This is a pretty good movie. But I don't think it's ever explained how exactly Julie found out who shot her husband. And I can't think of any way she COULD possibly have found out. Any ideas?
"Don't f_ck with the Jedi Master, son."
When she locked one of the men in the closet, he told her how they always used that room to play poker in. She she would have been told (or figured out) the projectory of the shot, she would have discovered it came from that building and just bribe the tenants into finding out who used that room even though the men never met there again. Money opens doors as surely as doorknobs.
shareDude, you totally just made that up! Ok, although that may be a semi-plausible way of ascertaining who leased the apartment...that still doesn't guarantee she would be able to find out a)who the shooter was and b)that there were others involved. The original poster is right. The backstory of how she found out who the 5 were...especially since they never spoke to eachother again...is never explained, and leaves a pretty huge plot hole that I personally couldn't get past.
Anyone else find it interesting that at the time of her husband's killing, they were all bachelors...and now she's carrying out the sentence after at least one of them has married and had a kid who's 5? That's a long timelapse!
saucybetty.blogspot.com
Hello Saucybetty!
There is the reference early on that Julie states that it had been several years ago this "accident" occurred; She tells the 2nd victim about the lapse of time when they are walking from the musical concert she "bought" his ticket for. This allows for the 5-and-half-year-old boy to exist.
Take care and see ya again!
houseofscorpio wrote:
he told her how they always used that room to play poker inYou are right. One of the men has to be renting the room from someone, and that someone surely knows who he is renting the room to.
that still doesn't guarantee she would be able to find out a)who the shooter wasThere is no indication that Julie does know which one of them was the shooter. That may well be why she kills all of them.
I had the same question of how she knew who did it. I hope someone can tell us.
shareAs Hitchcock once put it: icebox talk.
In other words, you go out, see the film, come home, make some drinks, and as you get the ice out you say 'I say, how did such-and such happen?'
1. Thatsnumberwang: Great name! It really has that Mitchell & Webb look to it.
2. Tom Cruises Testicles: Also a great name, but also a great answer. I ahve been using a similar line for years. When someone asks "Why did this or that happen?" "Because it's in the script."
3. How DID she find out? Don't know. We could speculate for years about it, but to me what is important is this: The fact that it is plausible that she COULD find out, however she did it, means that the movie is not ruined by this piece of the plot. It's a fairly minor detail that we can certainly muse over, but the story can continue on just fine without really knowing how she knew.
"Dude, it's Lord Goblin King, not Lord Go Blinking!"
In the novel (by Cornell Woolrich) the men were in a car that drove by just as they exited the church. Someone got the license number and she tracked them through that.
(SPOILER! In the novel, though, they were innocent, and it was the husband's business partner lurking nearby who did it. But she was convinced it was the men in the car, and ended up murdering four innocent men.)
Autobiography in six words: "Baby, you ain't seen nothin' yet!"
that makes the most sense.
A bird in hand makes hard to blow nose-Confucius
I think the director didn't even bother trying to show how she found out, because recreating a detailed, flawless spy story wasn't his purpose, in my opinion. There may be further not realistic details in this movie, things seem really too easy for this woman, she is able to achieve everything without the least effort and just go away with everything. For example, in the first murder, how is it possible that nobody heard Bliss' scream as he was falling and didn't notice a woman hurrying towards the door right after? Or the fact that in every house she visited, Julie touches everything leaving countless fingerprints, yet the police never has a clue about whom it might have been.
I think Truffaut just wanted to focus on telling a revenge tale and on the characters participating in it, I can just think on him deliberately leaving these hole uncovered, or, at least, being conscious he wasn't solving them.
I think the original question could be that Truffaut considered it as his version of a McGuffin-see hitchcock.That's the best I can come up with.
share