I have thought about that as well and i am not sure about it either. It did not ruin the film for me though. Its probably suppose to be some kind of transcendental thing but im not sure. I am curious to hear other opinions.
When something like this happens in a film, I can always tell myself that someone else put it in there, and so while its not his same cricket, its symbolic to him, and us that it was his cricket.
I think it’s too imply that he was always the emperor, and always will be. It is not meant to be taken literally. His whole life he was motiviated to be the emperor, and the cricket represents his childhood hopes and dreams when he kept small animals similar to the sled in “Citizen Cane”. Although in this case he is a tragic character blown by the winds of political turmoil with no control over anything, as oppossed to a newspaper magnate.
Ryan
I watched The Last Emperor a few weeks ago, and I’ve been thinking about the ending quite a bit. I’m talking about when he goes back to the Forbidden City and finds the case that he kept the cricket in, and the cricket flies out after all of those years. I thought it was a really good film until that point, which sort of ruined the ending. Of course the cricket couldn’t have lived all of those years, I don’t really understand why it’s there. What did you guys think about the ending?