MovieChat Forums > Sung horn (2003) Discussion > Do I interpret the plot correctly?

Do I interpret the plot correctly?

posted 18 years ago by PiranianRose
2 replies | jump to latest

I am far from sure of the plot or all the references, but Let me take a stab at it:

The story takes place in present day--year 2003 or so. About 80 years ago, 3 children save a dog from a car accident (1). One day, due to fear, the dog gets separated from the children. One children mutters "Will we meet again" (2)? The dog eventually finds his way home, but it is too late. Flash forward to 80 years later, the 3 children have reincarnated as our 3 magazine artists, while the 1 female dog has reincarnated into 3 females of distinct ages: one child beggar (for lack of better term), one adult coffee shop owner Orm, and one old lady. The 3 females are really one, since the old lady has the beggar's cars and picture of Orm.

Point (1) reoccurs when the child beggar gets hit by a car, and point (2) is why the old lady keeps saying "will we meet again" to Dan.

Am I correct about the plot so far, or did I misunderstand some details?

The movie seems to state that history repeats itself, such as the car accident, Dan's quick eating habits/choking, and Dan getting stuck in small rooms. However, I am not sure why the one dog evolved into 3 people, and why does the old lady know that Beam is going to die? I don't think Beam's death took place in the dog's time?

[–] jinalbert 18 years ago

Yeah, the story seems to strange. It seems that the 3 women are really the past/present/future in the present time (it's like a merging of three time spaces). This is why the old woman has the picture and toy cars, and able to predict future. So, changing one will ripple through the future self at the same time.

Anyway, the incosistency I see is when the tree pot that fell down disappear.

Then again, I could be wrong...

[–] Coolestmovies 18 years ago

Looks like there isn't much discussion to be had over this film, but having just finished watching it a few minutes ago, I'm prone to agree with you guys. I assumed the three women (child, girl, old woman) to be the three "tenses" of a life reincarnated, or something to that effect. My knowledge of Eastern religions is slim (rather sad in relation to my massive collection of Asian cinema), so I wouldn't be surprised if there's far more to it than that.

I have to admit, the twist ending is a fair one, even touching, but as Jinalbert points out, that shot of the falling plant pot "disappearing" during that climactic montage seems inconsistent. If that pot disappears, it means the coffee-shop girl, and Beam's interaction with her, should never have taken place, which means the boys shouldn't find that picture in the old woman's house at the end. In fact, it would actually erase all the time Beam spends in the hospital with Aom at his bedside since the accident that nearly kills him wouldn't have taken place. A puzzler, to be sure, but perhaps the answer lies in the philosphy underpinning the story?

Overall, though, not a bad film in spite of the limited range of all four leads.