The ending of “Flower” (2017), directed by Max Winkler, leaves viewers pondering the complex moral landscape navigated by its protagonist, Erica Vandross. Ultimately, Erica convinces Luke, her potential victim of statutory rape, not to report her to the authorities, choosing instead to shoulder the burden of her impulsive actions and ultimately demonstrating a degree of self-awareness and responsibility that contradicts her earlier behavior. This acceptance, however, is fraught with ambiguity and raises questions about accountability and the lingering impact of her actions.
Erica’s Choice: A Gamble on Redemption
“Flower” doesn’t offer a neatly packaged resolution, instead opting for a more nuanced and unsettling conclusion. Throughout the film, Erica (Zoey Deutch) is portrayed as a rebellious, sexually curious teenager desperate to break free from her mundane suburban life and reconnect with her incarcerated father. Driven by a misguided desire to help Will (Joey Morgan), her friend’s stepbrother, lose his virginity before he testifies in a case against his abuser, Erica engages in a questionable act with Luke (Dylan Gelula), a troubled teen with disabilities.
The climax arrives when Luke threatens to report Erica for statutory rape. Instead of fleeing or attempting to further manipulate the situation, Erica confronts Luke directly. In a tense and emotionally charged scene, she admits that she acted impulsively and that her actions were wrong. She expresses genuine remorse and acknowledges the potential consequences of her behavior. Instead of relying on her manipulative charm, she appeals to Luke’s humanity, suggesting that reporting her would ultimately make things worse for everyone involved.
In the end, Luke chooses not to report her. This decision is not necessarily a sign of forgiveness or acceptance, but rather a reflection of his own complex feelings and the realization that pursuing legal action might bring further disruption and pain into his life. Erica, in turn, decides to accept the consequences of her actions, remaining in her small town and seemingly attempting to rebuild her life. The film concludes without revealing the full extent of the ramifications, leaving the audience to grapple with the moral ambiguities of Erica’s choices and the lasting impact on all involved.
Diving Deeper: Frequently Asked Questions About “Flower’s” Ending
FAQ 1: Why did Erica act the way she did with Luke?
Erica’s actions are driven by a complex mix of factors. Firstly, she displays a strong desire for attention and control. Secondly, she exhibits a naive understanding of the consequences of her actions. Thirdly, she is motivated by a twisted sense of loyalty to Will and a misguided attempt to help him. Lastly, the film subtly hints at Erica’s own history of neglect and a yearning for connection, which contributes to her reckless behavior. It’s crucial to understand that her motivations are multifaceted and not easily dismissed as pure malice.
FAQ 2: Was Luke justified in threatening to report Erica?
Absolutely. Luke was exploited and taken advantage of, regardless of Erica’s intentions. He had every right to feel violated and to seek justice for the harm done to him. The power dynamics in the situation were significantly skewed, given Luke’s vulnerabilities and Erica’s position of relative authority. Therefore, his threat was a valid response to a genuinely harmful act.
FAQ 3: What is the significance of Luke ultimately not reporting Erica?
Luke’s decision is open to interpretation. It could signify empathy, a desire to avoid further trauma, or even a recognition that reporting Erica might not bring him the closure or satisfaction he seeks. It’s important to note that his choice doesn’t absolve Erica of her actions. Instead, it highlights the complexities of trauma and the diverse ways individuals cope with it.
FAQ 4: Does the ending suggest Erica is truly sorry for what she did?
The film offers hints of genuine remorse from Erica, but it avoids providing definitive answers. Her decision to stay in town and face the potential consequences suggests a degree of self-awareness and a willingness to accept responsibility. However, the lingering ambiguity leaves the audience questioning the depth of her contrition and whether her actions are driven by genuine regret or a desire to manage the situation.
FAQ 5: What is the director’s message by leaving the ending open-ended?
By refusing to provide a clear-cut resolution, the director challenges viewers to confront the uncomfortable realities of adolescence, sexual exploitation, and the complexities of moral judgment. The open ending forces the audience to engage with the characters’ motivations and the potential consequences of their actions, rather than offering easy answers or moral pronouncements. It prompts a discussion about accountability, forgiveness, and the lasting impact of trauma.
FAQ 6: How does Erica’s relationship with her incarcerated father influence her actions?
Erica’s relationship with her absent and incarcerated father is a key underlying theme. She idolizes him and seeks to emulate his rebellious nature, perhaps as a way to gain his attention or feel connected to him. This yearning for connection and validation likely contributes to her impulsive and boundary-pushing behavior, as she attempts to fill the void left by his absence.
FAQ 7: What role does Will play in Erica’s behavior towards Luke?
Will serves as a catalyst for Erica’s actions. Her desire to help him, coupled with her own misguided sense of justice and rebellion, fuels her decision to take matters into her own hands. She sees Will as a victim and believes she can protect him, even if it means crossing ethical lines. Her loyalty to Will blinds her to the potential harm she could cause to Luke.
FAQ 8: How does the film portray the complexities of consent, especially regarding individuals with disabilities?
The film attempts to address the complexities of consent, particularly in situations involving power imbalances and potential vulnerabilities. While it doesn’t shy away from the uncomfortable realities of the situation, it also raises questions about the definition of consent and the challenges of assessing capacity. This aspect of the film has generated considerable debate and discussion, highlighting the need for careful consideration and sensitivity when portraying such sensitive issues.
FAQ 9: Is “Flower” a redemptive story for Erica?
The film doesn’t necessarily offer a straightforward redemption narrative for Erica. While she demonstrates a degree of self-awareness and accepts responsibility for her actions, the lasting impact of her choices remains uncertain. The audience is left to ponder whether she can truly atone for her mistakes and whether her actions will continue to haunt her in the future. The ambiguity makes the film a more thought-provoking and less easily digestible experience.
FAQ 10: What are some common criticisms of the movie “Flower”?
Some common criticisms of “Flower” include concerns about its ambiguous portrayal of sexual consent and its potential to be misinterpreted. Some viewers have argued that the film doesn’t adequately address the power dynamics involved and that it risks minimizing the severity of Erica’s actions. Others have criticized the film’s tone, finding it to be uneven and occasionally insensitive.
FAQ 11: How does the setting of a small suburban town contribute to the film’s themes?
The setting of a small, oppressively suburban town reinforces the themes of boredom, stifled ambition, and the desire for escape. Erica’s rebellious behavior can be seen as a direct response to the limitations and conformity of her environment. The small-town setting also creates a sense of claustrophobia, amplifying the pressure and consequences of Erica’s actions.
FAQ 12: What are the key takeaways from the movie “Flower”?
The key takeaways from “Flower” include the importance of accountability, the complexities of consent, and the lasting impact of trauma. The film challenges viewers to confront uncomfortable truths about adolescence, power dynamics, and the potential consequences of impulsive behavior. It serves as a reminder that actions have repercussions and that forgiveness, while possible, is not always guaranteed or easily achieved. The film encourages us to consider the gray areas of morality and the challenges of navigating complex ethical dilemmas.