12 Monkeys, Stowe says I remember you?
Walter Mahar
character keep telling Bruce's character that she remembers him? She
mentions this a few times in the movie, but it's never explained, at
least from what I could understand.
Was it left on the cutting room floor? If anybody knows
anything, I'd appreciate it. Except for this and the silly ancient
gauge and gears Brazil future, I thought it was a fine movie.
Ann Demirtjis
The only explanation I could find for this was that Stowe's character
"remembers" him from the World War I picture she has of him. Obviously,
the link b/w the two doesn't become clear to her until 1996, but in 1990
she may have unconscioulsy felt she knew him.
Ann
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Demirtjis University Of Kansas
Electrical Engineering
demi...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu Telecommunications Sciences
"With the first link, a chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first
thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
"The Drumhead", Startrek: The Next Generation
T.L.Miller
---------------------------------------Spoiler-------------------
> In a movie that seemed to tie everything up, why does Madeline Stowe's
> character keep telling Bruce's character that she remembers him? She
> mentions this a few times in the movie, but it's never explained, at
> least from what I could understand.
She looked into the little boy's eyes at the airport and made a
connection. That little boy
grew up to be the character Bruce Willis played>
--
Tom Miller
=====================================================================
If you like tropical plants like hibiscus, please see:
http://website.fishnet.net/gardengatepress/Hibiscus.html
=====================================================================
=====================================================================
Joshua Kamm
> In a movie that seemed to tie everything up, why does Madeline Stowe's
> character keep telling Bruce's character that she remembers him? She
> mentions this a few times in the movie, but it's never explained, at
> least from what I could understand.
> Was it left on the cutting room floor? If anybody knows
> anything, I'd appreciate it. Except for this and the silly ancient
> gauge and gears Brazil future, I thought it was a fine movie.
The picture from WWI, in which Jose (Cole's friend) told about the
disease--hence its emergence in Railly's research--Cole also got
'time-warped', and that's what she remembers.
--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is still a freak.
josh kamm pri...@primnet.com
Mathew Mills
>In a movie that seemed to tie everything up, why does Madeline Stowe's
>character keep telling Bruce's character that she remembers him? She
>mentions this a few times in the movie, but it's never explained, at
>least from what I could understand.
> Was it left on the cutting room floor? If anybody knows
>anything, I'd appreciate it. Except for this and the silly ancient
>gauge and gears Brazil future, I thought it was a fine movie.
I assume that she knows him from his WWI picture.
LITTLE ZEE
Little Zee
Laurisa O'Dear
>From: litt...@aol.com (LITTLE ZEE)
>Subject: Re: 12 Monkeys, Stowe says I remember you?
>Date: 8 Jan 1996 09:09:42 -0500
>Perhaps she remembers his face from the WW1 photograph.
>Little Zee
I've seen the movie twice - did everybody miss this but me? In one scene,
Madeline Stowe says to Bruce Willis, "I remember you like this", and it's when
he has on the fake hair and mustache. Therefore, how could she be remembering
him from the the WWI photograph? If I'm mistaken about this, someone please
let me know. Otherwise, I'll have to agree with the person who thought this
"remembering" doesn't make any sense - she couldn't remember him from 1996
when it hasn't even happened yet.
Laurie
Laurisa O'Dear
lod...@uiuc.edu
-montalvo m.a.
T.L.Miller <te...@packet.net> wrote:
>
>---------------------------------------Spoiler-------------------
[about how MS's char. talks about remembering BW's char.]
>She looked into the little boy's eyes at the airport and made a
>connection. That little boy
>grew up to be the character Bruce Willis played>
That doesn't work, as it doesn't happen for her until after all the
other events in the movie. I figure she's subconsciously remembering
the WWI photograph.
Maria
Zach Douglas
>
>In a movie that seemed to tie everything up, why does Madeline Stowe's
>character keep telling Bruce's character that she remembers him? She
I think there is only one answer to that one:
SHE is actually a replicant also.
Thank you, and goodnight.
Gerald Olchowy
>In a movie that seemed to tie everything up, why does Madeline Stowe's
>character keep telling Bruce's character that she remembers him? She
>mentions this a few times in the movie, but it's never explained, at
>least from what I could understand.
> Was it left on the cutting room floor? If anybody knows
>anything, I'd appreciate it. Except for this and the silly ancient
>gauge and gears Brazil future, I thought it was a fine movie.
Spoilers...
She saw Cole as a child in the airport, and purposely stared at
him...that is why he is familiar.
Gerald
Gerald Olchowy
>Walter Mahar <walte...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Spoilers...
This, of course, is wrong...I am a moron...remind me to wake up
before posting.
Gerald
Lori Yung
>Perhaps she remembers his face from the WW1 photograph.
>Little Zee
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LORI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| lo...@cruzio.com Santa Cruz California |
| Check out BOOKNET on the World Wide Web |
| http://www.mochinet.com/bn/ |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-Petroit,R.G.
Laurisa O'Dear <lod...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>In article <4cr8j6$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> litt...@aol.com (LITTLE ZEE) writes:
>>From: litt...@aol.com (LITTLE ZEE)
>>Subject: Re: 12 Monkeys, Stowe says I remember you?
>>Date: 8 Jan 1996 09:09:42 -0500
>
>>Little Zee
>
>Madeline Stowe says to Bruce Willis, "I remember you like this", and it's when
>he has on the fake hair and mustache. Therefore, how could she be remembering
>him from the the WWI photograph? If I'm mistaken about this, someone please
>let me know. Otherwise, I'll have to agree with the person who thought this
>"remembering" doesn't make any sense - she couldn't remember him from 1996
>when it hasn't even happened yet.
>
>Laurie
>
>Laurisa O'Dear
>lod...@uiuc.edu
>
I noticed the same thing...it seems to infer that maybe MS has (or had)
a link to the future.
Bob
Lori Yung
>Perhaps she remembers his face from the WW1 photograph.
>Little Zee
That's what I thought too, but remember the scene in the
lobby of the theater when Willis and Stowe are disguised -
She says something like "This is how I remember you."
She remembers him looking the way he did in the airport
when he was in the blond wig. Why? I don't know.
Walter Mahar
>
> In article <30F02D...@earthlink.net>, Walter Mahar
> <walte...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> > In a movie that seemed to tie everything up, why does Madeline Stowe's
> > character keep telling Bruce's character that she remembers him? She
> > mentions this a few times in the movie, but it's never explained, at
> > least from what I could understand.
>
> connection. That little boy
> grew up to be the character Bruce Willis played>
>
> Tom Miller
Yeah, but Tom, she said she remembered him before she saw him in the
airport as a little boy. Oh well, this movie is so complex as far as
clues and backtracking of time, I'll probably never know.
harry knowles
>Walter Mahar <walte...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>>In a movie that seemed to tie everything up, why does Madeline Stowe's
>>character keep telling Bruce's character that she remembers him? She
>>mentions this a few times in the movie, but it's never explained, at
>>least from what I could understand.
>>anything, I'd appreciate it. Except for this and the silly ancient
>>gauge and gears Brazil future, I thought it was a fine movie.
>
>Spoilers...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>She saw Cole as a child in the airport, and purposely stared at
>him...that is why he is familiar.
>
well, actually it is the fact that she had a picture of Cole from WW I
on the wall of her apartment might have something to do with her
remembering him. Remember her seeing him as a child took place after she
first sees him in her life time, but not in Cole's lifetime. She sees
Cole for the first time in person in 1990, but at that time she already
had in her possession the photograph of Cole. But she didn't put it
together because that would have made no since to her, until she gets the
bullet out of his leg in 1996.
hope that mess helps,
harry knowles
George W. Harris
<walte...@earthlink.net> wrote thusly:
=In a movie that seemed to tie everything up, why does Madeline Stowe's
=character keep telling Bruce's character that she remembers him? She
=mentions this a few times in the movie, but it's never explained, at
=least from what I could understand.
I believe it was just a case where you meet someone that
you've never seen before, and they look very familiar. Deja vu was
the dominant theme in the movie (the scenes in the Maryland asylum
paralleling scenes in Cole's present, the movie they go to (Vertigo),
etc.), and this was another instance of it. I don't believe she actually
had seen him before.
--
1. Keep your hand moving. 2. Lose control. 3. Be specific. 4. Don't think.
George W. Harris gha...@tiac.net
Jimmie J. McCoy
> That's what I thought too, but remember the scene in the
> lobby of the theater when Willis and Stowe are disguised -
> She says something like "This is how I remember you."
> She remembers him looking the way he did in the airport
> when he was in the blond wig. Why? I don't know.
Perhaps this timeline of events is moving in a kind of moebius loop,
repeating themselves over and over again, set and unalterable, and having
lived through it an infinite number of times, she has some subliminal
awareness of it, a dim memory that makes Cole familiar in a way beyond
just his appearance in the WWI photo. She Did say that she remembers him
"this way." referring to his appearance in that disguise, I assumed, when
I saw it today.
TREVOR
Chris.Hilker
>well, actually it is the fact that she had a picture of Cole from WW I
>on the wall of her apartment might have something to do with her
>remembering him.
She has that picture on her wall in 1996. Since we don't see her apartment
circa 1990, what makes you so sure?
>She sees
>Cole for the first time in person in 1990, but at that time she already
>had in her possession the photograph of Cole.
There's no evidence of this in the film.
C.
--
cs...@netcom.com (Chris.Hilker) "I feel like I'm being electrocuted."
The alt.rave mini-FAQ: "Q: ?" "A: hyperreal.com (http://hyperreal.com)"
Jonathan Pakianathan
>In article <4cr8j6$r...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> litt...@aol.com (LITTLE ZEE) writes:
>>From: litt...@aol.com (LITTLE ZEE)
>>Subject: Re: 12 Monkeys, Stowe says I remember you?
>>Date: 8 Jan 1996 09:09:42 -0500
>
>>Little Zee
>
>Madeline Stowe says to Bruce Willis, "I remember you like this", and it's when
>he has on the fake hair and mustache. Therefore, how could she be remembering
>him from the the WWI photograph? If I'm mistaken about this, someone please
>let me know. Otherwise, I'll have to agree with the person who thought this
>"remembering" doesn't make any sense - she couldn't remember him from 1996
>when it hasn't even happened yet.
>
since it has happened and that we are only allowed to go back and see
how things happened, I am beginning to think that the movie is hinting
that through dreams and premonition we can see what will/might have
happened. For example Jeffrey(instead of the lab assistant) being in one of
Cole's dreams and Railly thinking she had met Cole. It is like
our consciousness 'knows' all future events and we merely have to
discover them and sometimes it leaks a bit (i.e. Deja Vu). I know
this is farfetched but hey, in this movie, anything goes... :)
-Jonpak
Elizabeth H.
>harry knowles <ro...@bga.com> writes:
>>well, actually it is the fact that she had a picture of Cole from WW I
>>on the wall of her apartment might have something to do with her
>>remembering him.
>She has that picture on her wall in 1996. Since we don't see her apartment
>circa 1990, what makes you so sure?
>>She sees
>>Cole for the first time in person in 1990, but at that time she already
>>had in her possession the photograph of Cole.
>There's no evidence of this in the film.
The question here is, did hearing Cole's story in 1990 cause her to research
her book on anomalous appearances in history, or was she already researching
them? I assumed she had already been doing the research, altho I guess 6
years would have been enough to accumulate all that information. Kinda is
a coincidence that she lived in Philly then AND became Cole's psychiatrist.
But then, we don't know how many people have been sent back by the underground
future folk. Since their aim was so hit or miss, and the quality of the
"info seekers" so poor, maybe they were inundating Philly of the past with
people. And of those who made it 1990's Philli, how many ended up in that
facility? Maybe some other previous time traveler impinged on her life at
some point, either directly or in some psychiatric writings. There was
evidence there, she found it eventually. I know, I know, she didn't mention
what got her started, but jeez, isn't there something about reading between
the lines to flesh out a theory for these things? Otherwise we would need
spoon fed every detail. My idea is possible and it fits.
Betsy H.
James Pavlovich
>In article <30F02D...@earthlink.net>, Walter Mahar
><walte...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>---------------------------------------Spoiler-------------------
>
>
>
>connection. That little boy
>grew up to be the character Bruce Willis played>
>
Nope. This happens latter in Dr. Railly's subjective timeline.
The only thing I can figure is that she recognized him from the
WWI photograph. She finally makes the connection when she is told
that the bullet she pulled from his leg is an antique.
JGP
Daniel WJ Johnson
In article <cspotDK...@netcom.com>, cs...@netcom.com (Chris.Hilker) writes:
> harry knowles <ro...@bga.com> writes:
>
> >well, actually it is the fact that she had a picture of Cole from WW I
> >on the wall of her apartment might have something to do with her
> >remembering him.
>
> She has that picture on her wall in 1996. Since we don't see her apartment
> circa 1990, what makes you so sure?
>
> >She sees
> >Cole for the first time in person in 1990, but at that time she already
> >had in her possession the photograph of Cole.
>
> There's no evidence of this in the film.
>
>
> --
> cs...@netcom.com (Chris.Hilker) "I feel like I'm being electrocuted."
>
> The alt.rave mini-FAQ: "Q: ?" "A: hyperreal.com (http://hyperreal.com)"
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Johnson dw...@austin.ibm.com
(512)838-1278 AUSTIN(DWJJ)
Zach Douglas
>
>Cole for the first time in person in 1990, but at that time she alread
>together because that would have made no since to her, until she gets
>the bullet out of his leg in 1996.
>
What leads you to believe she had the picture in 1990? It seems she
begain her transition from being just a pyschictrist to doing her
lectures in 1996 after meeting Cole in 1990.
I think it's much more than just the picture. Even AFTER she sees the
picture, she still insists on having seen him before somehow.
P HOLM63
doomed to keep repeating itself over and over - her smile at the end of
the movie says it all...
George W. Harris
thusly:
=Remember, the gist of the movie is that this is a "vicious circle' - it is
=doomed to keep repeating itself over and over - her smile at the end of
=the movie says it all...
No, it isn't a vicious circle, and it doesn't happen over and
over. It only happens once.
George W. Harris
H.) wrote thusly:
=The question here is, did hearing Cole's story in 1990 cause her to research
=her book on anomalous appearances in history, or was she already researching
=them?
I think that his appearance, his "apocalyptic vision" was the catalyst for her
research. No evidence either way.
=I assumed she had already been doing the research, altho I guess 6
=years would have been enough to accumulate all that information. Kinda is
=a coincidence that she lived in Philly then AND became Cole's psychiatrist.
Actually, in 1990 Cole appeared in Baltimore, and she
wasn't in Philly when he appeared in 1996 either ("Take me to
Philadelphia" "That's over 100 miles!")
=Betsy H.
George W. Harris
wrote thusly:
=> >She sees
=> >Cole for the first time in person in 1990, but at that time she already
=> >had in her possession the photograph of Cole.
=>
=> There's no evidence of this in the film.
=>
=> cs...@netcom.com (Chris.Hilker) "I feel like I'm being electrocuted."
=She used the picture in her 1990 lecture, didn't she?
The lecture was in 1996 ("It's been six years!" "For you.")
=Dan Johnson dw...@austin.ibm.com
Scott R. Eckelman
: harry knowles <ro...@bga.com> writes:
: >well, actually it is the fact that she had a picture of Cole from WW I
: >on the wall of her apartment might have something to do with her
: >remembering him.
: She has that picture on her wall in 1996. Since we don't see her apartment
: circa 1990, what makes you so sure?
: >She sees
: >Cole for the first time in person in 1990, but at that time she already
: >had in her possession the photograph of Cole.
: There's no evidence of this in the film.
Sure there is, indirect evidence at least. In her 1990
lecture, she talked about a French soldier wounded in WWI who forgot
how to speak French but spoke fluent English. It's clear that
she was talking about Jose. During her research she undoubtedly found
the photograph of him which is where she also saw Cole.
: C.
: --
: cs...@netcom.com (Chris.Hilker) "I feel like I'm being electrocuted."
: The alt.rave mini-FAQ: "Q: ?" "A: hyperreal.com (http://hyperreal.com)"
--
Scott E.
"Disclaimers? We ain't got no disclaimers. We don' need no disclaimers.
I don' have to show you any stinkin' disclaimers!"
Elizabeth H.
> Actually, in 1990 Cole appeared in Baltimore, and she
>wasn't in Philly when he appeared in 1996 either ("Take me to
>Philadelphia" "That's over 100 miles!")
Yipes! Sorry. I do not know why I kept saying Philadelphia when it was
Baltimore. Must be cream cheese. I'll try to keep my cities straight now.
Betsy H.
James Pavlovich
>Sure there is, indirect evidence at least. In her 1990
>lecture, she talked about a French soldier wounded in WWI who forgot
>how to speak French but spoke fluent English. It's clear that
>she was talking about Jose. During her research she undoubtedly found
>the photograph of him which is where she also saw Cole.
>
Except that the lecture took place in 1996. There is no evidence that
she had the picture in 1990. There is also no evidence that she was
a specialist in the Apocolyptic delusions in 1990, and therefore no
reason to believe she would have come accross that picture yet. My take
on it was that she was inspired to start her research because of her
encounter with James Cole and his "delusion".
As for the Railly's deja vu regarding Cole, it is one of the very few
loose ends left unresolved -- probably on purpose. Or we can accept it
as just dejau vu.
JGP
Scott R. Eckelman
: : >well, actually it is the fact that she had a picture of Cole from WW I
: : >on the wall of her apartment might have something to do with her
: : >remembering him.
: : She has that picture on her wall in 1996. Since we don't see her apartment
: : circa 1990, what makes you so sure?
: : >She sees
: : >Cole for the first time in person in 1990, but at that time she already
: : >had in her possession the photograph of Cole.
: : There's no evidence of this in the film.
: Sure there is, indirect evidence at least. In her 1990
: lecture, she talked about a French soldier wounded in WWI who forgot
: how to speak French but spoke fluent English. It's clear that
: she was talking about Jose. During her research she undoubtedly found
: the photograph of him which is where she also saw Cole.
Following up to my own post - oops, my mistake. I just saw it again -
the lecture was in 1996, not 1990. It's still possible that she saw
the photo though. Maybe she was working on her book back then, or
possibly her doctoral thesis eventually turned into her book. It
doesn't explain why she remembers him with hair, though. Possibly
something was left on the cutting room floor?
Upon second viewing, I find myself in the 'history can't be changed'
camp - everything is consistent with this view. first time I
saw the movie, it appeared that the past had changed - in one of
his dreams, Cole saw Goines as the man at the airport with the
case. This dream, however, immediately followed his escape from
the mental institution where he was heavily drugged. In the
escape sequence, he briefly saw the 1990 guard as the guard from the
future, so mixing up faces was likely a result of the tranquilizers.
Some observations upon second viewing:
- Both the young James and Cole's eyes were bluish grey, not brown.
- The virus was released in 9 cities, not 7.
- There appeared to be 7 golden vials in the lab, just as Revelations
predicted, although there didn't appear to be 7 in the suitcase.
(Assuming that Revelations was written by a time traveler trying
to warn humanity, how would he know there were 7 vials? - only Dr. Goines
and his assistant knew).
- We don't really know if the future is a totalitarian nightmare or
not - all of the future scenes seems to take place within a prison.
(It does seem to be a rather large prison for one city which
had 99% of the population killed, though). Also, there is mention of
'the Emergency Powers' clause, so a democracy isn't likely.
- We also don't know that the scientists are in charge - the female
scientist at the end may have been 'volunteered' just like Cole.
She didn't sound too happy when she said she was 'in insurance.'
Things I still don't understand:
- Why/How does Dr. Railly remember Cole with hair?
- Who is the voice Cole keeps hearing? Or is it just evidence that
he is insane (or time travel made him so)?
: : C.
George Nassiopoulos
: sco...@eskimo.com (Scott R. Eckelman) wrote:
: >Sure there is, indirect evidence at least. In her 1990
: >lecture, she talked about a French soldier wounded in WWI who forgot
: >how to speak French but spoke fluent English. It's clear that
: >she was talking about Jose. During her research she undoubtedly found
: >the photograph of him which is where she also saw Cole.
: >
: Except that the lecture took place in 1996. There is no evidence that
: she had the picture in 1990. There is also no evidence that she was
: a specialist in the Apocolyptic delusions in 1990, and therefore no
: reason to believe she would have come accross that picture yet. My take
: on it was that she was inspired to start her research because of her
: encounter with James Cole and his "delusion".
Is there any evidence that she *didn't* have the picture in 1990?
I don't think so --
George Nassiopoulos
nas...@cfa.harvard.edu
Ryan McGinnis
>
>She saw Cole as a child in the airport, and purposely stared at
>him...that is why he is familiar.
Tha makes no sense. :/ Think about it.
+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+
Ryan McGinnis ()_() TLKiaWoL
mcg...@pionet.net (_) ch...@gnn.com
nkm...@prodigy.com ASPLN
Page Plug! Setting up a TLK shrine at:
http://www.pionet.net/~mcginnr
Sioux City IA, USA sun moon stars rain
"Ninga phelelwa nga mandla"
+-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-+
PGP fingerprint=A4 03 78 B0 8E 02 D8 8B E4 7C 4D C0 55 33 8D 72
George W. Harris
Eckelman) wrote thusly:
=Chris.Hilker (cs...@netcom.com) wrote:
=: harry knowles <ro...@bga.com> writes:
=: >She sees
=: >Cole for the first time in person in 1990, but at that time she already
=: >had in her possession the photograph of Cole.
=: There's no evidence of this in the film.
=Sure there is, indirect evidence at least. In her 1990
=lecture, she talked about a French soldier wounded in WWI who forgot
=how to speak French but spoke fluent English.
What 1990 lecture? The lecture you mention occurred in 1996.
=: cs...@netcom.com (Chris.Hilker) "I feel like I'm being electrocuted."
=Scott E.
lee s. bumgarner
>
> =I assumed she had already been doing the research, altho I guess 6
> =years would have been enough to accumulate all that information. Kinda is
> =a coincidence that she lived in Philly then AND became Cole's psychiatrist.
>
> wasn't in Philly when he appeared in 1996 either ("Take me to
> Philadelphia" "That's over 100 miles!")
Isn't interesting how _she's_ the one doing the lecure now, when SHE was
the one listening in the first sence. I suspect this is suppose do show
us how her world view has chanced in 6 years. Also, wouldn't she have
gotten a _little_ concerned if several times in the past people had
talked about a great death which all spoke of the '96 time period. I know
_I_ would.
-l
---
-----> Undertoad (under construction) http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/ <--------
REALITY.SYS corrupted. Reboot universe (Y/N/Q)? | "Usenet is Frosty The Snowman
committing suicide with a flame thrower."-- Kibo |Somebody visited a.r.k and all
I got was this lousy .sig | M$'s Blackbird is EVIL, do not support it! | ##30##
Lee S. Bumgarner
> loose ends left unresolved -- probably on purpose. Or we can accept it
> as just dejau vu.
Yeah, that is another way to play it: his dejau vu is real and hers is not.
-l
--
---
----> Undertoad (under construction) http://falcon.jmu.edu/~bumgarls/ <------
Online Editor, BreezeNet----> http://breeze.jmu.edu/
REALITY.SYS corrupted. Reboot universe (Y/N/Q)? |"You are the Bum* who built
this mess all the wrong way!"-DrG | Just say no to M$'s Blackbird |LSB| ##30##
Lee S. Bumgarner
> - We don't really know if the future is a totalitarian nightmare or
> not - all of the future scenes seems to take place within a prison.
> (It does seem to be a rather large prison for one city which
> had 99% of the population killed, though). Also, there is mention of
> 'the Emergency Powers' clause, so a democracy isn't likely.
I suspect "the Emergency Powers" has something to do with that. Maybe
99% of that 1% left over from the Great Die Back ARE in jail in the sense
that that is how they are kept under control.
> Things I still don't understand:
> - Why/How does Dr. Railly remember Cole with hair?
Yeah, that is weird. Maybe it got left on the cutting room floor er
something.
-l
James Pavlovich
>
>Upon second viewing, I find myself in the 'history can't be changed'
>camp - everything is consistent with this view. first time I
>saw the movie, it appeared that the past had changed - in one of
>his dreams, Cole saw Goines as the man at the airport with the
>case. This dream, however, immediately followed his escape from
>the mental institution where he was heavily drugged. In the
>escape sequence, he briefly saw the 1990 guard as the guard from the
>future, so mixing up faces was likely a result of the tranquilizers.
>
>Some observations upon second viewing:
>
>- Both the young James and Cole's eyes were bluish grey, not brown.
>
>- The virus was released in 9 cities, not 7.
>
>- There appeared to be 7 golden vials in the lab, just as Revelations
> predicted, although there didn't appear to be 7 in the suitcase.
> (Assuming that Revelations was written by a time traveler trying
> to warn humanity, how would he know there were 7 vials? - only Dr. Goines
> and his assistant knew).
Perhaps the assistant decided there would be 7 vials so it would
parallel Revelations.
>
>- We don't really know if the future is a totalitarian nightmare or
> not - all of the future scenes seems to take place within a prison.
> (It does seem to be a rather large prison for one city which
> had 99% of the population killed, though). Also, there is mention of
> 'the Emergency Powers' clause, so a democracy isn't likely.
>
>- We also don't know that the scientists are in charge - the female
> scientist at the end may have been 'volunteered' just like Cole.
> She didn't sound too happy when she said she was 'in insurance.'
>
Finally, its about time someone pointed this out. We do not have any
evidence that the scientists are in charge. Based on history it is very
unlikely that they are. Scholars and scientists have never held
significant political power as a group. More likely the politicians
rounded up all the scientists left and sent them off to find a cure
while the politicians ran the underground society. All we ever see
is the prison and the laboratory. Since the scientists are the highest
authority figures we see, everyone assumes they are in charge of the
whole human race. But this is hardly likely. Those in charge of
administering this underground society have the power. The scientists
are never seen doing anything but science.
>
>Things I still don't understand:
>
>- Why/How does Dr. Railly remember Cole with hair?
>
>- Who is the voice Cole keeps hearing? Or is it just evidence that
> he is insane (or time travel made him so)?
>
>
The film certainly doesn't give us a satisfactory answer for either
of these things. So, either the answers were in the original script
and got left out of the final film, or they were left unresolved
intentionally. Knowing the way Gilliam works (or, at least, thinking
I know) I assume it is the latter.
JGP
lee s. bumgarner
> Remember, the gist of the movie is that this is a "vicious circle' - it is
> doomed to keep repeating itself over and over - her smile at the end of
> the movie says it all...
A good time-travel movie is like one of those peices of paper with no
"outside" everything fits together once you untangle it. This is one of those
movies.
vivekc
>
>Remember, the gist of the movie is that this is a "vicious circle' - it is
>doomed to keep repeating itself over and over - her smile at the end of
>the movie says it all...
Yes. But the question is, where did it start? I say that the scientists
in the future started it all by feeding certain information to Cole,
Cole to Jeffrey and finally to the Lab Assistant. Who says time must be
linear?
-Ariel
Charles B. Francois
> >
> > - Why/How does Dr. Railly remember Cole with hair?
>
> something.
You know, I've thought of another cine-mechanical explanation for this,
although there is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to back it up:
But, is it possible that the *wrong* actor took that line in the
scene? It certainly makes a *lot* more sense for Cole to say to Railly
"I remember you *like this*..." upon seeing her for the first time with
blond hair in that particular dress.
So it's entirely possible that the Peoples actually intended for *Cole*
to utter that line, but during a turn of the draft-machine crank, that
line wound up with Stowe's name next to it instead of Willis's.
Since they both claim to remember each other at other points in the
film, it's easy enough to see how the crucial distinction established
by "like this" could have gotten lost on the actors and even the
director. We'll assume the Peoples weren't on the set that day.
How's that for baseless conjecture?
--
Charles B. Francois charles....@sun.com
arandia
that in many movies, true love has a fated or destined aspect. Maybe
Gilliam was playing around with that cliche.
My point of view on the whole thing is that Gilliam was thinking,
what if history was a movie?
joel
Debra
"Charles B. Francois" <charles....@sun.com> writes:
> But, is it possible that the *wrong* actor took that line in the
> scene? It certainly makes a *lot* more sense for Cole to say to Railly
> "I remember you *like this*..." upon seeing her for the first time with
> blond hair in that particular dress.
No. In the book, Railly says that line.
--Debra
Fallen Angel
>In article 17...@sun.com, "Charles B. Francois" <charles....@sun.com> () writes:
>>
>>Since they both claim to remember each other at other points in the
>>film, it's easy enough to see how the crucial distinction established
>>by "like this" could have gotten lost on the actors and even the
>>director. We'll assume the Peoples weren't on the set that day.
>>
>>How's that for baseless conjecture?
>How's this: Cole's remembrance of her is from his childhood, and
>her remembrance of him is from the WWI photograph that she cut and
>used in her book.
>Zach
That's the only sense I could make of it. Took me until the day after
I saw the movie to realize that she had been referring to his picture
from the yet-to-be-written book.
Mike Schwartz
Don't forget that the book is based on the film, not the other way
around. However, in the shooting script, Railly also says that line.
But, as Charles pointed out, that's a late draft, and things could have
gotten switched around in earlier drafts. It's such a huge mistake to
make, though, that it's hard to believe the Peoples' or Gilliam wouldn't
have noticed...
Mike.
zach gemmill
Mike Schwartz
> za...@lsil.com (zach gemmill) wrote:
> >How's this: Cole's remembrance of her is from his childhood, and
> >her remembrance of him is from the WWI photograph that she cut and
> >used in her book.
> >Zach
> That's the only sense I could make of it. Took me until the day after
> I saw the movie to realize that she had been referring to his picture
> from the yet-to-be-written book.
No, no. In the lobby of the movie theater, Railly tells Cole that
she remembers him "like this," referring to his disguise.
Mike.
Charles B. Francois
>
> In article 17...@sun.com, "Charles B. Francois" <charles....@sun.com> () writes:
> >
> >Since they both claim to remember each other at other points in the
> >film, it's easy enough to see how the crucial distinction established
> >by "like this" could have gotten lost on the actors and even the
> >director. We'll assume the Peoples weren't on the set that day.
> >
> >How's that for baseless conjecture?
>
> her remembrance of him is from the WWI photograph that she cut and
> used in her book.
Yes, that much is made pretty clear by the film.
The unsolved mystery is why she said "like this", as in, with
long hair and moustache. Cole is bald and butt-naked in the
WWI photograph.
However Debra Hale who's reading the book pointed out that
the scientist on the plane at the end is a man in the
book. That would tend to indicate that the book is
based on a late draft of the script, and not the finished
film. And in the book, Railly is indeed the one
who says "like this". So much for my theory.
Josh Fruhlinger
one unexplainable in the movie -- a contrast to the precision of the rest
of the plot.
--
Josh Fruhlinger
jg...@cornell.edu
The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; the pessimist fears that this is so.
Ann Daman
>
> Maybe Railly remembers Cole because she's in love with him. Remember
> that in many movies, true love has a fated or destined aspect.
> Maybe Gilliam was playing around with that cliche.
>
understand them after you've thought about it for a while. Remember when
she finally realized that Cole was a "time traveller" like he said, when the
cop said that the bullet they pulled out of him was from WWI. She began
sifting through the pictures from her book and found that picture with Cole
in it. That's just my theory.
Ram Samudrala
>I think Stowe's charachter's mysterious memory of Cole is meant to be
>the one unexplainable in the movie
See review for my theory. <-:
--Ram
--
/12 Monkeys/ addresses, among other things, the paradoxical nature of
time travel (and time travel movies) in a parodoxical way. The movie
is highly circular and incestuous: It is the year 2035. A deadly
virus (unleashed in 1996) has destroyed most of the world's
population, enabling the animals to rule the world again. The human
survivors move deep underground and build their cities there; cities
that seem to be mostly composed of prison guards and prison convicts.
James Cole (Bruce Willis) plays a prison convict/time traveller from
this dystopian future who "volunteers" to be sent back to 1996 in
order to allow his virus-ravaged world to move back to the surface.
He cannot change the events of his past. All he has to do is bring
back a pure sample of the virus so his people can overcome it and
become the rulers of the planet.
However, time travel in the year 2035 isn't perfect yet (probably
because they have ex-insurance agents in charge of it). The first
time he is sent back, he ends up in the year 1990, where he is
promptly put in an asylum. He then meets two of the people who play
key roles in the destruction of the human life on this planet: his
psychiatrist Kathryn Reilly (Madeline Stowe) and co-asylum inmate
Jeffrey Goines (Brad Pitt).
The plot is set up so it looks as though Cole is responsible for
Doomsday. His ramblings about the virus influences Goines' plans, once
his father (the Nobel prize winning virologist whose lab
coincidentally keeps an amply stock of the deadly virus at hand) gets
him out of the asylum. Goines then goes on to become the leader of
the Army of the 12 Monkeys, who the people in 2035 believe are the
ones responsible for unleasing the virus.
Meanwhile, the scientists in Cole's future bring him back and have
another go at putting him in the right year. This time, after a
couple of bumps (notably one in WWI where Cole is shot in the leg), he
ends up in the right year where he once again ends up with Reilly and
manages to convince her of his story. However, Reilly's psychiatry
and the continuous time travel appears to have taken its toll on Cole,
and when he is brought back to 2035 and sent back to 1996 again, he is
convinced that he is just a mental patient with delusions about the
future. This time, however, Reilly convinces him otherwise and
together they try to stop the Army of the 12 Monkeys.
History can lie. Cole discovers this (in 1996) and passes this on to
the future (2035) and becomes a hero. At this point, there are
numerous options to end the story after tieing up the lose ends. But
the story is left very open-ended and the issue of whether there are
more loops in the future and the question whether the past can really
be changed is left unexplained and unanswered.
Viewers of this movie may recall a /Star Trek: The Next Generation/
episode where the Enterprise is caught is a time loop of destruction,
and each time the crew travels back through time, they experience a
deja vu sensation that finally allows them to break out of the
destructive loop. The memory Kathyrn Reilly experiences, that she has
seen James Cole before, could be one such instance. Thus viewers who
like happy endings may wish to imagine another loop where Reilly and
Cole actually manage to save the world. Viewers who like complete
endings may wish to imagine that the people in 2035 were eventually
able to go back to the surface with Cole's help. Cynical viewers may
opt for an ending where nothing changes and everything the people in
2035 do ends up being futile.
While the main focus of this review is on the plot itself, the movie
is worth watching for its amazing cinematography, excellent acting by
all the people involved, and the sci-fi effects.
--
m...@ram.org || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
Your shadow, the white one, who you cannot accept and who will never
forget you --- Rolf Jacobson