questions

I had a number of questions after watching this movie as well, which is why I came to this discussion board.. I believe that the "I can hear you breathing" lines were drawing the connection back to the moment when Stevens was trying to keep calm as Zoe was close to dying, and he was waiting until she stopped breathing to perform the emergency surgery. He said that he didn't have to go all the way, but he was willing to.. just like he is willing to still support her even through her countless problems with drug addiction and the pains of her desertion.

I read the end of the movie completely differently with regard to Stevens. The film drew obvious parallels between him and the town "losing children", and Ian Holm's played it so genuinely that I don't think it was an act. For example, take his encounter with Billy Ansell - he tells him about his drug addict daughter spontaneously, and Billy's reaction is "why are you telling me this?" They've both broken from their roles as "calculating lawyer" and "angry honest townsfolk" in that moment, so to me that says it wasn't an act.

But going back to the deposition at the end. Stevens wasn't just disappointed, or angry at Nicole, which you might expect if he was going for the payday. He was speechless. He could barely answer the other lawyer. He appeared dazed, as if in a trance, much like he did on the plane while recalling the spider bite incident. Clearly Nicole's actions meant more to him than a simple "you're changing your story, what the hell!" Shortly after, having recovered his composure, he tells Sam that to lie and do that to her father, there must be something terribly wrong with her. Who else does he know who lies and manipulates her father? It recalls that theme of "losing children" again. So I saw the final scene as his witnessing another daughter become "lost" to her father, and being floored by it.

That interpretation alone doesn't answer what his original motivations were from earlier. There are moments where he seems like he's working his pitch, and there are also moments that seem to truly strike a chord, so I would guess a little of both. It's deliberately unclear.

The lawyer's intentions were anything but noble. He wasn't sleazy or slimy, but his main motivation was the prospect of a big payday.

I don't know what experience you've had with contingency fee arrangements, but a 1/3 contingency fee has long been typical. Sometimes a higher percentage may be specified, often triggered only if the case goes to trial. If lawyers in your neck of the woods typically charge 50% contingency fees for personal injury cases, even those that don't go to trial, then the world is going to hell faster than I thought.

-- TopFrog

I suppose he may not have meant physically growing to big for the clothes, but mentally growing out of them... I mean it seems they were apprpriate for a fifteen year old girl, so perhaps his wife hadn't really grown up yet - or perhaps in his mind she hadn't grown up yet. Or perhaps he had wanted her to keep looking girlish.

Just some ideas. Perhaps the book makes it clearer?

[deleted]