I make games, do arts and generally exist


kobold
@kobold

It's interesting to me how the original ending got changed... didn't realize it because I've only seen the original! Apparently "everyone dies" was too much of a downer for audiences, but the story is waaaaay better when you accept that ending.

Before I dive in, I ask that you take this post with a grain of salt. I'm mostly just braindumping some random thoughts and feelings about the movie, and using it as an excuse to share some art I got cuz I love the movie so much.

I'm really not looking to start a debate, but if you feel compelled to post your observations about the movie on this topic, feel free to, just please don't be an asshole about it, and don't take it personally if I don't respond to your thoughts. (If you're an asshole here to needlessly defend capitalism/attack alternative systems, you are welcome to take it personally.)

I really love this movie, and just felt compelled to get the idea out of my head in a way I never have before.


The horror of the shop isn't really Audrey II, it's the capitalistic mindset of "if we're not growing, we're dying", and the resulting destitute circumstances the flower shop and its attendants operate within as a result of that system.

The movie starts off with Mushkin, a white business owner, yelling at a few Black girls who otherwise liked his shop. Race is immediately at the front of this. I'm not going to dive into detail - I'm sure someone else has talked about it better elsewhere- but I thought it interesting to point out how a core theme of the movie is that those with money act needlessly cruel or abusive towards those without money, and that race is at the forefront of such a display.

So I think - when the story starts to drive the tension of the story through Audrey II, a lot of what makes Twoey harm people isn't the plant itself, it's the economic scarcity for the people surrounding its care, and the sudden attention from wealth and power that offers Seymour an escape from lifelong poverty and servitude, and the promise of a better life if he just keeps sacrificing himself or others to keep the spectacle going.

When it's finally taken too much from him and he can't feed it any more without literally hospitalizing himself, Seymour is confronted by the realization that this plant's life is at odds with others' lives, not yet realizing that includes his own. But, he figured he can use the plant to hurt someone who deserves it, and BOY does the guy deserve it! Most people, myself included, are rooting for him to kill and feed the guy to Audrey II.

But that's the trap. Capitalism, like Audrey II, encourages you to sacrifice others for your personal gain. It wants you to hoard power, money, and violence for yourself. It whispers sweet nothings to you, begs you for more and more and more, then when it can't get any more out of you directly, coerces you into hurting others for the sake of growth. Such growth cannot be sustained on a few drops of blood - the monster has grown bigger, and demands more from you than you are able to give.

Even when the second guy to die gets eaten - Mushnik, the boss - it's presented in a relieving, but horrifying tone. Mushnik was awful to Seymour, and at his death, is literally trying to steal what ultimately amounts to Seymour's life's work at gunpoint. He deserves it too, right? So down the hatch he goes. But this time, Seymour didn't have to do much of anything. He just had to push back a little bit against Mushnik, and let the problem take care of itself. At least with the dentist, Seymour was the one holding the gun!

With Mushnik's death, however, Seymour loses everything he gained except Audrey's love.

Finally, he realizes Audrey II was a mistake. It's taken his life away from him- the plant is too scary, too strong, too much for him to be safe, too much for Audrey to be safe. He tries to flee and fails, resulting in the climax of the film where the plant manipulates Audrey into eating her, then the plant eats Seymour, too, and goes on to be replicated by others.

Not long after Audrey dies, a man confronts Seymour and tells him, check it out, we stole some of your plant, but before you get mad, we found out how to grow your business even more, so now it's going to be everywhere, you should let us have a cut! Surely there are no consequences to this for you, so there shouldn't be any for me, right?

Audrey II grows to harmful sizes because of Seymour's deliberate effort, even if the actions taken to get there were done for relatable & understandable reasons.

But, that doesn't matter in the end.

The story ultimately says that humanity dies as a result of the unsustainable growth of the plant.

Doesn't that sound like a warning?


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @kobold's post:

OH MY GOSH you get it... I've been talking about the anticapitalist themes of this movie for years, it's nice to see someone else understand them. little shop of horrors is my favorite movie of all time so it's very nice to see such a good understanding of it on here :]

id go as far to say the core themes of the movie plain do not work when you change the ending. little shop of horrors is a faustian tale and a warning of what unchecked greed can do, an ending where seymour gets out of things scott-free just feels... unsatisfying. wrong. im really happy the director's cut ending got preserved so people can watch the proper ending today