There are actually two timelines in this movie, timeline number one is the girl's perspective, and this is what is shown in the movie. timeline number two is created only after the guy did not die (as a result of receiving the warn letter). The movie beginning exists in timeline number one whereas the movie ending exists in timeline number two, which is the guy's timeline. The guy is forever dead in timeline number one, but he is alive in timeline number two.
The exchange of letters begin when the girl moves out of il mare in timeline number one, the timeline in which the guy is already dead. But since the girl actually suceeded in saving the guy's life, a new timeline (number two) is created, in which the guy lives. However, the girl in timeline number one DOES NOT know that she has saved him. Because she *cannot* alter the fact that he died in her own timeline (number one). In timeline number two, the guy actually knows all about the exchange of letters. Since the guy knows the girl WILL be livin in il mare, he delibrately moves out and later comes to meet her, which is the movie ending. But, the girl (in timeline number two) does *not* know about the exchange of letters, since she does *not* have the chance to send out the first letter.
There is *no* paradox or contradiction.
In conclusion, the movie begins with a main timeline (starting at 1999 DEC), with the beginning of the girl moving out of il mare. Her first letter msyteriously reached to the guy who is living in 1997 DEC. This is when the exchange of letters start. Then one day, in 2000, the girl asks the guy (back in 1998) "help me not to lose him", him refers to the girl's ex boyfrend. The guy then went to the morning cafe, and died in a car accident. The girl in 2000 suddenly realised that back in 1998, she saw a stranger died in a car accident when she was chatting with her ex boyfriend. Then she concluded that the guy who died is actually the guy who is sending her letters all the while. She felt guilty because she thought she is the one who caused the guy's death by telling him to go to the cafe. Thus, to prevent the guy's death, she sent out a warning letter, and the guy received it, thus, the guy did *not* die, and a new timeline (number two) is created. In the main timeline (timeline number one), the girl did *not* know that the guy lives, because in her own timeline (number one), the guy is forever dead, and this fact cannot be changed. It can only be changed by branching out another new timeline, which in this case is number two.
The guy then lives in timeline number two until he meets the girl in 1999 DEC, when she is about to leave il mare. The movie ending is actually a perspective from timeline number two.
I agree that this movie's plot is good, but can actually be confusing to some audience. It requires some deep thinking to understand the plot fully.
reply
share
lawrence_chan10
18 years ago
I disagree that there's no paradox, there clearly is.
But that's just a common problem with the theory of time travel, e.g. paradox of going back in time to kill yourself.
In this case, if in the future no one sent the letters to him then he would never have received them and none of it would be true. The 2nd timeline which affects the future obviously, also affects the past because of the time travel which would then again affect the future and so on and on. different time lines can't explain away the obvious paradox, as rather than only the past affecting the present, the present also affects the past.
my advice, don't try to reason out the paradox as it's most likely not posible to remove the paradox from the issue of time travel, just enjoy the movie as it's v. gud
reply
share
dailyplanet
18 years ago
Thank you, lawrence chan, for explaining the paradox dilemma in a way I can understand -- I think -- it's only fleeting comprehension at best. At least it helps to know time travel is problematic that way. May I never have to test it personally.
reply
share
Keelai
18 years ago
Since Sung Hyun does not die in the second timeline, wouldn't it solve the paradox problem if he had met Eun Ju like they originally planned at the beach in 2000? He would have been saved by Eun Ju from the future timeline and Eun Ju from his timeline would have been writing letters so she would know who he was. The "dead Sung Hyun" and the "grieving Eun Ju" would no longer exist since the accident no longer happened.
reply
share
catherine2828
18 years ago
how does that solve the paradox problem? if anything it makes it much more complicated. the beach date is after Eun Ju moves out of Il Mare. so the new "non-grieving Eun Ju" would have been writing letters to Sung Hyun the 3rd (1st is the one that died, 2nd is the one that survived, 3rd is the one in the past for Eun Ju the 2nd)
if he Sung Hyun 2nd does met her at the beach, it would make it less confusing for Eun Ju 2nd, but then what happens to Sung Hyun 3rd? what she writes in her letter afterwards will change the past, and in turn changes the future, and the cycle will continue until they can stop the exchange of letters, which is what Sung Hyun 2nd does by meeting her before she puts the letter in the mailbox
reply
share
Desertman84
13 years ago
The original ending of Il Mare is that Sung-hyun did not receive the warning letter from Kim Eun-ju. So the movie ended with Sung-hyun dying in the end upon getting hit by a car. The two never had a chance to meet at all.
But Sidus later decided that the ending was too tragic that they did revise it. So in its later release, the movie ended with Sung-hyun receiving the letter and meeting Kim Eun-ju,when she was about to leave Il Mare.
But one has to realize that with the new ending,the movie leaves it up to the viewers of what will happen between Sung-hyun and Kim Eun-ju.
In the new ending, it was obvious that Han Sung-hyun wasn't killed as he received the warning on time. Then he meets Kim Eun-ju the moment she leaves Il Mare.
But the movie leaves an open ending considering that he meets Kim Eun-ju the moment she leaves Il Mare.It could be either a sad ending considering that Han Sung-hyun has had a lot of memories of Kim Eun-ju but she has no memories of him at all since their exchange of letters have yet to happen.Or it could be a happy ending since Han Sung-hyun can win Kim Eun-ju's heart despite of not having the exchange of letters in the mailbox taking place considering that he already knew a lot of things about her AND SHE JUST BROKE UP WITH HER BOYFRIEND AT THE POINT WHEN SHE LEFT IL MARE.In other words,he already has an idea on how to win her heart.
Personally,I think that Sung-hyun should have met her NOT AT THAT POINT but when they decided to meet each other at the beach and when the exchange of letter have already happened.
In summary,the ending of Il Mare leaves it to the audience to imagine what will take place.
Normally,Korean movies end on a SAD NOTE,OPEN-ENDED wherein it leaves it to the imagination of the audience of what's to happen next, and it is BITTERSWEET.
reply
share
buchowski
8 years ago
Lol, who cares about a paradox. Time travel isn't possible, certainly not into the past anyway. It's a love story with a time traveling letterbox and the hottest Korean woman to have ever lived. Enjoy it?
reply
share
Stratego (29252)
2 years ago
"In this case, if in the future no one sent the letters to him then he would never have received them and none of it would be true. The 2nd timeline which affects the future obviously, also affects the past because of the time travel which would then again affect the future and so on and on. different time lines can't explain away the obvious paradox, as rather than only the past affecting the present, the present also affects the past."
No no, the existence of a 2nd timeline solves the paradox problem, at least when it comes to the death of Sung Hyun. Eun Ju 1 was not able to stop Sung Hyun 1 from dying in her own timeline, but what her letter did do was create a parallel 2nd timeline where Sung Hyun stays alive. The letters he had came from the future Eun ju in the 1st timeline, not the 2nd.
reply
share