Dead Again questions (major spoilers)
David Chalmers
Serious spoilers:
1. What's with the actor "fiance"? What was he supposed to do with the woman
once he got her? Certainly not keep up the act and marry her. So
presumably it would become obvious that he's not for real, and the woman
would go back to Mike. Unless maybe the idea is that he's to deliver her
into the hands of the hypnotist or something, but why go to all that trouble?
2. Isn't the hypnotist treading *very* dangerously by hypnotizing the woman,
in front of a witness and all? What if the first thing she says is "It
wasn't Roman who killed Margaret, it was Frankie!" (and maybe recognizes him
into the bargain). Maybe he's a good hypnotist but surely he doesn't have
that much control. What was his game plan?
3. I didn't really follow the business about who was who in the past life.
The woman's dreams were obviously from the point of view of Margaret. And
she remembered many things, e.g. conversations with Baker, from Margaret's
point of view. So Mike was Margaret too?
On the other hand she remembered Roman's conversation on death row,
presumably something that Margaret couldn't access. Maybe their
souls just got mixed together in the inter-life transition period,
and they both came out as a bit of each. It's not clear why she got
all the nightmares and he didn't, though -- in fact he didn't seem
tormented at all.
Confusing stuff. Excellent movie.
--
Dave Chalmers (da...@cogsci.indiana.edu)
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."
Rodrick Su
In article <1991Aug31.0...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chal...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>OK a couple of questions about Dead Again -- there must be millions.
>once he got her? Certainly not keep up the act and marry her. So
>presumably it would become obvious that he's not for real, and the woman
>would go back to Mike. Unless maybe the idea is that he's to deliver her
>into the hands of the hypnotist or something, but why go to all that trouble?
Frankie hired the 'fiance for two reason. He want to get Amanda/Grace
and he want it done with out arousing suspicion from Mike. By having
someone from Grace's past, he can have both. Hence, all of the question
Mike would have ask, Frankie already know. He knows about the Irish
wedding band, the glove, and what kind of glove. The only thing He
is not sure of is which hand the missing glove is.
--
| "I've got compassion running outta my nose,
Rodrick Su __o | pal. I'm the sultan of sentiment."
r...@cats.ucsc.edu -\<, | Albert Rosenfield
r...@ucscb.ucsc.edu ...O/ O | Twin Peaks
Jym Dyer
ne = eve...@bbn.com
ne> When did Franklyn figure out that Amanda/Grace had been
ne> "Margaret" in a past life?
=o= Remember what his mother said: that he was obsessed on the
idea of Margaret and Roman would come back. He saw the photo in
the newspaper and followed up on it. I don't think he knew for
sure until the hypnosis.
ne> Did Amanda/Grace realize from Mike's hypnosis session that
ne> Mike had been Margaret, and not her? I know that Franklyn
ne> seems to have caught on, but it seemed like she didn't
ne> figure it out until later, if ever.
=o= I think it's clear that she didn't, because she wouldn't
have reason to think that Mike was Roman and wouldn't have
"reason" to kill her.
=o= It's not clear that Franklyn knew, either. Remember, Mike
wouldn't say what he saw.
wb = be...@cs.tamu.edu
wb> The only thing I disliked about this movie was Mike's sudden
wb> recovery after being shot.
=o= It's not infeasible. A clumsier first jump would have been
better, though.
dc = chal...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
dc> Isn't the hypnotist treading *very* dangerously by
dc> hypnotizing the woman, in front of a witness and all?
=o= For one thing, I don't think he had much of a choice. I
don't think Mike would have gone for leaving her alone with him.
For another thing, he has the trauma working for him: the woman
is already suffering from amnesia, and has formidible defenses
built up against the trauma. I suspect he felt he could get
just far enough to find out if she was Margaret without spilling
the beans.
=o= This suggests to me that he didn't think Mike was Margaret,
because he wasn't afraid to have Mike go back as a full-fledged
participant. This turned out to be a mistake on Franklyn's
part.
dc> I didn't really follow the business about who was who in the
dc> past life. The woman's dreams were obviously from the point
dc> of view of Margaret.
=o= Of course we were led to think that they were Margaret's,
but the "distanced" point of view left it open as to whose it
really was.
dc> And she remembered many things, e.g. conversations with
dc> Baker, from Margaret's point of view. So Mike was Margaret
dc> too?
=o= I'll have to see the movie again to be sure, but the three
times she talks to Baker may all have been observed by Roman
(if surreptitiously). The first time for sure, Roman was
standing right there. The second time Margaret and Roman part
and Baker comes up to the table -- but Roman could have been
there listening. Then we see Roman (!) all alone, being told
he was a "nobody." He then walks outside, and then we see the
third conversation with Margaret and Baker . . . which Roman
then intrudes upon.
<_Jym_>
David Chalmers
>dc> I didn't really follow the business about who was who in the
>dc> past life. The woman's dreams were obviously from the point
>dc> of view of Margaret.
>
>=o= Of course we were led to think that they were Margaret's,
>but the "distanced" point of view left it open as to whose it
>really was.
Surely Grace would know, though. Either she wakes up screaming
because she's about to be stabbed, or she wakes up screaming because
she's about to stab someone (in the initial dream).
>dc> And she remembered many things, e.g. conversations with
>dc> Baker, from Margaret's point of view. So Mike was Margaret
>dc> too?
>
>=o= I'll have to see the movie again to be sure, but the three
>times she talks to Baker may all have been observed by Roman
>(if surreptitiously). The first time for sure, Roman was
>standing right there. The second time Margaret and Roman part
>and Baker comes up to the table -- but Roman could have been
>there listening. Then we see Roman (!) all alone, being told
>he was a "nobody." He then walks outside, and then we see the
>third conversation with Margaret and Baker . . . which Roman
>then intrudes upon.
It's true that Grace's recollections seem to follow Roman around
more than Margaret.
Still, I have one major question. If Mike = Margaret, Grace = Roman,
why did Mike say "I will always love you, Margaret" (or whatever
it was in the crucial scene that caused a horrified reaction)?
Jeff Davis
>OK a couple of questions about Dead Again -- there must be millions.
>
>Serious spoilers:
>
>The woman's dreams were obviously from the point of view of Margaret. And
>she remembered many things, e.g. conversations with Baker, from Margaret's
>point of view. So Mike was Margaret too?
>
>
I joked with my wife that Grace had been 3rd person omniscient narrator in
her previous life.
I thought that "Dead Again" had many fine things going for it, however
a plausible, consistent plot is not one of them.
Chief of it's strengths is Branagh's performance. I can't remember ever
meeting anyone like his character but he seemed so open and American -- in
some ANCIENT fashion -- that it was like meeting a cousin you didn't
know you had. I'm being serious here. Branagh seems to have created
a new/old kind of American and its openness and friendliness for me
overshadowed the weaknesses that really unhinge about the last 20 minutes
of the movie.
The other amazing strength of the movie was how quickly it was able to
tell it's Byzantine, unbelieveable story. It ZOOMED.
That said, I found a couple of really awkward touches:
Robin Williams. I thought his "tough guy" interpretation of his role was
way off the mark. There should have been a touch of the fey -- in the
old sense -- in his role. His scene stealing habits are real inappropriate
some time.
The bi-sexuality angle. It just seemed like another New Age plum in the
pudding.
The switcheroo plot elements.
But even with these mis-cues, the movie is the first one in a long time that
made me want to go out -- immediately -- to see again. Highly recommended
to anyone other than nit-pickers. This is the first time I've ever seen
Branagh, and he's obviously destined for Big Things.
--
Jeff Davis <da...@keats.ca.uky.edu> What's the rumpus?
Roger B.A. Klorese
>Robin Williams. I thought his "tough guy" interpretation of his role was
>way off the mark. There should have been a touch of the fey -- in the
>old sense -- in his role. His scene stealing habits are real inappropriate
>some time.
"Should have been"? Based on what, *your* interpretation of the character?
I liked the way Robin played him: grandiose, paranoid, put-upon... and I don't
see why there's anything "fey" about the character.
>The bi-sexuality angle. It just seemed like another New Age plum in the
>pudding.
What bisexuality? Sexes were changed between incarnations, but that's
nothing new in reincarnation plots.
--
ROGER B.A. KLORESE +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rog...@unpc.QueerNet.ORG {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"To live outside the law, you must be honest." -- Robert Zimmerman
Jeff Davis
Jeff Davis writes:
Robin Williams. I thought his "tough guy" interpretation of his role was
way off the mark. There should have been a touch of the fey -- in the
old sense -- in his role. His scene stealing habits are real inappropriate
some time.
"Should have been"? Based on what, *your* interpretation of the character?
I liked the way Robin played him: grandiose, paranoid, put-upon... and I don't
see why there's anything "fey" about the character.
"formerly believed to portend sudden death"
"puckish, otherworldly, visionary"
In my ideal casting of the role someone with a bit more bwahahaha to him/her
would have helped. I have no idea who....Michael Pollard? the truly eccentric
Hamilton Camp? I think William's one note rigidity is great in stand-up
or in apt roles -- like Cadillac Man. Here he stuck out like Robin Williams
doing a cameo.
The bi-sexuality angle. It just seemed like another New Age plum in the
pudding.
What bisexuality? Sexes were changed between incarnations, but that's
nothing new in reincarnation plots.
Did we see the same movie? There were bludgeon like "hints" that Roman and
the Andy Garcia character had been lovers. But to what purpose? Zilch
as far as I could tell...hence my objection.
Jan Penovich,,,5084600500
From article <1991Sep4.1...@ms.uky.edu>, by fe...@ms.uky.edu (Jeff Davis):
=
=
=> The bi-sexuality angle. It just seemed like another New Age plum in the
=> pudding.
=
= Roger B.A. Klorese writes:
= What bisexuality? Sexes were changed between incarnations, but that's
= nothing new in reincarnation plots.
=
=> Then Jeff Davis writes:
=> Did we see the same movie? There were bludgeon like "hints" that Roman and
=> the Andy Garcia character had been lovers. But to what purpose? Zilch
=> as far as I could tell...hence my objection.
I don't think we saw the same movie. I saw no bludgeon-like
hints about the reporter and Roman. In fact, I thought it was
pretty clear that something had gone on between the reporter
and Margaret before she and Roman got together.
jan
Roy Spannbauer
>1. What's with the actor "fiance"? ...
>... Unless maybe the idea is that he's to deliver her
>into the hands of the hypnotist ...
David, maybe you went to the bathroom and didn't hear this: Later on
in the movie, Mike explained that Frankie (the hypnotist) had hired the
actor to get Amanda and turn her over to Frankie.
>2. Isn't the hypnotist treading *very* dangerously by hypnotizing the woman,
>in front of a witness and all? ...
First of all, nobody but the hypnotist knew that he was the grown-up
Frankie. He believed he had nothing to fear from Mike or Amanda because
he had concealed his true identity from them.
Secondly, Frankie had gone a little off the deep end (killing his own
mother showed how unstable he was), so maybe he was crazy enough to take
the risk of hypnotizing Amanda in front of Mike. Maybe he couldn't think
of a way of getting Amanda away from Mike either (see Answer 1 above).
>3. I didn't really follow the business about who was who in the past life.
The key to this whole movie was "who was who in the past life". Your
words:
>... she remembered Roman's conversation on death row,
>presumably something that Margaret couldn't access. ...
are a major clue to who Amanda was. And remember who's point of view
Mike assumed when he was regressed under hypnosis. That proves it!
Hope this helps, David.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Roy Spannbauer Bell-Northern Research |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| William Hurt in THE DOCTOR enters the Radiology Lab: |
| |
| Nurse: "Do you know a good radiation man, Doctor?" |
| Hurt: "Maybe ... Clark Kent?" |
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ellingham
>=> The bi-sexuality angle. It just seemed like another New Age plum in the
>=> pudding.
>=
>= Roger B.A. Klorese writes:
>
>= What bisexuality? Sexes were changed between incarnations, but that's
>= nothing new in reincarnation plots.
>=
>
>=> Then Jeff Davis writes:
>
>=> Did we see the same movie? There were bludgeon like "hints" that Roman and
>=> the Andy Garcia character had been lovers. But to what purpose? Zilch
>=> as far as I could tell...hence my objection.
Then Jan says
>I don't think we saw the same movie. I saw no bludgeon-like
>hints about the reporter and Roman. In fact, I thought it was
>pretty clear that something had gone on between the reporter
>and Margaret before she and Roman got together.
Now, I, Carlin, say:
Lovers? Roman and whats-his-face? I don't think so. I
saw no evidence of that. I did see the kiss and I admit I don't
understand that, but I can imagine several reasons for this other
than that they were lovers. What evidence do you have in mind?
--
Carlin Sappenfield - Science Library, Vanderbilt University
sap...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu sap...@vuctrvax.bitnet
Jeff Davis
>>=> The bi-sexuality angle. It just seemed like another New Age plum in the
>>=> pudding.
>>=
Other than the death row kiss..? You need more than "kiss me, Hardy"?
Well, there was the scene where Roman is explaining his objection
to the rerporter where he says something like "He was my...."
Fencing partner? Paper boy? Amway salesman? Hmmm....could it be
LOVER? Why? I have no idea. Obviously the bludgeonosity of various
hints/non-hints will vary. For frothing supporters of the movie,
I just want to stress that I have never said it warn't a super fine
all-reet flick. I loved it, gosh darn y'a.
Rodrick Su
>
> Then Jan says
>>I don't think we saw the same movie. I saw no bludgeon-like
>>hints about the reporter and Roman. In fact, I thought it was
>>pretty clear that something had gone on between the reporter
>>and Margaret before she and Roman got together.
>
>
>Now, I, Carlin, say:
> Lovers? Roman and whats-his-face? I don't think so. I
>saw no evidence of that. I did see the kiss and I admit I don't
>understand that, but I can imagine several reasons for this other
>than that they were lovers. What evidence do you have in mind?
>
I don't think Jan said that Roman and Gray Baker are lovers. My
interpertation of Roman's kiss is that he though that Baker is the
cause of many of the problem he had with Margaret. Baker was attracted
to Margaret ever since he saw her in her wedding. He was the one to
dig up Roman's past and his financial state. He has also faithfully
record the entire investigation and trial of the murder. Remember
Baker had said to Church that he had not be able to write a word
since Roman kiss him.
One more question. There is a girl living with Mike named Trudy. Now
what is her relation with Mike. Is she his daughter, sister...?
John Locke
> write a word since Roman kiss him.
Is Baker exaggerating or is this just another ridiculous plot
element...Anyone care to rationalize an explanation?
John
Yong-Mi Kim
>>>=> The bi-sexuality angle. It just seemed like another New Age plum in the
>>>=> pudding.
I'll have to go see the movie again this weekend, but the bisexuality
angle never occurred to me at first watching.
What came to mind, when we're shown Roman kissing the reporter,
is the phrase "Kiss and tell."
yong-mi
Gaurang Hirpara
*SPOILERS*
>I don't think we saw the same movie. I saw no bludgeon-like
>hints about the reporter and Roman. In fact, I thought it was
>pretty clear that something had gone on between the reporter
>and Margaret before she and Roman got together.
>
>jan
I don't remember any bludgeonings either. Contrary,
Roman really didn't like Baker that much apparently. He decked Baker at
the party for Pete's sake. The only thing which would even remotely indicate
they were lovers was when the aged Baker remarked that Roman had kissed
Baker (on the cheek no less) when Baker went to talk to him. I don't think
this indicates anything more.
Now as to Baker and Margaret. The impression I got, since Margaret
was introduced to Baker by some woman (inconsequential) at the wedding,
I really don't think they knew each other personally before Margeret and Roman
were married.
--dan
***************************************************************
* "Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill" *
***************************************************************
* "Smile. Life's great. * gh...@andrew.cmu.edu *****************
***************************************************************
James Davis Nicoll
This is in answer to (I think) Clay Luthor's question about
The Kiss (I can't find the article to reply to):
Spoiler warning
I thought Roman kissed the reporter for at least one reason,
and perhaps two:
1: In the presence of a witness, Roman pretends to whisper
something to the reporter, but instead kisses him.
I think the purpose was to make it appear as though
the reporter Knew Something when not only did he not,
but he had instead been given something he probably
wouldn't want to write about. I think Roman was just
having a little fun with the fellow who in part helped
convict Roman of murder. The pester factor of what Roman
said must have been fairly high, especially after the guard
published his book.
2: There may be a biblical analogy wrt the kiss Judas gave
Christ before betraying him. The problem with that is
that Roman kissed the reporter (Is it obvious yet that I've
forgotten the reporter's name?), and Roman *isn't* the
Judas in this film.
James Nicoll
Michael Feld
>
>>>=> The bi-sexuality angle. It just seemed like another New Age plum in the
>>>=> pudding.
>>>=
> [ Various arguments on the order of "Was bi-" "Was not" deleted ]
>
Even easier, and more classical--Jesus's kissing Judas. (Unless, do
you suppose...)
--
Michael Feld <fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy, University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8
Canada
David Aylmer
> OK a couple of questions about Dead Again -- there must be millions.
>
> Serious spoilers:
>
> 1. What's with the actor "fiance"? What was he supposed to do with the woma
> once he got her? Certainly not keep up the act and marry her. So
> presumably it would become obvious that he's not for real, and the woman
> would go back to Mike. Unless maybe the idea is that he's to deliver her
> into the hands of the hypnotist or something, but why go to all that trouble?
Yeah, the fiance was an actor hired by the hypnotist to get her quietly, so
Mike wouldn't cause any trouble. Then he could just kill her and no one
would know.
> 2. Isn't the hypnotist treading *very* dangerously by hypnotizing the woman,
> in front of a witness and all? What if the first thing she says is "It
> wasn't Roman who killed Margaret, it was Frankie!" (and maybe recognizes him
> into the bargain). Maybe he's a good hypnotist but surely he doesn't have
> that much control. What was his game plan?
Well, he was pretty much controlling where things went. He first asked her
to remember when things were good. Then he stopped the session long before
the murder. He never intended to do a second session, that's why he hired
the fiance. Then, when that backfired and he was forced to do the second
session he stopped it just before anyone found out who the real murderer was
by implying that just because Roman walked in while Magaret was on the phone
with Baker.
------------------------------
qed!ayl...@stanton.cts.com (David Aylmer)
The QED BBS -- (213)420-9327
Ali Lemer
>
>
>I don't think we saw the same movie. I saw no bludgeon-like
>hints about the reporter and Roman. In fact, I thought it was
>pretty clear that something had gone on between the reporter
>and Margaret before she and Roman got together.
>
>jan
ANYTHING between Gray Baker (Garcia) and Margaret Strauss (Thompson) when
they MET for the FIRST TIME at her wedding?! The point was that Roman thought
something was going on after she got married, but of course, they did nothing
but flirt (which seems to me acceptable, but you know those impetuous European
musician-types ;).
-- Ali.
Ali Lemer, CC '94 |
Columbia University | Las rubias tienen mas muebles.
a...@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu |
Ali Lemer
I think that Baker, up to that point, was convinced that Strauss had indeed
killed his wife (he did have some pretty big evidence against him, to wit,
fingerprints on the weapon). The kiss made him realise that Strauss didn't do
it (or maybe at least raised doubts in his head), and he most likely felt
incredibly guilt-stricken, since his articles, no doubt, played a large part
in the conviction of the composer (power of the press -- remember the Central
Park Jogger case here in NY? The whole trial went on in the papers before it
ever reached a courtroom).
Ali Lemer
>
> One more question. There is a girl living with Mike named Trudy. Now
> what is her relation with Mike. Is she his daughter, sister...?
>
She's merely his downstairs neighbor (who likes to play scales at odd
times of the night). He lives in an apartment building, remember?
thru...@memstvx1.memst.edu
> In article <27...@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jx...@cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>>> Remember Baker had said to Church that he had not be able to
>>> write a word since Roman kiss him.
>>
>>Is Baker exaggerating or is this just another ridiculous plot
>>element...Anyone care to rationalize an explanation?
>>
>>John
>
>
> I think that Baker, up to that point, was convinced that Strauss had indeed
> killed his wife (he did have some pretty big evidence against him, to wit,
> fingerprints on the weapon). The kiss made him realise that Strauss didn't do
> it (or maybe at least raised doubts in his head), and he most likely felt
a previous poster (whom I would love to credit but can't remember who
it was) pointed out the symbolism of Jesus kissing Judas, his betrayer.
If Gray interpreted it that way, it would lead to:
Jeff Sullivan
Sure, *maybe*. However, if you're a relatively worldly and cynical
journalist, isn't it much more likely that you'd conclude from this
that Roman was just a cold-blodded psycho who enjoyed the notoriety he
got as a killer?
It seems like quite a leap to make, since the analogy of Judas and
Jesus isn't clear. Judas already knew he'd betrayed Jesus. Jesus
only let him know he knew (or absolved him of the blame) by the kiss.
Here, that kiss has quite a bit more information forced into it.
jas
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer
j...@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute
j...@isi.edu | University of Southern California