Was Michelle the original wolf that bit Jack? (SPOILERS!)
-
The_White_Hotel — 14 years ago(February 02, 2012 07:39 PM)
I have already written across this very thread and at some length about how the "michelle was the original wolf" theory relies on baseless assumptions and actually contradicts quite a lot of what we are told in the film. You turn up and announce "I'm pretty sure she is the original wolf" without offering any explanation for the plethora of questions that that reading of the film raises, and you're complaining at me?
"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made" -
martytamu27 — 14 years ago(February 02, 2012 11:28 AM)
Wow you are passionate on this trivial topic haha
First it's a movie and make believe so the only ones who know are the writers and director. And the director intended it to infer that she was indeed the wolf who bit jack at the beginning.
All the points you bring up are in no way conclusive. You just use them to fit your conclusion.
Many movies (all) with twist endings har tons of jnconsistencies and just plain plot holes that don't support the twist. Not really the case here. All of your proof can easily be explained away. Such as wolves can travel great instances in short periods of time. Especially the supernatural were wolf. Variety.
See jacks late night hunting expedition.
I'm to busy to engage in a debate anyway.
Those like yourself are so entrenched in their opinion it won't change no matte the evidence and wint debate rationally anyway.
Who cares? -
The_White_Hotel — 14 years ago(February 03, 2012 07:04 AM)
Jack's late night hunting expedition didn't involve him leaving the state now, did it? And you've got nothing to counter the horse affect or the fact that Pfeiffer's character clearly
doesn't believe or expect
Jack to be a wolf for the first 90 minutes of the film. Amazing, you start off by complaining that I haven't made a case for this, then you belatedly discover that my case is in fact written all over this thread at which point you simply say "all your proof can be explained away", but without even a cursory effort to explain it, whilst all the while making out that somehow I'm at fault for something (although you can't seem to decide if that something is having no argument or having too much of one).
Look, this isn't personal, but my opinion is based on what we are shown and told in the movie, whereas the other opinion relies on ignoring what is in the movie. If your attitude is "who cares" why join in the debate in the first place? And if your whole argument is "well, nevertheless I'm still pretty sure she was the original wolf" then why complain at me for saying "well she wasn't"? Especially as she clearly wasn't.
"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made" -
martytamu27 — 14 years ago(February 03, 2012 02:40 PM)
OK first of all you put way more thought and analysis into this film than those who wrote and directed itso that there is something.
and you cant analye every little detail and infer things from it, because when filming or writing a film, there are tons of incosistencies that even the makers dont notice until afterward post-production.
but what we can go by is what the writers and directors intended.
when they showed michelle at the end as a wolf, the first thing that popped into most peoples head would be, oh she is the wolf from the beginning that bit him and she knew all along.
Allthe points you made is just her playing it along to hide that she was a wolf.
Also how would a were wolf get hit by a car? they have super senses and super intelligence (for a wolf), unless they meant to get "hit" by a car.
where does it say that she wasnt in the area that nite?
even if she wasnt there is nothing to say it was impossible for her ot be in the woods that night.
What else what the director be trying to convey to the audience, what message, would it be by showing her as a wolf at the very end? by holding that revalation out until the very end what other reason could there be than letting the audience know that she was teh original wolf?
Or thta there is a huge pack of werewolves in that area?
not another one was ever in the film.
Explain that one bitwhy would the director wait until the very end to show michelle was a werewolf? what message was he sending?
to me i dont see how anyone can interpret that to be oh michelle is a werewolve but it was some other random werewolf that bit jack at the beginning. see how clear i make it by showing you michelle is a werewolf? so obiviously an entirely different unknown werewolf must have been the one who bit jack at the beginning, get it?
no i dont see that as the directors intention at all.
he meant for us to see and infer that michelle was the wolf that bit jack at the beginning. -
The_White_Hotel — 14 years ago(February 04, 2012 07:11 AM)
OK first of all you put way more thought and analysis into this film than those who wrote and directed itso that there is something.
I don't think I did, no. I think this is part of the problem, for some reason you seem to be assuming that the makers of this film, including Mike Nichols who is one of the more respected of Hollywood directors, didn't really bother to pay attention to what he put in the film. I don't believe that.
when they showed michelle at the end as a wolf, the first thing that popped into most peoples head would be, oh she is the wolf from the beginning that bit him and she knew all along.
I completely disagree. I had seen this film many times before coming to this board, and that never occurred to me. Why would people think this? One big reason not to think it is that the film makes it clear through the discussion with the native American doctor that
once you turn fully into a wolf it is permanent and you do not turn back
. If Pfeiffer was the wolf at the beginning, she could not have been a human character during the film. Say it was Pfeiffer's father's character who had the wolf eyes at the end, and not her. Would you then be saying that it was in fact him who was the original wolf? Because that makes about as much sense.
Allthe points you made is just her playing it along to hide that she was a wolf.
I'm sorry but this just does not stand up. She is scared and confused by what is going on. She is like that even when she is on her own and there is no one to fool (and why would she be trying to fool Nicholson anyway? If she was turning him into a wolf like her why not just tell him?). She is able to ride a horse during the movie. Jack can't go anywhere near a horse without it kicking off. At the end both Nicholson's character and Spader's transform because it's a full moon. Nicholson even has an amulet to help him stop transforming, but even that is only partially effective. Pfeiffer does not begin to change at all. Why is she scared, even when there is no one to trick? How come she can be around and even ride horses without them reacting? Why does she not change with the full moon? Because she's not a wolf.
What else what the director be trying to convey to the audience, what message, would it be by showing her as a wolf at the very end? by holding that revalation out until the very end what other reason could there be than letting the audience know that she was teh original wolf?
You see, he's not "holding the revelation out until the end". There's no revelation to be made until the end because she's not a wolf till then. She's infected at some point during the film. If she was a wolf before then she would have changed at the full moon. The plot of the end of the film is that Nicholson's character has been consumed by the wolf and he has changed permanently. The film makes it clear that when you turn full wolf, it's permanent, you do not turn back. The twist is that this love affair that he's started with Pfeiffer is not necessarily over as she is now turning into a wolf as well. However, she is obviously some way behind him as she is only just starting to experience the symptoms that he experienced shortly after being infected. Conclusion? She has been infected more recently than him.
not another one was ever in the film.
There are numerous other wolves in Vermont. After Nicholson gets bitten he looks into the darkness beside the road. He sees dozens of pairs of eyes and hurries back to his car. The wolf that bit him at the beginning is part of a pack.
see how clear i make it by showing you michelle is a werewolf? so obiviously an entirely different unknown werewolf must have been the one who bit jack at the beginning, get it?
I'm sorry, but you don't make it clear at all. Like everyone else who believes this theory you rely on speculation ("who's to say she wasn't in Vermont that night?"), misreadings of the film ("why hold the revelation back till the end?" "not another one was ever in the film") and ignoring what we are told (once turned fully you cannot turn back, and a person infected by the wolf alarms horses to the point where you cannot approach them, let alone ride them). If it was the directors intention to imply that Pfeiffer was a wolf all along, mistakes like these would be unforgivable. Nichols is not some film-school amateur. At this point he'd been making movies for 30 years. He's hardly going to make such enormous continuity errors. If he wanted to imply she was the original wolf there are numerous ways he could have done so, including not
stating in the film that once you turn fully you cannot turn back
. As he does not take any of these opportunities to imply it I have to conclude that he is not trying to imply it.
If you can identify a single piece of evidence from the film's narrative that suggests Pfeiffer's character is a wolf at any point before the final scene then I would like to hear it. I just don't see anything at -
The_White_Hotel — 14 years ago(February 04, 2012 09:33 AM)
It's possible the studio insisted on the ending, but I don't think so. My interpretation of the end has always been that the film is letting you know that Pfeiffer is
now
infected, not that she had been infected all along. Quite where she gets infected is debateable. Some think she was bitten in her struggle with Spader at the end. Some suggest she is infected through having sex with Nicholson earlier in the film.
I have always thought that she is not infected through being bitten. When Nicholson visits the doctor, Om Puri's character, he says something along the lines of "not all who are bitten change, but not all those who change have to be bitten. Some carry the spirit of the wolf within them and their passion alone is enough for them to change". My reading of the end has always been that Pfeiffer's character is one of those who does not need to be bitten in order to change. And I have always thought that the very reason that that line about not needing to be bitten is in the film in the first place is entirely to explain Pfeiffer's transformation at the end.
"Reality is the new fiction they say, truth is truer these days, truth is man-made"