Nocturnal Animals

>Dear Susan, Just let me know when and where. Edward.

What did he mean by this?

He was leading her on. How would you feel if youre ex wife didn't tell you about a 19 year old daughter?

He fapped that evening and changed his mind afterwards

If the daughter was his he knew, if not then he knew about the abortion and that's not his daughter. Why would he write the daughter's character if not any of these two?

He killed himself

thats not his daughter

thats the whole point of the abortion sequence

That's the most norime-tier interpretation I've ever read.

I also noticed something else. I don't know if I'm right.

Edward saw Susan with Hutton inside the car after the abortion. And Tony was blinded in the end.

A major theme of the movie from the sets to shots to acting of the non-book scenes is surrealism. Yet within that is a predictability of action extolled by the bitch mother who claims her daughter will wind up just like her. The depth of the human experience can only go so far.

Their marriage didnt work out like everyone predicted. He isolated himself and wrote his heart out like everyone predicted. She became dissatisfied with her success like everyone predicted. And she decided to meet with him again like everyone predicted. Therefore the final prediction is left to the audience so naturally the most generic answer is correct.

Not a single moment of the movie was about revenge. Look at the book story where the man fails entirely at vengeance. Not to project that 1:1 to the real story, but the writer emptied himself into the book and in the end there was nothing. There's no satisfaction to be had in revenge.

Yes I forgot all the characters' names

Underrated post

>Not a single moment of the movie was about revenge.

>I'm glad that you shot him. I'm fucking glad that he's dead.

>Tony kills Ray

You deaf and blind boy?

don't forget a literal painting of the word REVENGE

the abortion didnt' pan out obviously. Why else include a daughter in the story?

Or maybe panned out perfectly.

>Your daughter had a much more difficult time. She was suffocated. She also had a broken arm.

She wanted to know what love is.
He wanted to show her.

Boring bad movie. The novel within the movie was a shitty Peckinpah/Paul Schrader knockoff. Two thumbs down.

I've never heard of whatever you just mentioned so your post is invalid.

The book story was a classic revenge story meant to parallel the real life story, with the end being him finally getting his revenge

>not knowing Peckinpah or Paul Schrader
what's your home board friend?

Sup Forums's my main squeeze. Tell me more about these names. If I watched their films would I die?

You'd like The Wild Bunch. It's about men doing what they have to.

No. Edward lost his wife and his unborn daughter because she thought he was "weak", and this devastated Edward. The whole point of sending his novel to Susan is to make her understand his pain, since the novel is also about a guy losing his family for being too weak.

The only part of the film that was revenge was the very rejection at the end. The meta-fiction, was the a transcription of the ex-husbands conflict with being castrated, through the abandonment of his subjects (wife not desiring him anymore, his child being taken away from him).

He stood her up because he got what he wanted and poignantly communicated that to her.

It was never about the loss of her in his life, it was just about her desiring him again, he proved that she slipped back into his subjectivity again, under his power.