, how did I miss that he's having a daughter? Makes sense now.

not having a daughter, he had a daughter...

 

[Locut0s]

He is just the conduit through which the story flows. I did like the ending, instruments are meant to be played.

This.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

This is one of my favorite movies but I don't understand why he would want to give the violin to his daughter. Despite the beautiful sound it could produce it was inherently evil at its core and eventually killed anyone who possessed it.

 

[Locut0s]

This is one of my favorite movies but I don't understand why he would want to give the violin to his daughter. Despite the beautiful sound it could produce it was inherently evil at its core and eventually killed anyone who possessed it.

I think evil is taking things a bit far here. One COULD see it as a cursed violin, destined to ruin the lives of those who come to poses it but even then I wouldn't say there's any concious force at work here so evil isn't the right term. But I think a much more accurate way to look at it is metaphorically. Pain builds character and strength and talent. In the case of the violin its storied and sad past could be said to have built the character of the violin. One doesn't have to attribute some malevolent force to it.

 

[OlafSicky]

His daughter was a violin prodigy that's why he gave it to her. So she could be great. BTW I don't think the violin was cursed it jut brought out the worst in people. It was an object of desire greed.

 

[zinfamous]

the problem with casting Samuel L Jackson in this film was that there were no snakes involved in the plot.

perhaps that is why it is confusing?

don't feel stupid, audiences around the world were baffled by this oversight.

 

[sdifox]

the problem with casting Samuel L Jackson in this film was that there were no snakes involved in the plot.

perhaps that is why it is confusing?

don't feel stupid, audiences around the world were baffled by this oversight.

lulz red violin was 1998 and snakes on a plane 2006. Apparently there was a snakes on the train in 2006 too straight to video. working title was snakes on a plane 2

 

[AnitaPeterson]

SLJ's character steals the violin, and the instrument will end up in the hands of an appreciative, talented child, and will continue to be used for many more years, instead of just being shut in a glass cage and never be touched again (except by snobs and antique dealers).

Like someone else said, the instruments are meant to be played, not gather dust in curiosity shops. That's why real sweat and blood were poured into its making.

 

[zinfamous]

lulz red violin was 1998 and snakes on a plane 2006. Apparently there was a snakes on the train in 2006 too straight to video. working title was snakes on a plane 2

I know--just making a funny.

I think Snakes on a Train was made by those people--or that guy--that makes all of those ridiculous knockoffs of popularly bad movies--like Transmorphers--and they are all straight to video, generally while the original film is still in the theater, to try and capitalize on name confusion. lol.

 

[Timothy Verret]

The movie was great, but I just couldn't connect Samuel L. Jackson's role to the whole movie. And the ending was somewhat a letdown and confusing. So, he stole the violin? Then what? What's his connection? I thought he was going to give it back to the monks so they can bury it, but no.

Le sighs...

I must have missed something? I thought he actually gave the real violin to the seller. You see, he made that guy supply a duplicate so he could have the original but in the end when he gets that message about the organic compound of the real red violin, he goes to Duval to switch out the real one for the duplicate. Did anybody else catch that?

 

[Timothy Verret]

I must have missed something? I thought he actually gave the real violin to the seller. You see, he made that guy supply a duplicate so he could have the original but in the end when he gets that message about the organic compound of the real red violin, he goes to Duval to switch out the real one for the duplicate. Did anybody else catch that?

 

[momeNt]

I must have missed something? I thought he actually gave the real violin to the seller. You see, he made that guy supply a duplicate so he could have the original but in the end when he gets that message about the organic compound of the real red violin, he goes to Duval to switch out the real one for the duplicate. Did anybody else catch that?

Totally backwards and also necro.

He switches the real one which is at the auction house for the copy, and tells his daughter he has a present for her (the real red violin).

 

[Thebobo]

I missed this movie but damn now I know the ending grrrrrrr

 

[Timothy Verret]

Totally backwards and also necro.

He switches the real one which is at the auction house for the copy, and tells his daughter he has a present for her (the real red violin).

What's "necro" mean here?

I missed this movie but damn now I know the ending grrrrrrr

Sorry about that? It's really not a great film. It could have been. It's gorgeous to look at and music is great but the substance of it is really not great at all. Just my opinion.

 

[Thebobo]

What's "necro" mean here?


Sorry about that? It's really not a great film. It could have been. It's gorgeous to look at and music is great but the substance of it is really not great at all. Just my opinion.

No biggie., necro means an old thread brought back to life that one was from 2011. IMO if its relevant which to me it was I don't have a problem but I'm just a pleb.