MovieChat Forums > The 24th Day (2004) Discussion > My theory: who infected Tom?

My theory: who infected Tom?

posted 15 years ago by doctor13
9 replies | jump to latest

This contains spoilers, so be forewarned. After watching the movie, it suddenly dawned on me who must have infected Tom.

If you interpret the ending to mean that Dan is HIV+ (and I do), then you must also take as fact that Dan really did not know he was infected. Several times he debates that he's healthy, and this is the key bit of info. If Dan had infected Tom with the disease, then he would have had to be HIV+ when the incident occurred five years ago. If Dan had never been tested and never seen any physical indication that he had the virus since that time, and he's positive now, then he must have become infected fairly recently, as signs of the illness would certainly have made themselves known to an infected person not taking any medication over a five-year period (Does Tom have symptoms? He should have or have had, but he never reveals any nor does he take off his clothes to reveal any and he never mentions taking meds).

So my theory is that Dan was HIV- when he had sex with Tom five years prior, which means that Tom got the AIDS virus from his wife, who apparently got it from having an affair with someone who had HIV.

His guilt over having a pleasurable gay experience added to the denial that his wife might have cheated on him, causing him to take out his anger, frustration and guilt on the only other person he felt he could hold responsible, Dan, no matter how improbable. And one more thing: Tom told Dan he remembers that night in detail, but he doesn't seem to recollect if Dan wore a condom, either.

Does this make sense or have I missed something?

[–] MeridianWest 15 years ago

yeah, i pretty much agree with it.
however, the HIV does not necessarily reveal any signs of infection within 5 years. it depends on the individual, how strong an immune system the person has, and it can take as long as 10-15 years of completely healthy life.

i also thought of this possibility --- his wife had HIV gave it to Speedman and Speedman gave it to Marsden. i can't believe this reasoning wasn't made in the movie. it would have made a great argument. the director has treated Marsden like a complete evil and non-caring person. which is itself a one-dimensional approach to your character.

also -- the fact that Marsden does have HIV (this was never really concluded in the film since we weren't shown the papers with the result) would prove nothing. anyone can contract HIV at any time one is in vulnerable circumstances to it. and not only from sex -- any shared needles, viral contact with blood will also do the trick. and unless we know that the only time Speedman was open to an infection was when he was with Marsden ---which we don't---there's no point for argument.

if Marsden did have HIV the only way to prove that he gave it to Speedman would be to know the approximate time the virus got in his body (i'm not sure but i don't think there is a test for that, at least i haven't heard of it). and even then not conclusively since the risk of contracting HIV from a receptive anal intercourse is about 50 in 10,000 with no condom use. so.... completely meaningless story. a dead-end reasoning. this film only promoted hate, emotional baggage and tragedy.

[–] Zhow 14 years ago

Correct. From the information we have in the film, we don't know for sure who infected who. There's no need to blame anyone about this but actually, as an HIV person can remain healthy for a very long time, even without treatment, one cannot tell who was onfected first.

- Tom and his wife were probably negative when they got married.
- Dan never knew his status. He could be HIV+ or HIV- when he slept with Tom.
- 5 years ago, Tom had sex with Dan. We don't know if Dan gave it to Tom; even if Dan was HIV+, it doesn't mean he passed the virus.
- Tom's wife finds out she's HIV+ and an AIDS related desease. We can't be sure that she got it from her husband. She may have a lover. We don't know who infected who. She then dies.
- Tom finds out he's also positive and blames Dan who he sleeps with 5 years ago. He follows him and talks with one of his one night stand who tells him that Dan is not always safe.
- Tom kidnaps Dan and threatens to kill him if the test is positive. Dans swears he is regularly tested and is negative.
- Dan's final test is positive. He confirms he's never been tested but we don't know when he was infected or if he indeed infected Tom.

That's what I loved about the movie. People try to look for responsibilities whereas each situation is unique and individual. Tom's final reaction tends to show that whatever the result is, putting the blame on someone (when you can't be sure 100% that they are responsible for you being positive) is useless and vain. Basically, Tom and Dan have to face the same situation provoked by a terrible virus which continues to frighten people due to the ways of transmission (sex, blood) and certain taboos (homosexuality).

______________________________________
The higher you fly, the faster you fall.

[–] ManicMuse 14 years ago

i was actually disappointed that the movie (imo) took away doubt about how he was infected. it turned out that it was exactly what tom expected, he was infected by the "promiscuous" gay guy he had the one night stand with. Sure there is room for other options, but none are likely. Dan felt healthy so never bothered to get tested. Dan had sex while intoxicated often, yet still considers himself responsible when it comes to sex. i didn't like that this movie turned into a huge wake up call for dan. it made it feel like a gay after school special.

"WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW, huh?! WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW!"

[–] m-mrstik2 13 years ago

Ok, so there's really no CONCLUSIVE proof of who infected whom, and the chances of transmission ARE low on a per-one-night-stand basis. But, overall, chances of coming into infectious contact with HIV are pretty low to begin with (varies by area, but still rather low most everywhere in America), and so the likelihood of 2 people who partnered even once both having the disease FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES is pretty low. It's pretty reasonable to assume that all happened as the movie itself implied.
@ManicMuse: Oh NO!! An after-school special for gays??! What would happen if the monogamous (monoandrous?) ideals were impressed on gay society? Seriously, though, I WISH there had been a real after-school special just for gays when I was a kid. The whole reason I watch gay cinema is because I can connect better with the characters/situations--like straight folks get to do with EVERY OTHER MOVIE (including after-school specials).

[–] ManicMuse 13 years ago

I never said I was against the notion of after school specials for gays if that's what you are into. My point is after school specials are predictable, preachy, simplistic, and have an agenda. that may be just your cup of tea, but it's not really mine. how my comment turned into a stance against homosexual characters in film in your eyes i do not know. i was just expecting a more complicated plot than "i shouldn't get drunk and sleep with that male slut because he will give me hiv". my background in sexual health education may make me a little more jaded than you. i was expecting something more nuanced.

"WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW, huh?! WHO'S ON TOP & WHO'S ON BOTTOM NOW!"

[–] m-mrstik2 13 years ago

Sorry, ManicMuse, didn't mean to offend, or to come of as being so offended. Maybe my gripe doesn't really belong on an IMDB thread, but then again, my point is really more about the evolution of gay cinema. Our movies, and even our morality overall, are stunted when compared to straight movies and morality, for lack of representation in the earlier steps of their evolution. Think of it this way: we'll never get to the gay Bourne Identity without gay Sesame Street (wait, Bert and Ernie? no no no)... Ok, so bad example, but my point is clear enough...
But ok, so think of the current 'pinnacle' of gay romance- Brokeback Mountain. It's essentially our star-crossed lover story kept comfortably out of iambic pentameter, but it's really a BORING movie all but the first time through (I prefer Better than Chocolate). Everything's gonna suck, and come with an agenda, at this point, because we're still playing catch-up. We just can't skip crawl, walk and run and go straight to warp speed (ooh, gay Star Trek, now there's an idea!).
I guess I just liked this movie so much more because of what it represents in the aspect of cinematic evolution, and I ignored the movie's many shortcomings. AND maybe I'm a little jaded by guys like Dan, too, and enjoyed seeing him get told off in unyielding karmic fashion.
A NOTE ON MY 'STRAIGHT MORALITY' COMMENT: I know in terms of relationship morality, straight folks have been slacking more and more recently, but for a great while, they WERE doing it right, and still do much of the time. We shouldn't just skip that.
Ya, ok, so I attribute way too much meaning to this stuff...

[–] Zando777 11 years ago

Um, the chances of catching AIDS from unprotected gay intercourse are actually pretty high (especially as a catcher). That's why so many people died in the 80's and 90's.

Don't kid yourself.

[–] HansDijksman 13 years ago

This is also a spoiler, be warned!

What i do not understand is this:

If Dan really thought he was HIV-, Dan could be angry of Tom instead. But he didnt do that. So he must not be absolutely sure about his status. And thats correct in the last scene, he admits he didnt tested himself.

But its really possible indeed that Tom infected Dan. I think that is the motto of the film. You can be angry but only to yourself.

[–] Zando777 11 years ago

It's an interesting theory, but it conflicts with the point of the film, where Tom takes responsibility for infecting his wife, because he's the one who owed her a duty, and betrayed it.

The film therefore assumes that Tom gave his wife AIDS. It also implies that Tom caught it from Dan, but that's ultimately irrelevant -- because Tom could've caught it from anyone he cheated with, and it was his actions that gave it to his wife, no one else's.

So bottom line, we can get angry with people for being promiscuous, for not getting tested, etc. -- but ultimately, unless we catch it through a legit blood transfusion, etc., it's our own choices that ultimately matter, and that we should focus on.