The Ending of "The Sense of an Ending"

I saw this last night, and after doing some Internet searching this morning, I can see that I wasn't the only viewer who felt that the ending of the film didn't make a heck of a lot of sense (although it appears to be faithful to the ending of the novel, which I have not read).

A few folks have put forth theories about the story's narrator being exceptionally unreliable (unreliable to the point of completing blocking out events and altering others). This theory, which the film's trailer seems to propagate a bit (IMO), at least makes the ending a bit more satisfying (although it still leaves questions unanswered).

Does anyone who has seen the film or read the novel care to chime in?

 

Lots of loose ends, apparently.

The ending of The Sense of an Ending makes no sense | The Spectator

 

Yes, I read that piece, and largely agree with it. A reader of the novel (link below) suggested a massively-unreliable narrator as a potential explanation for many of the loose ends. Whether this theory is right or not regarding the novel, it sure does help the film, which otherwise does not add up at all (IMO).

The Sense of an Ending - What do people think of the ending? (SPOILER ALERT) (showing 1-46 of 46)

 

Absolutely masterful, this slim novel by Barnes. I read it prior to watching the movie, and have started rereading the book. Not being familiar with the other titles shortlisted in 2011 for the Man Booker Prize, I obviously can't say The Sense of An Ending was the best; however, I can say it deserved accolades and readers, and in my sphere should be placed with McEwan's Atonement among the best British fiction of recent years that I have read.

Barnes created not an unreliable narrator but a protagonist who reflects on the vagaries of memory and thus, as his memories change, he changes. The story of his life is like a puzzle Webster assembles or rearranges with new information, the identity of the second Adrian, or with old or forgotten memories reengaged, "the nasty letter" and belatedly figuring out why the first Adrian committed suicide. Barnes nails how memory functions: we can forget important parts of our lives, only to relearn them in different contexts and thus give them different values. This takes skill to pull off convincingly in a fiction. In this context the movie version works well, too.

To me, Webster's stopped watch near the conclusion borders on a cliche, symbolizing the death of his "old self," the curmudgeon, and the new watch from his ex-wife symbolizes his "new self," even though at the very end with his infant grandson, his daughter still calls him a curmudgeon. Maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but he has changed: he is more helpful, more agreeable, more social, more apologetic, more honest, changes that he relates to Veronica in the letter at the conclusion. He is, if you will, making atonement.

We connect with art, be it song, story, film, painting, or whatever, in a myriad of ways that often fails to impress others. For me, turning 62 today, the lines in the letter at the conclusion resonate to my core: "... and how little I have allowed to happen. I, who never won or lost, who avoided being hurt, and called it a capacity for survival." We wrestle with nostalgia. It happens to everybody, even curmudgeons.

Kudos, too, to Barnes for referencing literary critic Kermode.

 

I appreciate the fact that you enjoyed the novel. My exposure (at least for the moment) is limited to the movie. And loose ends abound, IMO.

Spoiler

If Sarah did not have an affair with Tom, why on Earth would she leave him 500 pounds in her will, when he was nothing more than her daughter's brief one-time boyfriend who she saw for one weekend 40 years ago?

If Tom did have an affair with Sarah, he is repressing that fact (even to himself), or he is severely limiting the information he "provides" to the audience. When he first sees Adrian Jr., the film shows a brief shot of Adrian Sr. - suggesting Tom immediately notes the resemblance (squashing the notion that Tom might be Adrian Jr.'s father, hence Veronica's anger towards him).

In either scenario, how does the "nasty letter" make Tom in any way responsible, even vaguely, for Adrian's affair with Sarah, or Adrian's suicide?

Why is Veronica so angry with Tom 40 years later? Why does she keep insisting he doesn't "get it" even after he is made aware that Adrian Jr. is her half-brother?

Why the great emphasis on Tom remembering the way Sarah waved goodbye to him? Was Sarah TRYING to seduce Tom as she later seduced Adrian and he was too naive to understand her actions at the time? If her attempts were unsuccessful, we're back to why oh why leave him 500 pounds in her will.