Chance was not human.
-
eelb — 11 years ago(September 16, 2014 08:55 PM)
Without a close examination of the pond, we don't know what he's walking on. Could be a ridge or partially submerged pier. He appears to walk on water, just as he appears to be an intellectual to the characters in the film. The characters take Chance at face value. They are not privy to the information we have about his prior life. We are not given information on the landscape beneath the pond.
If we as an audience knew everything about that pond. Knew it was 20ft. deep from shore to shore, and contained no raised structures, nor irregular topography, then we could proclaim with certainty that Chance is walking on water. But we're only given one scene involving the pond, a distant shot at that. We know less about that pond, than the Rand's know about Chance.
In real life, if you're driving along a road, and see someone walk across a pond, are you automatically going to assume the person is walking on water? Or are you going to assume there's something else in play, that agrees with the laws of physical science? -
Tommen_Saperstein — 9 years ago(November 20, 2016 09:29 PM)
Yes but if it's satire it's not supposed to be taken literally. It could just be Ashby toying with his audience's perception of the character, making us feel like we've been duped just as everyone else in the film was duped (apart from Rand's physician).
-
diverdwnn — 11 years ago(January 05, 2015 07:30 AM)
When he lowers his umbrella into the water i think its pretty clear he knows something out of the ordinary is going on.
I see him as a savior Unintentional most likely, but he will become president and he will save the garden/country/world. -
Stenzer21 — 11 years ago(January 16, 2015 08:42 AM)
I saw this movie tonight and I didn't see it from the very beginning. And when I saw him I thought he was an alien like someone out of this world. It was very captivating and it drew me in, and there was such a discord between his way of being and everyone else around him.
And then later I read on Wikipedia that he was raised as a sheltered gardener, but then I was thinking but how can he be so emotionless as well? Even the dumbest five year old kid would display emotions if someone else was riding on top of them.
I really liked the line at the end of the movie, "Life is a state of mind". And when I saw the end of the movie I was thinking, "This person is out of this world". And how the theme of life being a state of mind alludes to the idea of ascension. I also liked how there was a focus on the guy's past or the seeming absence of it. Like where did he come from? And what is he doing and where is he going? And he was just 'being there'. -
giadapazazz — 10 years ago(April 24, 2015 01:42 PM)
Mentally handicapped, low IQ coupled with flat affect. He simply cannot relate or respond to the world in which he lives.
He's enamored with television, and can do nothing more than imitate. He held a low level job requiring little thought, gardener, and his only concern is if Ben dies he'll be homeless again. -
tango09212 — 10 years ago(April 24, 2015 10:18 PM)
to assume he was just dumb is to ignore the ending , him walking on water clouds the idea that he was a just a lucky dumb man , oddly i see this film as one of perception , everyone in the film projects their own interpretation on what he says ,
-
BobbyDupea — 10 years ago(July 10, 2015 08:07 AM)
He didn't walk on water. He walked out into a shallow part of the lake, then found that the water all around him was much deeper. Chance - get it? It was merely another way of showing the luck he had and his approach to life. The scene was clearly meant to allude to the story of Jesus walking on water, but it didn't show him actually walking on water.
My real name is Jeff -
BobbyDupea — 10 years ago(July 16, 2015 06:20 AM)
Yes - that's why the movie showed Chance putting his cane down all around him to test the depth of the water. It showed that he walked out on the only shallow area on the lake, and had deep water all around him. If he was walking on water, he wouldn't have done that.
My real name is Jeff -
cableaddict — 10 years ago(July 20, 2015 12:21 PM)
^ If he WASN'T walking on water, he wouldn't have done that. He would have had no reason to wonder how deep the water was.
Additionally, if he was just a regular guy, even if there HAD somehow been a shallow area in that pond straight out to the middle (a ridiculous idea in itself) why would Chance have decided to walk straight into the pond?
Chance was simple, but he was not a complete idiot. He was an excellent gardener and understood things like trees, dirt, and water. - Not to mention, he knew enough to not want to ruin his shoes. -
BobbyDupea — 10 years ago(September 25, 2015 11:12 AM)
^ If he WASN'T walking on water, he wouldn't have done that. He would have had no reason to wonder how deep the water was.
Why do you assume that he would not have tested the water if he wasn't walking on water? That does not make any sense. It makes more sense to realize that if one can walk on water, one does not need to test the depth of the water. Any reasonable person would be worried about stepping onto deep water and getting his feet and clothing wet, so of course he would test the water. Any person with any sense who could not walk on water would test the water if he/she wished to walk out farther into it.
Additionally, if he was just a regular guy, even if there HAD somehow been a shallow area in that pond straight out to the middle (a ridiculous idea in itself) why would Chance have decided to walk straight into the pond?
It isn't ridiculous that there was a shallow part of the pond that extended out toward the center I've seen many ponds with similar shallow areas, so your assumption is incorrect.
The reason he decided to walk out into the pond is the same reason he decided to do almost everything else he did in the movie - he wanted to do it and didn't see any reason not to. He is not an intelligent person and acted first, then tested the depth of the water later. This is very much as any child or dim-witted person would act, and fully in accord with his character throughout the movie.
Chance was simple, but he was not a complete idiot. He was an excellent gardener and understood things like trees, dirt, and water. - Not to mention, he knew enough to not want to ruin his shoes.
On the contrary, Chance was almost a complete idiot. He was decent, but understood nothing but gardening. Your assumption that he knew enough not to want to ruin his shoes is probably correct. But that supports the conclusion that he could not have been walking on water. The fact that he couldn't walk on water is the reason he tested the water all around him. He wouldn't have had any reason to test the depth of the water if he could walk on it.
My real name is Jeff -
Elynne — 9 years ago(April 30, 2016 10:03 PM)
I just watched this movie and saw the ending 5 minutes ago. It seems to me that if he was walking into a shallow part of the lake, you wouldn't be able to see his shoes ~~ but you can. If the water was shallow and he was wading into it, it would be splashing up onto his ankles or even his lower legs each time he took a step. The bottoms of his pants would get wet. It didn't look that way. The water just swirled around his shoes and you could see them clearly with each step, as though they were simply disturbing the very surface of the water as he walked.
-
KruddMan — 10 years ago(November 23, 2015 07:52 PM)
My friend and I were talking about this film recently, and somehow he remembered Chance as some kind of robot butler. haha
I didn't remember that at all, so I came here to see what other people thought. Really interesting to me, that the end of the film might not be connected to real world logic at all, but to the logic of the movie it's a great final statement. You can perceive someone, or an event as almost anything, depending on the information you receive. Never knowing how wrong you are. -
Picnic10 — 10 years ago(November 28, 2015 10:21 AM)
Yes Chance is a Jesus-like figure but also he IS human. If more people were like him, the world would be a better place yet 'civilised', often European, people often derride such people as simpletons because they can't stand that, to be 'in' with the rich you don't have to be either rich or cynical.