The (or my) answer to about 70% of the questions on here
-
Sanctus87 — 10 years ago(February 20, 2016 02:20 PM)
Why she chooses to go to the harbor when the taxi driver asks her is quite obvious IMO, she does it to complete another cycle so she can return to the moment when she comes back to the house so she can prevent the accident and save her son.
-
Lizard51867 — 10 years ago(February 20, 2016 06:17 PM)
Interestingly, she never pays the taxi driver. They actually use a couple lines of dialogue on this.
-I'll leave the meter running. You're coming back, right?
-Yeah.
-Promise?
-Yeah.
That's not verbatim, but it's close. If she is effectively stiffing the ferryman, that might account for the punishment as well. -
the_notorious_bid — 10 years ago(March 18, 2016 02:16 PM)
I haven't watched it, recently
I have watched it a few times on cable.
My belief, concerning the mother wanting NOT to be as bad as she was:
She knows what she has done and wishes that she hadn't done them OR she has NOT had a psychotic break and there really are "less sane" versions of the mother committing these atrocities.
Hmm Does she become more sane, less sane or does she remain the same as these loops continue?
As for the loop If you are presented with a decision without knowing the outcome, you are likely to make the decision which you feel is best at that particular instance. So, if you make the right turn at Albuquerque, in each following iteration of the loop, not knowing the outcome, you'll make the same decision.
I'm assuming that this continual loop is inevitable. So, if the loop ever "closed" or "completed" in any particular scene, it would support my assumption.
So, in a continual loop (of sorts), which came first: The chicken or the egg?
In Triangle, which came first: The cause or the effect? -
celavstina — 9 years ago(July 29, 2016 06:58 AM)
Yea, but I was wondering why doesnt she just tries to NOT kill them all? Thats my biggest doubt about this great movie Because I remember when she was talking to her self when she saw the boat arriving again: IT COMES BACK WHEN THEY ALL DIE! Isnt it the next logical move NOT to kill them and see what happens?
-
GreyHunter — 9 years ago(September 10, 2016 09:46 PM)
Because she's damned herself. She
can't
choose otherwise, not because someone or something is forcing her, but because she's convinced herself it's necessary. And, having no memory of previous cycles, she will always be convinced. This is who she is. She makes choices, and they are ultimately the most honest choices she could make. If they weren't completely true to her nature, at some point she'd make a different choice. But she never does because her choices are reflections of who she really is. It's the perfect punishment the punishment we inflict on ourselves is always more personal and inescapable than anything someone else could inflict on us.
It actually hearkens (intentionally? I couldn't say) to the most famous modern iteration of the theme behind the story of Sisyphus. In Camus' famous essay, "The Myth of Sisyphus," Sisyphus is the ultimate absurdist hero, a man who has defied the Gods by taking responsibility for his own doom. He may be damned, but it's a damnation of his own making, even if it was the Gods who appeared to be the agentys of his circumstances. By making the choice to defy them, he made the choice to be punished, and his endless toil therefore transforms from slavery to an almost ironic symbol of freedom. The Gods can do whatever they like to his body, but they can't change the fact that the defiance belonged to him alone. (But don't take the ending of the essay too literally if you bother to read it. Camus is being quite sardonic even when he's being serious.)
Granted, this is traveling far afield of Jess' doom, but the basic principle applies whatever her punishment, she is the one responsible for it. Not Death, not Charon, not the people around her. Just her. And since peace requires forgiveness, and forgiveness requires letting go of the anger, she'll never achieve peace because she has to be the one to forgive herself, and she'll never allow herself to remember why she needs forgiving. She'll doomed to keep trying to make something right that can't ever be made right, only forgiven. Or, as a wise person once said, you can't fix the past, only move on from it. -
warrior-poet — 9 years ago(September 13, 2016 03:14 PM)
not because someone or something is forcing her, but because she's convinced herself it's necessary.
BOOM
for the entire post. Nice to see someone else who gets it.
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
-
xfastfurious15 — 9 years ago(August 20, 2016 07:21 PM)
I love your explanation of the movie! Except for one thing. She's not in "purgatory", because there is no such thing called purgatory in greek mythology. Purgatory is a Catholic/Christian concept.
Therefore, Jess is basically dead if we're following greek mythology terms. Like you said she cheated death when she made the deal with the taxi driver to kind of go back in time to get back to her son and keep him from dying. Yes she "cheated" death by not being stuck in the land of dead souls. But she's still technically dead because her punishment is she can never return to land of the living because no matter what she does the outcome will be the same.
the only problem is what is the original thing that sets of the accident?? She wasn't always destined to go on the ship, wash up on shore then kill her "bad mother" self. So what caused the accident before she made the deal with Charon? Because her son only freaked out about the blood on the windshield because he witnessed his mom killing her other self with the axe. So if he didn't witness that then he wouldn't have freaked out in the car and she wouldn't have turned her head to calm him, resulting in her crashing.
I bet you're wondering what a place like this is doing in a girl like me-The Mummy -
Joseph_J_Wood — 9 years ago(August 28, 2016 03:29 AM)
Hi. I just posted a similar interpretation. I must have missed your post when I was looking through what people have said. Apologies. I think you're quite right. I didn't think about the ferryman though, that's an extra layer that I didn't notice - I just saw it as analogous to the Sysiphus myth.