Rae getting pregnant


We've talked a lot about the sex scene, but not much of the consequences of it. This topic has already been danced around a bit, but we haven't really discussed it. The possibility of Rae getting pregnant had occurred to me, and to others as well. They obviously didn't use protection, and its unlikely that Rae was on the pill since "starting over" implied she and John were trying to have another child.

If she did get pregnant, I think that would have been great to put in the movie. It would have really fit in with the story and it just fits in with everything, making things more dramatic, a bittersweet ending if you will. This idea would be a good part of the plot. It would have pieced together other things, and it make certain scenes, like the accident, have an even bigger impact on the audience, including the entire trip itself since, as someone else mentioned, Rae having sex with Hughie, which was originally intended for John and Rae to "start over" as John puts it, causes Rae to instead get pregnant with Hughie's child. And it adds a new outlook on the consequences of Rae having sex with Hughie.

As others people were saying (myself included until the possibility of pregnancy occurred to me) the car accident was completely unnecessary. It made no sense to me. There were a million other reasons they could have used for the cruise. They could have simply made it that the two were having a difficult time in their marriage (it happens), but they went for loss of a child. If Rae got pregnant, it would fit in perfectly with the car crash and sex scene. Had she come pregnant, a part of Hughie will always be with them, and even though he did all these terrible things to them, he still gave her a child. If she did, I think she would have passed it off as John's. It just seems like the thing she would do. All she had to do to hide what happened would be to throw her ripped pants overboard. The rest of the place was messed up enough already, so John probably wouldn't even blink at the messy bed.

Besides it's already clear that she didn't tell John what happened, the way they were so happy and comfortable with each other at the end indicating this. And there's no way in hell she'd ever get an abortion or give the child up for adoption after having lost the last one. And she may not even know if it is Hughie's child, since the spark seemed to return to her and John's relationship, so I'm sure they went at it too, it just turns out that Hughie got her pregnant first.

Anyway, I just thought I'd make this an official topic discussion since the idea kept popping up, and I'd like to hear other's thoughts and viewpoints.

reply

[deleted]

You brought up some major good insightful points. I really admire the way you're able to look into things as well as you do. And you just helped to convince me further that Rae did get pregnant.

reply

[deleted]

Nice analysis, I agree with most part of your take of the movie. I'll add my 2 cents', from a more metaphorical point of view:

I don't think Rae is pregnant.

The dog and Hughie represent (the memory of) her lost son. The loss of the son incapacitates both John and Rae, causing them to become estranged from eachother (and taking Rae into an emotional decline), which is represented by John feeling like he's trapped in a sinking ship and Rae finding herself to be not in control on a runaway ship with her demon (Hughie), further separating her from her husband.

Rae has to find a way to deal with her loss and gain control of herself again in order to find new life with John; this is represented by Rae facing and defeating her demon (Hughie), regaining control of the ship and steering it back to her husband. Towards the end, John and Rae look at the lifeboat where Rae left Hughie, and Rae shoots it with the flare gun, indicating that she has come to terms with her loss and that she is finally letting go. In that scene, she is wearing bright red, which is artistic/movie language for "she is fertile". In other words, she is ready to conceive a new child with John (ready to start "a new life", literally and figuratively), and she is not pregnant by Hughie.

John has to let go of the loss of their son too, that's why we have a scene where he gets to defeat Hughie too.

By the way, "Orpheus" (the name of Hughie's schooner) is a figure in Greek mythology who couldn't accept the death of his wife Euridice and went to the Underworld and back to retrieve her from the dead. So in a way, Hughie coming along with Orpheus from the dead to John and Rae represents the memory of the loss of their son that John and Rae still couldn't let go off.

I haven't read the novel, but I'd bet that Hughie is more of a lead character in the book whereas the movie centered on Rae becoming able to start a new life with John.

~ Everyone is unique, except for me ~

reply

[deleted]

I for one like the idea Zod had about how even though Rae beats Hughie (ie, her demons) part of him will still always be with her. It works the same for her lost child. She may be able to move past it, but something like that always stays with you. It makes everything very symbolic and meaningful.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

You know, I never caught the color symbolism until you guys pointed it out. The director truly was a genius, and props to you guys who spotted these things.
I agree with what both Zodd and Hannibal said, although I think the raft may have been a coincidence, since most rafts are bright colors like that so they can be spotted, though I could be wrong and it was meant to be symbolic; it wouldn't surprise me.
I ned to go back and rewatch this movie, paying attention to their clothes and stuff. I'm also interested in John's change of close now and how they symbolic things, such as his position as Rae's husband, etc.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Wait I'm kind of lost here since I've seen the movie, but your topic raises some questions.

First off why do you guys think she obtained orgasm?

What's to say Hughie didn't use a condom?

How are we even sure Rae can still have children after the car accident?

Why do you think she would lie to her husband and keep it a secret?

reply

I recently rewatched it, paying close attention to the characters' clothes and stuff, and I noticed something. I couldn't think of any meaning to it, but maybe you guys will.
When Hughie was in the dingy, he was wearing a straw hat. This was the only time he wore it.
http://www.thefancarpet.com/uploaded_assets/images/gallery/3370/Dead_C alm_31378_Medium.jpg

And when Rae was driving the boat before Hughie took it over, she was wearing a straw hat. This was the only time she wore it.
http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/1989_Dead_Calm/989DCM_Nicole_Kidman_019 .jpg

Coincidence? Maybe, but with the hidden messages and stuff in this movie, I'd say probably not. Any thoughts?

reply

[deleted]

It does seem to be the case the more you guys look into it.

reply

[deleted]

Well, you've convinced me of my theory. I especially like how you put this: "It really brings out Rae's story full circle. Her journey has her reclaiming what she had lost in the most unexpected of ways."

reply

[deleted]

Honestly the concept of Rae being pregnant after the events of the movie makes the character more complicated. Like how could she live with herself knowing that she slept with Hughie and carried his kid? John wouldn't like that very much!

reply

[deleted]

having another man's child, particularly Hughie's child, evolves her character even further and takes it beyond the time of Hughie's death. She'll have to maintain the stronger character she became to deal with the consequences of her actions and not slip into the compliant person she was before.

reply

[deleted]

Hughie was not really Rae's son, he is merely a representation of (the loss of) Rae's son; it's a metaphor. Likewise, the sex with Hughie does not mean that Rae is having sex with her son; it's merely a representation of her lost son trying to "fill up her womb again" and taking control of Rae's body/mind; it's again a metaphor. What it means is that Rae could not be intimate with her husband because someone/something else was already "taking up space inside her". Rae was depressed and longing for having her son back, these thoughts were consuming her and causing an increasing rift between her and her husband.

Also note the very metaphorical imagery of how the certain events/situations of Hughie from there on mimic a (re-lived) pregnancy (of arguably her first son): Hughie seen to be lying asleep inside the flesh-colored main compartment of the ship, mimics an embryo inside a womb; Hughie trying to break through several oval doors when he finds himself locked up, mimics a baby trying to push itself through the birth canal. The life raft where Hughie is left, resembles a placenta. In other words, I think the process of dealing with her demons is represented by imagery similar to a pregnancy, and the moment when Rae is finally letting go of her demons is represented by imagery similar to giving birth to a dead boy (unconscious Hughie) and abandoning it at sea. But this does not mean that Rae is really pregnant by the end of the movie, and certainly not by Hughie; in fact, the point of the process is that she expells Hughie from her system (represented by expelling him from the ship), and hence cleansing herself from any bad/repressing elements inside herself.

Moreover, you'll have to consider that this movie was made in the late 80s/early 90s, when sexual tension in psychological thrillers was becoming a huge trend (think Angel Heart, Sea Of Love, Single White Female, Basic Instinct etc.), it was more or less becoming the movie language of the day. That is, until X-files and the like took over and steered the Western movie world towards supernatural/spiritual themes and fin-de-siecle/millennium paranoia.

~ Everyone is unique, except for me ~

reply

[deleted]

You've just given me some further insight as to how the final scene can be interpreted. At this point, we know that Rae can't bring herself to kill Hughie, but she is still strong. The fact that John killed Hughie while she could not could be interpreted that he is willing to do what is necessary for his wife, no matter how hard it is, i.e. staying with her even though she's carrying another man's child.

reply

yurenchu writes: "Hughie was not really Rae's son...."

Another very fine post.

"But this does not mean that Rae is really pregnant by the end of the movie, and certainly not by Hughie; in fact, the point of the process is that she expells Hughie from her system...."

Yes. Very insightful.


"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

It is funny how threads like this even get started just why would any woman have cared for him enough to even think of having his child when he tried to choke her to death. I can't help but laugh at some of theses post of people thinking weird things when the film makes absolutely no indication at all of a pregnancy. Important facts she was already mentally unstable from her last child's death, he tried to kill her, he tried to kill her husband, the husband would never go for it, why loose your husband after all they just went through when he just saved your life, One sex act out of twenty results in pregnancy, the odds says she is not, She could have rinsed some of the sperm out of her, and on and on. I would have not even thought of pregnantcy if i did not come across this topic. One last important point the film never states her husband is impotent could the child be his and further still she was doing drugs. Most women know when they can have children with the timing of her period if she knew she could get pregnant she would have gotten it out of her some kind of way.

reply

yurenchu writes: "By the way, "Orpheus" (the name of Hughie's schooner) is a figure in Greek mythology who couldn't accept the death of his wife Euridice and went to the Underworld and back to retrieve her from the dead."

Well, there you go!

More symbolism!

Very astute post.


"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

Thanks! Too bad though that the posts I had been replying too have been deleted; the discussion has now become unreadable and the context of my replies have been lost.

______
Nuno Bettencourt - "Midnight Express"
https://y2u.be/KaMcf63f7Ic

reply

Yes, unfortunately thanks to Zod deleting his own account and all his great posts were lost with it. I only wish I saved them so I could have reposted them.

reply



yurenchu writes: "...the discussion has now become unreadable and the context of my replies have been lost."

Yes.

That is too bad.

But I found your posts very good, nonetheless.


"Maybe it's another dimension. Or, you know, just really deep." --Needy

reply

Thanks. Much appreciated.

______
Nuno Bettencourt - "Midnight Express"
https://y2u.be/KaMcf63f7Ic

reply

Or - Zane was Hades that had sex with Kidman as Eurydice. Then if she got pregnant the kid would in a way be Orfeus coming back to the surface while Eurydices soul would be lost in Hades.

reply

[deleted]

by saraceanorpheus89»1 day ago (Mon Dec 8 2014 17:40:15)

IMDb member since December 2014

Rae's body was a vessel, and she sought to fill that emptiness with a child she could birth and raise once again. She was unprepared to go forward after anguishing over the loss of her previous child, but submitted to Hughie as a partner when the circumstances called for her to transform herself in order to cope and surpass her current dilemma. She was thrust back into the role once she was separated from her husband yet still retained her maternal desires.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

short and simple no woman in her right mind would have this mans baby you went a long way and it truly is a good theory but to say she will throw her marriage away and have a mans baby who tried to kill her is a stretch, a very large stretch, even though your brilliant reply convinces some it misses a more important short fact that is is great fiction.If she wants a child she can have it with her husband if she is pregnant she would most likely give it up and they have there own please really think about it in reality terms.

reply

[deleted]

I would like to say first i have never read such good theory ever on these boards and i compliment you on this. No way at all that what you explain may not be true but from a simple guys perspective i feel you could not be more wrong.

Your post reads like a film study as if the instructor gave you an assignment and with your great wisdom, this is what you came up with, and please do not feel I am saying anything is wrong with it. From a simple minded man it would not make much sense when one breaks it down to a simple mans movie "we count also" in ways we see films and I did not get a hint of all of what you are saying from her clothes to your interpretations of events no one but serious film people would see this. And even great film people can five ten or more different views on this film.


this film maker is not that good in my opinion and I too watch a lot of movies.
I want you with your wisdom to look at this film a different way ...The guy tried to kill her and her husband she was not as astute as you are to get even near your conclusion she more than likely will want to forget him as soon as possible and sure as hell would not be interested in having his child and raising it with her husband (they can now have there own kid with both of there love for it.) they were in a good place and she would more than likely prefer that and a child with him then having a life long suferable memory every time she looked the child in the eyes of your dad tried to kill us and reliving that every single day. Look at it this way, do us all a favor and enlighten us on what you come up with if you had to do an assignment with theses facts. I have given, can't wait to see what you come up with.

reply

[deleted]

I tried to give a reality reply and I guess we will agree to disagree. I feel she did learn and gained courage and put the whole thing behind them as the film showed no more no less. I will except your version as it may be true also. Honestly I could never even imagine such and ending as you describe and see but non the less i respect it I will never get you to see it more simply and I also except that there will be even more theories as we all see things different. You should study film as i feel you could make it in the writing world. If I can give you one and only one piece of advice and it may be sometimes we don't need to over think films all the times, because it is not needed.

reply

[deleted]

He tried to kill her, she does not want his kid, she is maternal but not with him, she may not be pregnant because there is absolutely nothing to indicate this. She will remember him in a horrific way not endearing as you state, one woman screwing someone once does not make him someone she wants to remember in after he tries to kill her she may be terrified of his memory we don't know. we can write of a pregnancy if we never see any signs of it. ...most of these are facts not theories. It is so hard for me to believe her being a victim is how she fot something out of it, dude, he tried to kill her, picture it.

reply

[deleted]

This has been fun, we both got each other to make good points, and know every one has two sides to look at it from, one in a mythical/theatrical the other in a reality/physical form. I could not have asked for more. great debating with you.

reply

Great debate, guys, really. Good points on both sides. I still share Zod's opinion though.

reply

And I don't blame you one bit he is very good with his mythical and theatrical points of view and i can't even come near his writing skills to match him, but i did make my points, and I am glad you enjoyed them even though he edged me out with you, a contribution to his great writing. One last point I debated him for two reasons, one because I simply saw the film in another light than he did the other i have lost a child from violence and i can't fathom she would be as he describes her as well as she being as astute. but I am me and she/he is a character/writer who he feels he knows. Two totally different opinions for all to see. Just for the record...

reply

[deleted]

Thanks

reply

Oh man, I'm sorry for your loss.

reply

my 2 cents (no i won't read others comments)

ahem...

STOP OVER ANALYZING IT, ITS JUST A MOVIE !!!!!

she could've used protection for all you know but its

1. ARE MOVIE

2. SEX SCENE (sex sells, that's all there is to it)

3. YOU'RE DUMB

i mean its not sex-ed, why do people have to over analyzed crap? its just like the tv show 'charmed' (the documentary of how it was made) stupid shannon doherty goes "well the scene doesn't teach safe sex, one minute they are kissing then another they are in bed naked and finished, it doesn't show they used a condom or who bought it, i prefer to think they DIDN'T have sex"

this was during some scene with shannons character and her characters love interest.

you are like one these OVERZELOUS idiots who thinks too much and thus you think makes you wholesome and smart

its just a sex scene to create a twist, its just a sex scene because sex sells

nothing more nothingless, type a huge wall of words for all anyone cares it doesn't further the story that's been dead for over 15 yrs....especially a fictional one.

reply

Ok, first off, there's no need to get nasty. So we have opposing views, you don't need to be a jerk about it. We're also perfectly aware that it's just a movie, but if you actual took the time to read our comments rather than just submitting a nasty post, you would learn a few things and see what an in depth movie it is and how there are many aspects behind things that can easily be overlooked. So it's a movie, so what. The fact that it's still being talked about years later shows how successful it was. It's a GOOD thing.
We're also perfectly aware that sex sells, but that is besides the point. There's lots of meaning to several elements, particularly the sex scene. You call us dumb overzealous idiots, I call you a blind unimaginative imbecile. Next time you feel like posting a comment for the sole purpose of insulting people with different points of view, just keep your two cents.

reply

[deleted]

SPOLIER ALERT!
Oh yes, I LOVE that show. It's a good comparison too, straight down to the fact where Shane becomes a bad guy while Lori becomes pregnant with what my or may not be his child. Unfortunately that road comes to a dead end since both Lori and Judith (the baby) die.

reply

[deleted]

I see what you're saying, but the baby still died.

reply

[deleted]

No, never mind. I'm getting mixed up. I'm thinking of one thing and typing something else.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I think he's referring to our post movie discussions.
No, there is no sequel, we're speculating and coming up with theories based on what the movie provides. No sequel no, but there is a futuristic sort-of remake called 'Inhumanoid'. I haven't seen it, but it's gotten bad reviews.

reply

[deleted]

*Shrug* Like I said, I never saw it. I just heard that it was a futuristic remake. At least that's what it says here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118856/trivia?tab=mc

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I don't think a sequel would be good. The idea is interesting, and I can see some fan fiction ideas coming for it, but I feel a sequel would just ruin it. The movie was great the way it was, no sequel needed. Of course, that's just my opinion.

reply

[deleted]

I just feel that a movie dealing with the aftermath of what happened might ruin the original. Sometimes movies are best to stand alone and not have sequels. I've seen too many sequels ruin good movie series.

reply

[deleted]

That's why I think it'd be better to leave things as is and let the audience decide. As we've said, ambiguity is a big part of the movie, and I think how the movie leaves it open for speculation rather than giving us an actual answer with a sequel is better. Look, even years after the movie was released, we're still talking about it.

However, if I had to guess at the aftermath, I would think that she and John would raise the child. Before I used to think that Rae would try to pass the child off as John's, but due to the differences between John and Hughie appearance-wise, the baby would reveal that it's not John's. I can't see either of them, especially Rae, getting rid of the baby (either by abortion or adoption) after what happened to their son. They would just love and raise the child as their own and try and put what happened in the past behind them. I think John would love the child as his own, but may secretly harbor some resentment to it since it was conceived by another man, even though it's not the child's fault. And they'll probably never tell the child the truth of its parentage. I also think that he would understand that Rae did what she had to do and forgive her, but he'll always wonder about what it was like between his wife and Hughie, and if he was the better lover.

The same goes for Rae. She even though John wasn't the father, it's still HER child, and she would love it just as much. But she too would keep the child's true father a secret, not wanting it to know about that dark time in her life. But she won't ever be able to forget what happened between her and Hughie, especially since the evidence is her own child. And during her intimacy session with John, she won't be able to reflect on what it was like with Hughie and subconsciously always compare the two. Since John is her husband, she'll want him to be the better lover, and will always try and seek satisfaction from him that was greater than what Hughie gave her, though this be unlikely due to Hughie and John's age difference and everything. In the end, even though Hughie is dead, he's still with them, both physically and mentally.

Anyway, that's just my theory, and I'm sure other people have different ones. But that's the beauty of leaving the aftermath unknown. It allows us to speculate and come up with our own ideas. A sequel would take that away from us, or it may even be horrible and ruin the first one for us. Sometimes things should be left as is, and I feel a sequel isn't needed for this most excellent movie.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Insanity can also be genetic too. The child might end up with some of Hughie mental psychotics.

reply

[deleted]

I remember the movie Psycho 4, where the prospect of passing down mental illness from parent to child was the main theme. But yes, you're right, upbringing plays a big part in stability even if a person is mentally unbalanced, which was actually the solution to the movie.

reply

[deleted]

I actually found out something rather interesting. We've mentioned before the meaning of names, such as the Orpheaus, but I decided to look at the character's names. While their names alone don't seem to have any connections to anything important, the last name, Ingram, translates to "Ing's crow". Ing was the Norse god of fertility.
Pretty interesting, huh? Especially since the novel came first when there was no such relationship between Hughie and Rae. Kind of strange how things turn out.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Wow, looking at this board, it's sad to see all the Post Deleted spots. Shame.

Anyway, I'd just made a posting of another subliminal message I spotted, and now I've found yet another one, this one pertaining to this topic. Ok, here we go.

So, we all know that when a woman misses her chance to conceive she has her period. Well, I saw a relation to this when John tried to jump off the dingy onto the ship, but missed his chance. When he does, he gets cut on the motor and starts bleeding. The subliminal message I got here was that John (by missing the boat as it passed by and ending up bleeding) had the opportunity (the boat) pass him by, and he therefore misses his chance to have a child. But Hughie was there, he was driving the boat, and so he was the reason why John missed the chance. See what I'm saying. So just as a woman would mss her chance to have a baby and would bleed out, John missed his chance and ended up bleeding out too. And it was another man (Hughie) that was the cause of this (both in missing the boat and in missing his chance to impregnate Rae). Quite frankly, having John get cut on the motor like that was not only completely irrelevant to the plot otherwise, it was never brought up again.

It really is pure genius how the director does all this subliminal messaging. Even if you don't catch the hidden meanings, the fact that they are there are enough to give us the impression of what happens without actually telling or showing us.

reply

Watcher, you're spot on in your observations. I don't think it's subliminal at all, but truly believe the director put all these things into the movie on purpose. This is nothing short of genius and raises the film's prestige as not only a thriller but a thinking man's film as well.

There is no doubt John missed his opportunity to mate with Rae once more. Another thing to consider which Zod did long ago is the age factor. John is much older than Rae and Hughie is much closer to her in age and is better physically built; therefore being the more compatible sexual partner for her. Once John is out of the picture, fate not only bestows Hughie as the alpha male and new captain of the Saracen but as the man who takes John's place in impregating Rae with his seed. As a result Rae will end up giving birth to Hughie's baby, not John's.

Dead Calm gets more amazing with each viewing. Zod's thoughts and observations are truly missed on this board. It's been very quiet in his absence.

reply

Since we are on the subliminal topic, I'd like to point out another thing I recently discovered that I'm sure has not been mentioned before. After the dog leaves and Hughie is about to have sex with Rae, notice how the ominous ambient music starts to swell up in volume. You see Hughie position himself over Rae's body and lifts one of her legs up to wrap around him as he prepares to penetrate her. As Rae wraps her legs and arms around him and gasps and moans, notice there are two loud ambient sounds right at the point where Hughie finally gets inside Rae. and notice her facial reactions that coincide with those sound effects. Listen and notice how you don't hear those sounds again for the remainder of the sex scene.

It's the subliminal message that it took Hughie two thrusts for his penis to fully penetrate Rae's vagina. The fact that it took two quick pokes for him to fully insert his cock was the fact that Rae was already wet with arousal and although she did feel pain at his entry, it quickly dissolves into pleasure and her body gets accustomed to his size and girth and builds toward her orgasm. In fact, I'd suggest the ambient sound may represent Rae's building orgasm as it gets louder with each passing second until the scene cuts out. The sound also represents the physical union between Rae and Hughie, and the conceiving of a new life because of that union, the making of their child together.

When you watch the sex scene, listen carefully and you'll see what I mean when you hear those sounds during Hughie's moment of penetration.

Another thing I'd mention is notice how both John and Hughie are both 'at work' simultaneously during the time John is working to keep the Orpheus operational and prevent it from sinking, while Hughie is working on an operation of his own on Rae by way of intercourse and impregnating her with his child.

This just goes to further show how ingenious the director was to put all of these aspects together.

reply

Good eye, or should I say good ear. I did notice the change in sound effects and music, but had always chalked it up to just being meant to build suspense. You've got me rethinking that though.

reply

It's something to contemplate upon. Sex scenes are not meant to be suspenseful but the fact the those sounds are there gives me the impression that there's a reason whey they are there and the actual meaning behind it. So yeah, it's no surprise that it represents the thrusts, physical union and climax build-up. Isn't it just awesome to discover new things?

reply

Another thing I'm pondering about is the creaking sounds the Saracen makes during the sex scene. If you listen carefully, notice how the creaking appears shortly after Hughie has penetrated Rae. As the ambient sounds get louder, so is the frequency of the creaking sounds, as if something is about to break or burst. Call me crazy but it could be yet another subliminal message that not only is Rae going to orgasm, but the creaking sounds may symbolize Hughie's own imminent orgasm with him about to cum deep inside her. It's like the sound of something about to break through or burst forth, foreshadowing the ejaculation of Hughie's sperm. It may be a coincidence but it's something to think about.

reply

Her watch during that scene is also something else to look at. The camera angle was deliberately made to show both her watch and her wedding ring. Zod mentioned how the watch was shown to remind us that Rae is pressed for time, but I'm thinking it may have had a double meaning. Perhaps it was telling us that it was Rae's "time", if you know what I mean.

Also (irrelevant to the impregnating topic but still something I just picked up on) mentioning her ring and her watch during this scene is making me pick up some more symbolism. We all agree that she was reluctant to actually have sex, but as the act commences, she gets caught up in the act. The camera starts out further back so we can see both her watch and her ring, the two meant to act as a reminder that she's both married and pressed for time. From Hughie's initial penetration until the scene cuts, the camera slowly zooms in on Rae's face. We can see that's she's starting to enjoy it and is approaching orgasm, and at the same time, as the camera zooms in closers, both her ring and her watch no longer appear in frame. I'm taking this to mean that as Rae is getting lost in the sensation, things like her marriage and the time limit to reach John are being lost to her as she's swept away in fulfillment.

reply

Exactly! I recall Zod's comment regarding the watch and the wedding ring. That can be yet another sign that Rae is not only lost in passion and ecstasy, but her marriage and her husband are fading into the back of her mind as she becomes a willing participant in the act of consumation of her coupling with Hughie.

reply

[deleted]

OMG that was graphic I almost got aroused,

anyway, I love this movie is one of my favorites since I first saw it on cinemas,
I felt in love with Kidman right away.

What I do get on that scene is how painful it is for her because
she's actually getting excited about it. I think she's fighting the
pleasure she is feeling in this horrible situation.
And actually at the end when he escapes and she hits him on the head and
bolls with the harpoon, the look(smile) he gives her I kind of feels is like
"I made you come" and her look is like *beep* you did" and BOOM BOOM right
in the nuts MF!

reply

Bullseyes.

reply

Not only does Hughie's smile convey the message "I made you cum", but also "I shot my cum deep inside you and now you carry my seed". Even though Hughie lost the battle and died, he won the war because he'll always be a part of Rae in the form of their child.

reply

I'm not entirely sure about that. The impression I got was that he believed that she loved him and couldn't bring herself to do it. He'd taken the role of the alpha male, and was convinced that he was in control.
I could be wrong though. I'll have to watch that scene again.

reply

Hughie was indeed in control.. of the Saracen, the dog's loyalty, and temporarily, Rae. In deposing John, Hughie became the alpha male and took over what once belonged to John and attempted to take his place. He did just that in taking over the ship and having the dog obey him. He set his sights on Rae and succeeded in penetrating her and giving her pleasure and ultimately impregnating her. I think his smiling was that he was sure that Rae will not kill him and despite setting her priorities on reclaming the Saracen and rescuing her husband, I'm certain Rae felt something for Hughie and that's why she couldn't bring herself to murder him. Instead she knocked him out and place him on the raft, sparing his life.

As Zod once said, a part of Hughie will always be with her regardless, because every time Rae will look at her child, she will be reminded of the man who fathered him. So in that sense, Hughie's legacy will live on despite losing the battle to take John's place as Rae's man.

reply

I don't think it had much to do with her feeling something for Hughie as it was her not wanting to take a life, especially after feeling guilty for her son's death. She didn't want anymore blood on her hands.

reply

No, that can't be right because I recall her trying to get the shotgun, and leaving him for dead on a inflatable canopy is still pretty much a death sentence. What I got out of it was that Rae was bothered by Hughie's amusement that she got the better of him. He was defeated, and instead of giving up he gave off a devilish grin as a way of telling her to do her worst.

reply

They did go back for him though.

reply

I disagree about this having to do with her son's death. Even though Hughie did all those terrible things, Rae could never bring herself to kill him. I'm inclined to believe that she did like Hughie even if she was threatened when he had his mood swings.

reply

Did they go back for Zane though? I just saw it as a chance encounter when they were sailing back, and they were readying themselves for him. Why would Kidman want to go back for him when she left him behind.

reply

Did they go back for Zane though? I just saw it as a chance encounter when they were sailing back, and they were readying themselves for him. Why would Kidman want to go back for him when she left him behind.


No, I'm sure they went back. First off, what are the odds to just happen to run into that little raft in the entire ocean, especially if the yacht was going in the opposite direction. Second, if they had left him for dead, it would be voluntary manslaughter since he was subdued at the time she tossed him overboard and therefore defenseless and not considered a threat. Thirdly, I don't think John or Rae would voluntarily kill if they could help it. When John shot him with the flare and Rae tried to shoot him with the gun, it was in self-defense and the heat of the moment. Fourthly, I think they wanted to take him in to face proper justice and, possibly, have him get psychiatric treatment that he obviously needed. So no, I don't think Rae left him adrift to die, but intended to get back, or else she would have just tossed him in the water without the raft if she just wanted to kill him, though I don't think she would have beaten herself up over it if they never found the raft again afterwards.

reply

That makes no sense. If she wanted to bring him to justice then she wouldn't have even left him behind. He was already knocked out and she could have just tied him up elsewhere away from sharp objects. They didn't seem ready to take him to the police by that point. Rae even destroys the inflatable canopy.

reply

Getting banged by Hughie isn't enough of an emotional attachment for her to care about the guy. It was meaningless sex and nothing more than that.

reply

Yeah, I agree. There's a lot centered around the sex scene, but I don't think she felt anything more him. Having a sex partner that gets you off, even getting knocked up by them, doesn't mean you develop feelings for them, even if you do find them attractive (this goes for both genders by the way). It was the equivalent to a one-night stand.

reply

What on earth makes you think she found him attractive? As I recall, Kidman was playing Zane's character.

reply

I think I worded that wrong. And I was just talking in general, not necessarily in this case.

reply

Ok, I watched that scene again. What I got from it was that, to Hughie, it was sort of a repeat of what happened when Rae tried to stop the boat. The serious moment passed, and then they both kind of smirked, knowing the "game" was over, and he said "Friends?" I saw it as sort of the same thing. He didn't think she would really shoot him, hence the reason why he willingly placed his throat against the a harpoon's tip, the gave her that playful smile. The scene had the same feel as the other one up until Rae knocked him out. So, in a sense, I think Hughie saw it as kind of a game.

reply

well, let's just say we agree to disagree. I always felt there was an attraction between Rae and Hughie. When they shed their clothes and came together for the sex scene, sparks were flying. Rae was only reluctant because she wanted to lead Hughie away from the deck where the shotgun rests and also because she was conflicted as a married woman and looking for a way to save her husband. Once they consumated their relationship, all of those things mattered not because she got caught up in the moment and was enjoying the pleasure she was receiving from Hughie. Even if it was like a one night stand kind of thing, there's no doubt in my mind the she did harbor a little bit of feelings toward him despite the situation she was in.

reply

I definitely agree on the attraction part, but yes, lets agree to disagree on her feelings towards him afterwards. Either way, it's still a great movie.

reply

Yes, it's one of the best films of its kind ever. I don't believe there are many movies out there where the sex scene is the most central part of the entire film like this one where emotions such as despair, consolation, passion,tension and pleasure is displayed as well as setting in motion the ultimate fate of the characters.

reply

There no indication that she was attracted or had feelings for him. She was trying to save her husband and not get caught with the shotgun. I thought that was pretty obvious as anyone who harbored strong feelings towards someone they love wouldn't try to kill them or leave them to die.

reply

[deleted]

*Gasp*
KneelsBefore... I recognize that part of the name. Zod? is that you?

reply

Good grief some people really are putting way too much into this movie.

reply

Speculation is part of the fun.

reply

Why's that?

I'm not here.

reply

Well, where do you think we get sequels, prequels, film theorists, and fanfiction from?

reply

People make Dead Calm fanfiction? Where?

I'm not here.

reply

I just meant fanfiction in general.

reply

Then why'd you bring it up? It seems some of these posts here could have passed for fan-fiction.

I'm not here.

reply

The question was, why people speculate on books and movies and such. That is why, in order to get things like sequels, prequels, fan theories, and fanfiction. If no one ever speculated on what happens before and after the events of the plot, then we wouldn't get any of these things.

reply

I don't think he actually entered her when he ripped off her pants. Rae's gasp came from being surprised and aroused at having her pants unexpectedly torn off and suddenly feeling Hughie pressed against her. Besides, there was no entering motion, they were just grinding against each other.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I still think they were just grinding against each other. You don't have to actually be having sex to give out moans of pleasure.

reply

[deleted]

Could be, but I don't think so. I could be wrong though.

reply

[deleted]

Yeah, when he actually penetrates her in bed, her first moan seemed to be slightly painful, most likely from going so long without sex.

reply

[deleted]

I suspect this is a troll thread, but anyway...

There is NO indication Rae got pregnant.

She easily could have had an IUD or been sterile.




I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

reply

1: I am NOT a troll. I DESPISE trolls, and quite frankly, I rather offended to be called one.

2: There are several unspoken implications that she did indeed get pregnant.

3: Did you even read the thread board, or just glance at the first and last postings? If you did read the threads, you'll find various implications that indicate this.

4: Even if you did read the thread, one of the posters had their account deleted, but at the time they had provided substantial arguments and implications to support this theory. And they weren't just spouting nonsense and making up, but had made very good points and revealed themself to be very insightful about many things. They could very easily be a movie critic.

5: Watch the movie again, and REALLy watch rather than just seeing exactly what they show you. The first time I watched it, I didn't think much of things. The second time, I noticed a few of the subliminal messages. After coming on this board, and reading about the implications in the movie that others noticed, I watched it again and began noticing a whole lot more implications, specific details, and other tidbits that revealed more than what was directly shown.

reply

This board is full of trolls and perverts from the look of things. It's no wonder accounts are getting deleted.

reply

Why don't you crawl back under your rock if you can't stand the heat?

reply

Why don't you perverts write erotica instead of troll these boards with your endless comments?

reply

The topic is on the sex scene, so obviously there's going to be some sexual elements to the discussion. If you don't want to read such things in a posting, then stay away from the discussion.

reply

Then don't troll the boards with your endless garbage. As watcher said, you and your other troll pal are not worth bothering about. You're a waste of our time, so take a hike!

reply

Exactly. They're just trolling.
Let them exchange their teenage boy-like porn nonsense with each other & ignore them.


I'd say this cloud is Cumulo Nimbus.
Didn't he discover America?
Penfold, shush.

reply

He was talking to you, pal. And he's right, I shouldn't have fed the trolls. No more food for you. Ignore.

reply

Great idea Watcher. I put both on Ignore. We don't need that kind of scum contaminating this board.

reply

reply

I think that would have been a great ending. As you said, would have made much more sense of the car crash scene at the start, bringing the story full circle and book-ending the narrative nicely.

Take out Hughie getting back on the boat and getting shot in the face with a flare, which always seemed a bit sudden and corny to me, like John had to save her when it was really the other way around. It's a typical Hollywood-style "one last scare" that seemed out of place. Rae should have shot and killed Hughie earlier before saving John.

Rae saves John (as she grabs his hand, we see their relationship has rekindled). Fade to them back home as she takes a pregnancy test and finds out she's pregnant. John is happy and embraces her, but as he does, Rae has a look of concern that the baby may not be John's but Hughie's. Fade to black and let the credits roll.

Great post.

reply

Thank you. And I do agree that the flare ending was over the top. The scene was pretty awesome, but it didn't fit with the feel of this particular movie. That was like a Die Hard kind of ending. Still an awesome movie though.

reply

What a great way to end the film. I would take it one step further, Rae informs John about her pregnancy and after their embrace, she has a pensive but knowing look and looks down, placing a hand on her belly. It is obvious the she and John had sex not long after the rescue but not sure if it took place before or after Hughie's demise. What John doesn't know is that Rae and Hughie were engaging in a couple of hours of heated and passionate intercourse during the time he was struggling to survive aboard the sinking schooner. Because of this, Rae does know deep down it was Hughie's seed that impregnated her, not John's. Hughie may be gone, but his legacy lives on inside Rae, which will result in the child that she will bare. A boy, to replace her son that she had with John. That would bring everything full circle in my opinion.

reply

That's how I felt, and also what I think the director was going for, but chose to leave it in subliminal messages rather than outright stating it. Pure genius.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

It depends on how much the child looks like Hughie. If she could, I think she would keep it a secret unless it was obvious. After the way she shot up the life raft, it seemed that John realized something happened between them. Maybe something sexual, maybe not, he chose not to look into it, either because he understood that everything she did was to save him, or because he didn't want to know (or both). Maybe he thought it wouldn't be a good idea to bring it up after what happened for his wife's sake since she seemed better after weeks (months?) of depression, maybe he didn't want to ruin their healing relationship, maybe he just wanted to put the whole thing behind him. I don't know, there's lots of reasons. Maybe he would bring it up later, or just leave it. But when Rae's revealed to be pregnant, will he wonder if something did indeed happen between her and Hughie and if the child is his, will it never occur to him, or will he never bring it up? Can't say. As for Rae, even if the child's appearance clearly indicates that it's Hughie's, I doubt she'd bring it up unless John asks her, in which case, I think she'd be honest with him. And knowing John's character, I think he would understand and forgive her, and raise it as his own, but neither would ever tell the child the truth, for many reasons.

reply

[deleted]

In the original novel by Charles Williams there is zero indication that the female lead (Rae) was ever impregnated. An un-addressed issue in all this wild speculation is Hughie past medical history. There is absolutely zero guarantee anywhere that even if Rae was impregnated by Hughie that the baby/child would be born healthy!!! If anyone has any evidence to indicate otherwise please post source otherwise it is just all wild conjecture and speculation that if Rae and Hughie did have a baby it would be born healthy. Rae could have complications during childbirth for instance. The baby could be born with any number of birth defects. Any living relatives of Hughie may or may not want "custody" of a child conceived by Hughie. It is not beyond the realm of possibilities that bad things can continue to happen to good people such as Rae & John. During the lifetime of a human baby there are a vast number of medical issues/complications that could arise that would have to be addressed by medical professionals no matter if Rae tried to keep the "baby's" biological farther a secret from John and the rest of her family or not. Point is nothing is a clear cut straight line going from birth to college age of a human without any medical/health issues having to be addressed at some point and time. Four pages here are just focused and dedicated to Rae perhaps being pregnant or not but goes no further than before the actual birth and or any possible medical issues/complications whatsoever. Cancer may or may not strike the alleged fictional baby at some point in it's lifetime. If that was to happen a complete medical history would have to be provided to best help in the course of medical treatment. Suddenly Rae is not such the "hero" mom wanting to keep and raise Hughie's baby and the child finds out that it's "father" John is not it's biological parent but Hughie Warriner all along. Can't see/picture that being a positive conversation between a possible cancer/medical issue and it's biological mother Rae. I just used cancer as one possible example of a medical/health issue that could possibly arise during a humans lifetime. There are way too many more to list them all here individually. The movie just basically showed Rae & Hughie having intercourse and nothing further beyond that point, which is where the director wanted it to end. Anything beyond that is just speculation and conjecture at that point.

A fictional narrative that has been pushed by a few individuals on this board is that Rae is pregnant with Hughie's baby. It belongs on a more appropriate "fan-fiction" based message board than crossing over multiple threads/comments here. Continual pushing a fictional outcome that was never included in the film and novel by Charles Williams does not make it "cannon" and or a part of the actual story/plot.

reply

Wow, did you just take ever single possible thing that can go wrong with carry a child to full term and stick it here? Such a thing would render the whole point of much that happened in the movie to be completely moot. You may have a small point about the child's mental stability though, as things like insanity can be genetic. It depends on various factors.

And as for stuff happening in the movie that doesn't happen in the novel, that's been true of movies since the first time a novel has ever been made into a movie. Many, many things that happened in this movie didn't happen in the novel, the sex scene between Rae and Hughie being one of them. The point is that the director paid very close attention to detail, everything that happened in the movie had a point (including what was changed from the novel), and there are far too many hidden innuendos and signs to dismiss them as coincidence or speculation.

reply

[deleted]

The point is that the director paid very close attention to detail, everything that happened in the movie had a point (including what was changed from the novel), and there are far too many hidden innuendos and signs to dismiss them as coincidence or speculation.


Not surprisingly the two of you (watcher101, hughiewarrinerorpheus) continue to push the Rae and Hughie baby hypothetical by pointing out "signs and hidden innuendos" by director Phillip Noyce. In much the same way as the both of you are doing, I am merely not choosing to delve further into material that was not filmed and or written in the novel by Charles Williams.

@hughiewarrinerorpheus A lot of your post consists of "what-if" scenarios that do fall under the realm of fan fiction. There's nothing wrong with speculating the aftermath of the film and characters, but to complain about others seemingly doing so and then retaliating with even more examples of fan fiction possibilities leaves you acting hypocritical.


Well if that is not the pot calling the kettle black @hughiewarrinerorpheus. I believe my comment is following along the same context and along the same fabricated fictional narrative the both of you continue to argue is possible. While I have to agree it is acceptable to speculate (your word @hughiewarrinerorpheus) it is being taken to extremes by the both of you. At least I have contained my thoughts and comments to a single post / thread in the message board unlike the both of you continually posting across multiple posts under the same board. I am not intending for my comment to be "hypocritical" as you say @hughiewarrinerorpheus. I am merely proffering a plausible continued future narrative of possible outcomes a human could conceivably encounter during ones lifetime.


where does that connect with the film? Why should the audience suspect or even concern that this is a probable outcome when the movie doesn't indicate as much? At least the discussion «« speculation of impregnation and Rae's decision of if she would ever tell John that she had sex with Hughie directly connects with the film.


To address that see my comment both above and below. Why should the audience and the rest of the community here be continually compelled to believe a single sexual encounter during one single act of intercourse results in a baby being conceived??

Let's see... assume her cycle is 28 days long. Of those days, she'll be fertile about 4 of them. That means a random PIV sexual encounter has about a 1/7 chance of hitting during a fertile day. There are other factors, but that's a place to start. I see from one site that the pregnancy rate given no birth control method at all is 85%. Those sites never define what they mean by pregnancy rate, but I believe it's a measure of how many women get pregnant in a year of using that method. Now, let me further WAG that a year of sex means 100 times. If you're doing better than that, congratulations. Work out your own damn formula. I'll also assume that your chance of getting pregnant the first time is equal to the chance of any other given time, though I have no idea if that's true.

So, by the binomial probability equation:

Probability of 0 pregnancies = (100 choose 0) x p^0 x q^100 = 0.15

p is the probability of getting pregnant on a given trial

q is the probability of not getting pregnant that trial (i.e. 1 - p)

Solving for p gives just under a 2% chance of getting pregnant on your first try ... if my assumptions and math are correct. The egg is viable for 24 to 48 hours. Sperm can survive for up to five days. Therefore, there is a 7 day window for pregnancy each month, assuming healthy, young, fertile individuals. It is likely to be higher for a younger woman and lower for an older woman.

Studies of pregnancies and early miscarriages suggest that 40% of fertilized eggs never become happily ensconced zygotes. 60% of 14% is 8%. Furthermore, there is about a 10% chance of miscarriage after the early weeks, taking us down to 2% chance of successful pregnancy from one random sexual act per cycle.


Hughie's single on screen sexual encounter with Rae falls well below the average and the odds are against Rae becoming pregnant by him.

Though it has admittedly happened in real life there is zero factual indication it happened in this movie. Please back up your comment with facts that were actually in any of the material be it the original novel or either versions of the film. You both are under the assumption that the fictional baby between Rae & Hughie would or could remain a secret if Rae did not disclose it's fictional / speculative biological father from her husband John Ingram and the child itself over the course of it's entire fictional / speculative lifespan. My comments both above and below have the odds on my side the truth would eventually be revealed one way or another in a fictional / speculative narrative.


To which I might add any of these possible situations (auto accidents, poisoning (intentional or otherwise), food allergies and accidental exposures / ingestion, head injuries / trauma (due to roughhousing / sports related actives), conflicts that could lead to violence (school shootings / armed robbery / alcohol / drug abuse), dog bites / animal attacks (The Centres for Disease Control and Prevention reports that 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year, and one in five injuries require medical attention.), injured in a fall, burned by a fire, when children drown in a backyard pool, or at a water park, at summer camp, or at hotel / Tragically, children have been known to drown in just a couple of inches of water in a bath tub, or a small wading pool, it doesn’t take much and adults always need to be aware of this fact.) A history of aggression or violent behaviour during childhood. (A very plausible likelihood of happening due to Hughie being the speculative / hypothetical biological father.) could result in a perfectly otherwise healthy human being requiring a medical history and a visit to a hospital and or requiring professional medical attention. The list could go on and on. What can't be guaranteed is the fact absolutely zero bad / negative situations would not happen to the average human over the course of their entire lifespan. Others here appear to be faulting me for just pointing out this fact of life. The odds of something bad happening to a human during their lifespan are more on my side than against it.


To better address the differences in terms of movie(s) being canonical to the novel by Charles Williams I concur there are plenty of differences between them. Most of the changes from the book can't be discussed in depth without giving away crucial turns of plot, but there are two which are especially striking: one concerning the number of major characters, and one concerning the extent of Hughie's sociopathy. With regard to the latter, let's just say that whereas in the book Hughie is a troubled and potentially dangerous young man, in the film he's a murderous psycho. The problem is that although we see graphic evidence of his lethality, Hughie is still written pretty much the same way he is in the novel. What I am perfectly clear upon though is the fact that between the original novel, the uncompleted movie (THE DEEP / DEAD RECKONING) Written and Directed by Orson Welles and this current newer version by director Phillip Noyce is the fact; none of them include a baby between the Rae & Hughie characters whatsoever. If however you have sources to indicate otherwise please share with the rest of the community here other than your own personal speculations.

What I can comment upon is the director of this movie Phillip Noyce wanted to make sure his version was different from the source novel and the earlier filmed version by Orson Welles. (THE DEEP / DEAD RECKONING) Welles’ version is closer to the source novel with the addition of two additional characters played by Welles and Jean Moreau. Also in the Welles version some sequences had been “finished” some hadn’t. What was recovered in the Welles' version was several rough work prints with odd tics to them, With every version part was in colour partly in black and white depending upon what was cheapest to print. Some sequences had been “finished” some hadn’t. Welles also cut together multiple takes in sequence so he could decide later which to use. The sound existed for some pieces but not others. Most of Welles voice was gone because of being shot on location with a noisy camera it was all going to be post dubbed so no one cared-at the time (though Welles can be heard dubbing Laurence Harvey for the work prints). Most troubling was that while the film followed the script closely there was two dream sequences that they had no notes for.

reply

Geez, what a buzz kill. It's a movie, have fun with it.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Wow this thread is a fascinating read. Too bad it stopped dead in it's tracks when IMDB pulled the plug on its discussion boards. It should be resumed.

reply

Yeah, it's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

reply