Julie was julia's step sister, its that simple. John abandoned them in France, and wouldn't leave his family in London to be with them.Both girls are real, Julie is just neglected and unloved by her Father.Julie's mom probably did die in an accident and Julie might have been scared in the same accident.I believe the murder did happen, and sara helped cover it up. What in the movie suggest otherwise?
shareafter an hour long conversation with a friend this is the exact conclusion that we came to
sharethat's what i thought aswell. but there's one thing that doesn't make sense, it's that midget..that midget scared the hell out of me ("it was an accident!")
what if julie killed her mother? i wonder why noone thinks about that... would kinda explain julie's nervous breakdown
The midget's reaction - "it was an accident" - closing the door immediately, Julie lying about her mother and then seeing her mother in Sarah - are some of the themes I find underdeveloped in this film. I really liked the film, but it's just as if some parts were written and then cut out of the film.
share"what if julie killed her mother?"
Suppose its the other way around and the mother tried to kill herself and Julie in a car accident - perhaps because she felt like a woman scorned.
That would make for an uninteresting film. And no one would name their daughter after the illegitimate one they abandoned.
share**********
That would make for an uninteresting film. And no one would name their daughter after the illegitimate one they abandoned.
**********
What if he didn't name her, though? What if the mistress named the daughter, to spite the father? It could be, that by the time John had found out that he had an illegitimate daughter to his French mistress, that the name Julia was already on the birth certificate, in imitation and mockery of the name of his legitimate daughter?
huh? anyone?
i had thought of something that i hadn't read yet (though i of course haven't read all the threads and wouldn't). i thought that a)the author hadn't been aware of both sisters having similar names anyway.
or b)the author had been fooled by some free loading family friend or someone who knew their business and used their vacation home whenever. hell, she could have even been his (john's?) mistress. her mother probably had died and all the other things, but she didn't necessarily have to be the daughter of that man to have have known things about that family, used that name, or be staying there. that would explain that fake phone call from 'dad' and it was really no one on the line and when the author attempted to call him back immediately, he wasn't even there.
It's b - the local girl was aware of certain things and used the mansion. When she met sara, she posed as Julie and gave the story of a "french mother".
Of course they were not step-sisters. They wouldn't likely have the same name.
Hello people. The whole movie is a story made up by the author. Nothing is real or necessarily needs to make sense, it is fiction. The only real part is the author is staying at the villa, the rest is her fantasy.
shareThat can be an explanation for almost any movie in the world.
But, a rational explanation exists here. So, no need to make everything a fantasy.
Nope. Then if this is the case, why was Julia dressed EXACTLY the same as Julie in that last scene in the publishing office? Down to the hair, the jean jacket, etc...Julie is a symbolic representation of Julia--or, rather, the writer's representation of a teenager.
Other giveaways include when the father calls Julie, then "hangs up" on the writer. That call never took place.
Remembering one of my cinema classes at UCLA, there were several elements that show that the "reality" that the writer experiences is not authentic or real. Elements that other directors use to show this as well--like shots of the mirror reflections of the characters as well as the reflections of the characters in the pool (namely, Julie's reflection in the pool while she is laying out in the sun). This is a dead giveaway; these are cinematic tricks that, from what I remember from class, signify the duality of two worlds: in this case one real and one imaginary.
But Sara leaves a voicemail for Jon early in her trip complaining about his daughter being there. Are we to understand that Jon never gets that voicemail, and in fact never returns a single one of Sara's calls while she's there? Julie either is Jon's daughter, Jon lets Sara believe Julie is his daughter, or Sara is insane.
share[deleted]
Julie's father killed his wife (her mother) but Julie somehow was blamed for committing it. Julie knew that her father was the one who did it but she couldn't find a way to explain the truth .The father almost abandoned Julie, till Julie met Morton and knew that she's the one that she can manifest the truth through her. And that what happened. When Morton said to the publisher that she knew what he did to his wife.
share[deleted]
Old and boring? Charlotte Rampling? How sad for you if that's really what you see.
shareYour post begs the question? Are we talking about Charlotte Rampling, or Sarah Morton? They are different...
IMDB's own plot synopsis describes Sarah Morton as "...tired of London ... seeking inspiration...prim and steely English reserve... rigid and conservative, ..." I don't recall the movie providing a clue as to Sarah's age, but in the absence of such, we could assume something like Charlotte Rampling's real age of 57 or so, at the time of shooting...
Given that "old" depends on one's perspective (I remember thinking that 30 was 'old' once), and the context of the post, I'd say that the description of Sarah Morton as 'old and boring' is accurate, if not a rather coarsely efficient use words.
Now, if we're talking about Charlotte, I'd never consider her boring. As for "old", I suppose that might depend on the context. :)
That's still complicated and over-thought of. There is no step sister angle here (if it were, the movie would be rather lame). The twist is that who appeared as Julie throughout the movie wasn't her. It was a local girl who fooled Sara - something she realised only when she met the real Julie back in England. It is this twist that makes the movie better than what it would otherwise be.
sharebut what about when julie was on the phone with her dad? but then again the dad never wanted to speak to sarah. that meaning it was a stranger on the phone and not actually the dad. but also the gardner knows julie?
shareThat's what I had thought of - but you explained the dad angle. That's the conclusion I also reached. It's a risk the fake Julie took.
Yes, the gardener would know Julie for two reasons: 1. she's a local. he's a local. 2. She's sleeping with him. :-)