The Lost Patient ^ 10 Clues Anna Kieffer is the Real Killer

You just watched The Lost Patient and you have already made up your mind about who the killer is? Not so fast, baby. Yes, this french movie is pretty straightforward about the identity of the killer of the Grimauds (Betty, Marc and Dylan), thing is that it’s maybe pretty crystal clear from a story seen from the perspective of a mentally disturbed man.

By the time we see the credits rolling, it seems to be quite clear that Thomas Grimaud is the killer. He murdered his parents and his cousin in a psychotic break, after his parents decided to move Dylan to Laura’s bedroom. A bedroom that was off-limits for Thomas, who was sent to sleep in the basement since he was a baby. But all this is a very elaborated hoax: Thomas did not kill his family. Anna Kieffer did. And here are all the clues we missed.

1 ^ The Hood in the Shadows

First things first. The first hallucination Thomas got to see was the Hood in the Shadows, it’s a reaction of his self-preservation instinct. It was a red flag that this person was dangerous. In fact, one of the first connections Thomas made was that the Hood in the Shadows was in fact his mother’s lover, the one who used to stalk the house and call several times a day.

The fisr clue that something off is going on, is that after pointing that this person was really dangerous, the story was dropped, once Anna started to work on Thomas’ mind.

2 ^ «Don’t try to force your memory»

When Anna was about to leave the first we see her, she insists that Thomas should not try to remember anything, unless she’s there. Even when you see this as a nice advice to recover better, at the end of the movie, Anna herself decides now it’s a good time to force Thomas memory, just before the police decides it’s time for him to talk about what happened the night of the murders. Funny, huh.

3 ^ Dad was killed first

Taking a look at the crime scene, it is clear that Marc, Thomas’ father was killed first. He was just staying in the couch, watching TV, and then Betty and Dylan were close to Marc’s father. If Thomas was so angry, the priority list is wrong. According to broken memories of Thomas, it was his mother, Betty the one that used to be really cold and distant with him, to the point to trash every single gift from him. Then it’s Dylan was was getting everything Thomas was denied to, including his sister’s bedroom. Marc was the only one who seemed to feel some kind of respect towards Thomas, so it wouldn’t be a logic first choice to kill.

But, on the other hand, Marc would have been the first choice of Betty’s lover, the one Thomas remembered stalking the house and calling all day long, in an obsessive and dangerous behaviour. And going on with this, Marc’s killer had to kill Betty and Dylan because they saw who was responsible.

4 ^ Baby’s Memories

Now, one of the weirdest scenes in the movie is when Thomas could actually see his parents ignoring him as a baby. I don’t have to be a genius to notice that it was impossible for Thomas to remember that episode, because in fact he was a baby. So, this is proof that not everything that Thomas remember is true, and that someone is actually manipulating his memories. In fact, the whole «Your parents were assholes» storyline, may just be a very calculated attempt to neutralize Thomas, by breaking his psyche.

5 ^ Why did he come back?

And to add to the mountain of plot holes in the «My parents hated me» story is how is Thomas connected to the hood figure. I mean, Thomas killed three people and he just decides to wear a raincoat, and leave the house, just to come back later and stabbing a knife in his belly. This feels more like a desperate attempt of Anna to convince Thomas he was the hooded shadow and not her.

6 «Pardon him while you’re at it»

When Anna was talking to the nurse close to the end of the movie, he mentions that Anna needs to pardon him, why would she do that? What did Thomas did to Anna for the nurse to mention that. It seems the nurse and Anna actually know each other, enough for the nurse to be the eyes and ears in the hospital. The only thing that Thomas have done to hurt anyone, according to the nurse, is killing three people, and the only people that could be in need to pardon him are Dylan’s mother and Betty’s lover.

Anna is not Dylan’s mother, so we can actually conclude that Anna was in fact Betty’s lover.

7 ^ «I’m sorry, Thomas»

At the end of the movie, we see Thomas has fallen in a catatonic state after realizing that he was the killer of his parents and his own cousin. We see Anna reaching his bed and she tells him that she’s sorry. If Anna was actually just there to help Thomas, she would have realized that he just was crushed by the weight of his guilt, but it seems that she’s sorry she had to break his mind in order to save herself

8 ^ What is Anna doing to Thomas?

Thomas mind is really fragile after three years in comma. But he seems to remembers key things of his past, specially the hood figure, and the stalking. But once he gets his sessions with Anna, all of this disappears and the storyline about how cruel his parents were to him takes over.

Also, the way Thomas remembers doesn’t feel natural at all, in fact is like Anna is hypnotizing, to the point even Thomas suspects she’s just getting things in his mind. We already talked about the memory of him being rejected by his parents when he was a baby, but another interesting scene is when he sees the hood shadow from the window, and he’s taken out of that memory to another. Just like if Anna was not interested in Thomas to remember the hood shadow just yet.

9 ^ The Rings

And the proof that Anna is actually guilty is her rings. Yes ringssss, Anna wears two rings. And it’s funny that Thomas remembers his mother’s ring when he sees Anna’s. It’s not like the rings were special or anything, because they seem quite unremarkable, but it’s interesting he connects the memory. If you ask me, the night of the murders, Anna took Betty’s ring as a way to remember her. If one of Anna’s rings happen to be Betty’s, that’s the unrefutable proof she is the real killer.

10 ^ What really happen the night of the Grimaud’s murders?

This is my theory: Anna Kieffer and Betty Grimaud were having an affair that Betty decided to drop to save her marriage. Anna become obsessed with the idea of getting Betty back and she started to stalk the house. When Betty stopped answering her calls, she decided it was time to take action and kill Marc, thing is Betty actually saw her doing it and she had to kill her, here Anna lose focus and she takes the ring to remember her, but Dylan sees her, Anna misses the shot and she has to strangle Dylan, but now has no bullets.

When Thomas saw what was going on, Anna could not kill him because her gun was empty, Thomas actually used a knife and he got to hurt Anna in her leg (that’s why she has a limp), and proceeded to strangle her, but Anna could reach the knife and could stab him in the belly and leave the house, asking for help.

Anna thought everyone in the house was dead, until she found out later that Thomas was in a comma, maybe she didn’t see a reason to finish the job, but she asked the nurse to inform her if Thomas got to wake up. The nurse probably demanded to know the reason, and here is when she confesses she was Betty’s lover.

Once Thomas is out comma, Anna immediatly gets to the hospital and uses hypnosis to break Thomas mind, preventing from remembering what really happened the night of the murders, and creating new memories, to render him catatonic at the end, so there was no way to connect her to the murders. The new memories she created were that in fact Thomas was the one to kill Betty, Marc and Dylan, fabricating a story of abandonment, joulousy and violence. Probably using information she got from Betty herself.

At the end she wins, but still feels responsible for Thomas’ care. After all it was his broken mind that allowed her to get away with murder.

The Little Things | Movie Explained

Directed by John Lee Hancock ( The Blind Side ) and starring three Top A-List actors (Denzel Washington, Rami Malek and Jared Leto), The Little Things is an interesting twist on the crime scene suspense genre, dubbed by some as neo-noir, genre highlighted by the prolific David Fincher and his classics Seven and Zodiac .

Now, if this so-called twist, the serial killers, the accidental murders, the obsessions and traps, you are still wondering what is going on at the end of this film, do not worry. It is time for The Little Things: Explained.

1 | Joe Deacon is the killer?

Let’s get straight to the point. One of the big surprises of this film is the moment in which it is revealed that of the three young women murdered under the bridge, only two were there when the police arrived. The third, who was not next to the other two, called Mary Roberts (Anna McKitrick) was accidentally killed by Deacon, when in the middle of the search of the crime scene, the girl appeared between the bushes and the detective, thinking that it was the killer behind him, shot her on the chest.

Then, in a flashback scene we see that Sal (Chris Rizoli) and coroner Flo Dunigan (Michael Hyatt) covered up for Deacon, who in a process of anxiety generated by his obsession, ended up losing his marriage to Marsha, and suffering a heart attack, before moving on to Kern County, working as a Sheriff.

2 | Where and when do the events of The Little Things take place?

One of the curiosities that first comes to mind in the film is that there are no cell phones, the forensic technique is very lousy, and the computers still work on MS-DOS. Obviously, this film is located before the popularization of Windows, so together with other clues, such as the dates in the newspapers, we can place the movie in 1990.

And considering that the murder of the three girls that obsesses Deacon occurred 5 years earlier, this would occur in 1985.

Now, the killings occur in the Los Angeles area, and what they call «The North,» in which they include Kern County, where Deacon was exiled, is not as far north as you – someone who is not an American living in California – might think. Actually, Kern County is a not that far from Los Angeles, about 180 kilometers (111 miles) away, which can be covered in less than two hours on the I-5.

3 | Did Albert Sparma actually kill the prostitutes and then the girls, including Rhonda Rathbun?

Although the film is generally ambiguous in this regard, the circumstantial evidence collected by Deacon indicates that it was indeed Sparma.

The evidence, the high mileage, the newspaper clippings, the Busch beer, the fast food, the way Tina recognized him, the AAA repair service job and most of all, the erection Sparma had when he saw the photographs of the murdered girls, made Deacon conclude that Sparma was indeed the murderer.

4 | Is there a possibility that Sparma wasn’t the killer?

It could be concluded that indeed, there is no overwhelmingly solid evidence that he is the murderer, but using the laws of probability, it is simply impossible that Sparma was not involved in the murders.

The other kind of crazy option, would be for Sparma to be so obsessed with murder that he knew all those details, and tried to emulate them. The location of the girl on the highway was not leaked to the press, but Sparma had a radio with the police frequencies. Tina partially identified him, but could have been suggested by seeing him handcuffed.

Now, if perhaps individually the evidence is not conclusive, the sum of them, including the fingerprints, the dental marks and the psychological profile that the FBI later took, which partially coincided with Sparma, indicate that in fact, he was the murderer. Two are coincidence, but ten?

5 | Why did Sparma take Baxter to the desert?

If there is any additional proof that Sparma is the murderer, it is the moment when he manipulates Baxter into the desert. Sparma waits for Deacon to get out of the car, to approach Baxter. Sparma knows that Deacon is sure and plenty convinced that he is the murderer, so much Deacon would not hesitate to murder him if he was in Baxter’s shoes.

However, Baxter is not so sure and Sparma knows it. Sparma thinks he can have fun with Baxter by making him believe that he is going to reveal the place where the dead girl is, but making him fail time after time, until he is convinced that he was not the real killer. That’s his game, make Baxter hesitate, to have doubts.

Yet further proof that Sparma is the murderer is that he cannot help but relish the idea that he can murder Baxter’s wife and two daughters. At that moment, when he enjoyed the idea, and that the detective consequently beat him with the shovel, killing him, he – Sparma- showed himself as he is. Or as he was.

6 | What does the end of The Little Things mean? What happens to the red barrette?

In the end Deacon, in an act of reparation for those who ever helped him, decides to completely cover up Baxter, burying Sparma’s corpse and emptying his apartment. Deacon wants Baxter to enjoy his family, his wife and two daughters, and not throw his life away the way he did.

So he sends her that final message where he says «We are not angels», along with a red barrette.

Seeing the evidence and the message, Baxter can start his life anew thinking that he did indeed take the life of a murderer, and not an innocent man. However, in the last shots we see that Deacon actually bought the barrette, he didn’t find it in Sparma’s things.

The point is, Deacon wasn’t going to let Baxter destroy his life, and he was willing to do anything to get it, even lie to him.

7 | Is there a chance that Stan Peters was the real killer?

The point with the doubt about Stan Peters is that he, in effect, committed suicide after being confronted by the police about the dead girls and especially Mary Roberts, to whose name he reacted strangely. But we know that Mary Roberts was accidentally killed by Deacon, not Peters.

Stan Peters does not convey the security that the driver who followed Tina had, and the reason for his suicide would simply he was not ready to go to jail, taking into account the proclivity of the police to tag him as guilty. The reaction to Mary Roberts was perhaps because at some point he met her, followed her and possibly even tried to touch her, and if the police found this they would not hesitate for a second to send him to the dungeon.

8 | What is the message of the movie?

The twist of this film is that more than a quest to find a murderer, it is a character study, on how obsession can destroy someone’s life, and how by learning from the mistakes of others, we can move on, despite our faults

And perhaps even more so, how difficult it is to define someone’s innocence and guilt in absolute terms. Deacon took the life of Mary Roberts, but saved Baxter, and his wife and two daughters as well. There was no solid evidence that Sparma was the killer, but his fondness for female pain revealed him to Baxter.

It’s the little things, rescuing a friend from disaster, or demonstrating your sadistic nature in a few words, that ultimately reveal who the hero is, who the villain is, and who, ultimately, are the ones who deserve redemption.

Questions? Annotations? More doubts? The comments section is open just below this post so feel free to use it. See you in the next installment of Ending Explained here at El Sabanero X.

Outside the Wire | Movie Explained

Directed by Mikael Håfström (Rite , Escape Plan) and starring Anthony Mackie, and the rather unknown Damson Idris (Black Mirror) – Outside the Wire mixes some science fiction, with war genre and a good dose of technological suspense.

Now, if in the midst of futuristic border conflicts, state-of-the-art robots and the characters betrayals and ulterior motives you are still wondering what was going on, do not worry. It is time for Outside the Wire: Explained.

1 | Where and when do the events of the film take place?

Outside the Wire takes place in 2036, in the midst of a conflict in Eastern Europe involving Russia, Ukraine, and of course the United States.

2 | What is the war in the movie all about?

In the context of the film, a group of Ukrainian fanatics called the Krasnys aim to integrate Ukraine with Russia, as in the old days of the Soviet Union. Of course, a good part of the Ukrainians does not agree with such an idea, and they have formed a resistance.

The war between the Krasnys and the resistance has been intervened by the UN, trying to mediate with the creation of a Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), but the UN left, and the only actor that remained there supposedly on a peace mission was the United States.

Now, something important to note here is that the Krasnys are supported by Russia, and the Resistance, while taking advantage of the help provided by the United States, believes that this presence prevents them from reaching some kind of agreement with the Krasnys. Hence, peace.

3 | Who is Viktor Koval and what is his goal?

Viktor Koval (Pilou Asbæk) is the leader of the Krasnys and his goal is to gain access to Perimeter, a Russian defense system that literally was built to launch a massive nuclear attack against any hostile country to the Soviet Union.

Koval does not really want to join Russia, but to become a nuclear power himself and revive the Soviet Union but under its command.

4 | What is really Leo?

Leo is a state-of-the-art android, capable of having emotions and empathy for human beings, so within his programming he is allowed to feel pain. In 2036 the idea of ​​having robotic soldiers is already a reality with the inclusion in war tasks of the so-called Gumps, rather elemental robots, but with Leo a gigantic leap is taken, since it allows to have a machine with a high level of resistance and strength, capable of generating strategies at quantum speed.

5 | What is Leo’s plan? Why did he bring Harp to work with him?

Within his first-rate analysis, Leo realized that his very existence, that of a prototype of a robotic super soldier, would make the United States, once again, an unparalleled military power, which would make other countries, such as Russia, very nervous to the point to do anything to keep up, as they did with the Atomic Bomb, and thus generate – again – tensions and satellite wars, in the style of the Cold War, with the burden of dead, displaced and orphans that this entails.

In order to force the United States to leave the program, it occurs to Leo that he becomes a threat, but he knows he needs someone who plays the hero to his villain façade. Leo manages to convince Harp that he wants the Perimeter nuclear codes to exterminate the United States and thus prevent it from continuing to intervene in conflicts, which instead of ending, seem to drag on indefinitely.

But Harp calculates very well what Harp is going to do, and really wants the boy to stop him just in time.

7 | What does the end of the Risk Zone mean? What is the message of the movie?

The entire film is Harp’s journey to understand that what he understands as collateral damage, that is casualties from some perspective, necessary to achieve a greater good, have a face and a story, and are not simply numbers used to compare.

In this sense, the film confronts – like many, many other films – the conflict between utilitarianism and the deontological moral approach, in which acts are judged on their moral value, and not on their numerical impact.

In the end, when Harp walks back into his life, he no longer does so as the cold arrogant drone driver, but as a man who understands the meaning of a life, and how everything possible should be done to save it.

Questions? Annotations? More doubts? The comments section is open just below this post so feel free to use it. See you in the next installment of Ending Explained here at El Sabanero X.

i’m thinking of ending things ^ Ending Explained

Directed by Charlie Kaufman, the mind behind the 2004 hit Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Do you remember that one? Starring Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet?), I’m thinking of ending things is another magnificent puzzle that deserves to be seen on more than one occasion. And maybe then, we can see the big picture.

And yes, I get it, this is a world where the trend in cinema (and almost everything else) is to go easy, the not-so-challenging (look at the numbers on the box office of Fast and Furious , and the Marvel Cinematic Universe ), and a film like this implies a challenge, since it tests the viewer to analyze a myriad of details strategically placed by the director to understand them.

But don’t worry, because if after watching the 134 minutes of this movie, you still have no idea what exactly happened on screen, and especially what the ending of this movie really means, don’t worry, because then and without further ado, we open the analysis and explanation of  I’m thinking of ending things .

What the heck is going on in «i’m thinking about ending things»?

Let’s not beat around the bush and get straight to the point. At the beginning of the film we see two segments, which apparently have nothing to do with each other:

  1. The story of «Lucy» (we’ll get back to that soon) and Jake. The couple is on their way to visit the big man’s parents.
  2. Scenes of a school janitor, which seem rather random.

The janitor scenes are real, Lucy and Jake’s story is primarily a hallucination of the school janitor.

Why would the janitor have such a hallucination?

A mix of two pretty serious factors, by the way:

  1. The janitor suffers from a condition called Lewy Body Dementia, a neurodegenerative disease that includes symptoms that we saw in the scenes where the old man appears: tremors, stiffness, slowness; and also the appearance of quite vivid hallucinations that include not only the sense of sight and hearing, but also of taste, touch and smell. In other words, someone with this condition can have a rich sensory experience, without distinguishing it from reality.
  2. The janitor was left in his truck, in the middle of a snowstorm, in freezing temperatures, and therefore is suffering from severe hypothermia. This type of hypothermia -which we could see because the old man took off his clothes- aggravated the preexisting mental condition, and caused the possible mental defenses to fall completely, causing the hallucination that we saw in the form of the story of Jake and Lucy.

And how do I know that the janitor suffered from Lewy Body Dementia?

Well, it is one of the details that you have to pay close attention to. When the hallucination begins to crumble (evidently the janitor is dying), Jake’s father appears elderly and informs Lucy that he cannot remember many things, and that she has to label the rooms and objects in his house, to remember them.

Lucy asks him if he suffers from Alzheimer’s, but the old man confirms that it is not about that, but about Lewy Body Dementia, evidently it is a reflection of the condition the janitor suffers from.

Who really is Lucy?

The key is in the conversation over dinner. Lucy tells Jake’s parents that they met on a trivia night, where Jake was playing games and somehow they started talking and then she gave him her phone number.

But, here comes the glitch in the Matrix, or well, a mistake in the hallucination. First of all we see that Lucy completely changes her mood when she tells the story. Then we see that the story changes, first she says that she started talking to Jake when she asked her for the name of her trivia team (Brezhnev’s eyebrows). Then she says that they had not spoken, but only exchanged glances, which causes commotion at the table.

This is obviously an invention of the Janitor’s mind. The Janitor surely saw a woman with Lucy’s face once one trivia night, but they never exchanged a word, and even her name is made up, that’s why we see the girl sometimes called Lucy, other times Louise, other times Louisa , and even Ames. Those are the names of some women whom the Janitor felt afection to, or even loved, but up to there.

Also consistently inconsistent is the fact that Lucy changes occupation almost every scene, being a physicist, a poet, a film critic, and even a waitress.

In conclusion: Lucy is the version of the ideal woman that the sick and dying mind of the Janitor created from all the women who were important in his life, and that works as the way to externalize his own misery.

So Jake is the Janitor?

Indeed Jake is the most faithful representation of the Janitor, when he was young. In one of the dialogues, Jake affirms that being young is the ideal version of each person, and that is why his mind decides to see himself that way, in his best years of youth. And we can say that the Janitor’s name is indeed Jake.

But all the characters in the hallucination correspond to a part of the experience, or of the Janitor’s personality.

Who really is the Janitor?

According to the pieces that we can rescue from both the hallucination and the real scenes of the Janitor, we can assume the following about Jake:

  1. He grew up on a farm, along with his parents, who must have provided him with some kind of comfort, but who were also quite weird and even violent.
  2. He was an only child, and over time he had to take care of his parents, as they aged, feeding them and watching them die.
  3. He never left his parents’ farm, where he lived until his death.
  4. He was quite literate, consuming books, and especially a lot of popular culture, cinema and theater, especially musicals.
  5. He also had to read a lot about other subjects, such as physics, and science in general.
  6. Being tied to his parents and to his farm, he was never able to develop strong enough emotional ties to be independent, and therefore did not have the motivation to grow professionally, despite being very intelligent.
  7. When he wanted to find someone to share his life with, his previous lifestyle, he simply made it impossible, until he ended up alone on his parents’ farm, with a job as a Janitor and with a serious mental illness.

What does the end of «i’m thinking of ending things» mean?

The end of the film, involves the conflict in Jake’s mind, between dying peacefully in a hallucination that gives him some peace (at least he is not alone, he is with Lucy), and his survival instinct that tells him he has to do something, and that he should not let himself die locked in his truck in the middle of the snow.

This conflict is observed in the dance scene, Jake is dancing with Lucy, enjoying his moment of happiness, but his survival instinct (the policeman) tries to force him to come out of the hallucination and fight. But in the end, Jake ends up accepting his death, thinks of the end as his only way out, and achieves it in one last act in which he receives all the applause he never received in life, for the achievements he never had.

What is the message of the movie?

Message? Well, rather, messages … the film refers to various written and audiovisual works that indicate Jake’s reflections, which incidentally invite us to reflect as spectators.

  1. Ralph Albert Blakelock’s paintings : in which the expression of trauma through painting is discussed. A very well posed metaphor, since the film itself is a deep and artistic expression of a monstrous trauma such as living a lifetime in complete solitude and without having achieved any of your dreams.
  2. A woman under the influence : Oscar-winning film directed by John Cassavetes and starring Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk. The film here implies the extent to which the labels and expectations of society towards its individuals generate in them the aforementioned traumas. In the film, a woman suffers the consequences of fitting in with the labels of being a good mother and a good wife. Labels can also be negative, and the worst part is that it is usually much easier to fit in a negative label than to try to reach a positive one.
  3. Ice by Anna Kavan: A novel in which after an apocalypse, which covers the earth in ice, a man tries to get the attention of a woman. This is a reference to the very build of Jake, a man nearing the end, and trying to achieve a little happiness with an invention of his own mind.
  4. Rotten Perfect Mouth by Eva HD: A book by a Canadian poet, in which she tells with an open heart, the emotional traumas she has been through.
  5. Something Supposedly Funny I’ll Never Do Again , by David Foster Wallace: Where he recounts the experiences on a pleasure cruise, and how the very structure of the cruise, where his needs are met at every level, drives him to despair. This work is in tune with the following book.
  6. Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord: It is a book that very openly analyzes how society was transformed by its representation in the mass media. Basically the author indicates that the media have created an artificial template for life that we, the new generations, try to emulate, considering the achievements on screens as the quintessence of our existence. Here, and in conjunction with the previous book, Jake, a fan of musicals and cinema, tries to reach the pinnacle of existence imparted by the mass media: a perfect girl who shares his same mental scheme, tastes and who also finds him physically desirable. Never able to come up with such a panacea, he goes into despair (like Wallace on the Cruise Ship) and ends up completely alone.
  7. Baby, It’s Cold Outside by Frank Loesser: It is a song originally intended to tell people that it was time to leave the bars, back in the 1940s (the movie perhaps incorrectly indicates that the song was written in 1936). It is a conversation between a girl and a boy, the boy wants to go with her, she claims that she has other things to do. Feminism has found the song an apology for rape, for including references to giving the girl alcohol to have sex with her. It’s an interesting inclusion because it implies that Jake has also faced the clash between her prevalent mindset in her youth (homosexuality is a disease, women should stay home), with the new awakening. And like, maybe, because of that, another layer of alignment was added against him. He is not only an old man,sick and without achievements, but on top of an old man who does not understand current times, and nobody is willing to guide him, either.

What can we learn from this movie?

We all have dreams and aspirations, but this movie forces us to wonder how proper and appropriate those dreams are. Some have dreams associated with the pattern imposed by society: marrying, having children, going into debt to have a house, a car, perhaps a farm, perhaps a business. Others have dreams associated with what the media impose: A hot body, being sexually active, finding someone who is a perfect fit for you, and living a romantic and intense love at the same time. There are also other templates, the good son who cares for his parents until they die, or that of conformism, out of fear or lack of motivation to go as far as possible.

The film invites us to reflect on what it is that will make us at the end of our days really happy with our decisions. It invites us to think that perhaps by thinking too much of others, we end up destroying ourselves. It invites us to double think on establishing life patterns as models to achieve, without really thinking about what makes us happy. It invites us to be careful with our decisions.

But even more importantly, it invites us that in the process of knowing ourselves, and seeking our happiness, we do not just dismiss others, simply because they are not precisely what we are looking for.

Questions? Annotations? More doubts? The comments section is open just below this post so feel free to use it. See you in the next installment of Ending Explained here at El Sabanero X.

The Hater ^ Ending Explained

Have you ever felt that in spite of all your efforts, sacrifices and good results, the rest of the world simply treats you as if you deserve nothing more than the leftovers from others? What would you be willing to do to finally be someone in that hermetic world in which social mobility is becoming harder and harder?

Polish director Jan Komasa uses these questions as the framework for his 2020 film, The Hater (Original title in Polish: Sala samobójców. Hejter ), a very interesting study of character that – in 136 minutes – reveals to us how social networks actually work starting from the positioning of brands, the so-called influencers, to politics.

Now, if after watching the movie you have been left with questions, doubts or concerns, do not worry, because right now and without further ado we will explain this movie in detail. Let’s start!

Continúa leyendo The Hater ^ Ending Explained