MovieChat Forums > Loggerheads (2007) Discussion > I didn't understand the last 20 minutes

I didn't understand the last 20 minutes


Bonnie Hunt found out (mistakenly) that he son was "dead", but the movie upheld this belief. DID Mark die? And why did Tess Harper deceeptively uphold this belief? I don't understand.........

Rod

reply

It's been a little while since I seen it, so I'll try to remember enough to explain. First thing, the story is told out of sequence, so that in one scene Tess thinks or does something, and the next scene may take place before or long after that earlier scene. The audience then has to piece together what they've seen and make sense of it all. I remember my impresssion of what actually happened, not how the details were shown to us. Tess finds out where Mark was living and goes there, but it's after he has died. The point is that when she finally is willing to reach out to him, it's too late. I know I got a little confused about Mark hitch hiking away from George, then George explaining to Tess that Mark had stayed until he died. When Tess shows up at the motel, it's a year later.

I could be completely wrong about all this, maybe someone else can clear it up.

reply

Okay, the story is told out of sequence. The part with Mark and George takes place in 1999. The part with his adoptive mother, the whole wondering what's become of her son takes place in 2000. And the part with her birth mother searching for him takes place in 2001.

Now, we know that Mark went to Kure Beach, where he started a relationship with Georges in 1999. We also know that he stayed there for at least a year, as Ruth (I think her name is, the old lady with whom Mark stayed in contact) shows a postcard from Kure Beach to his adoptive mother and says that Mark had been there for a year (she says this near mother's day 2000). Then, Mark calls his adoptive mother on Mother's Day, 2000. This call takes place pretty much near the end.

So we know Mark did not die until after Mother's Day, 2000.

Now, his birth mother begins searching for her son near Mother's Day, 2001, as the beginning of the movie shows that his birth mother's story begins a few days before (the whole asking that boy if he was adopted or not, and why he was in town). Now we know that his birth mother soon finds out that her son is dead, presumebly a little after Mother's day 2001.

So when she finds out that he's dead, Mark is already dead. When she finally contacts the adoptive mother, Mark is dead, so his adoptive mother was not lying. This takes place at the earliest in 2001.

I think it would have been confusing for me had I not read the plot outline.

reply

Wow, thanks for clearing that up; I never would've gotten that, seriously...

reply

I'm glad that I wasn't the only one confused by this. I must of missed something. Did they show the year(s) on the tv screen or announce it? On another note, Michael Learned not so compassiante(sp?) as she was on The Waltons LOL..



reply

I didn't either. The description above helps. I guess I kinda wish directors don't do that kind of playing around. In the first few minutes, we see time and place indicated on the screen, 1000, 2000, and 2001, but they seem to happen in quick succession, and I somehow have the feeling very few viewers will actually be cognizant of what happens (per above details) consciously as they are watching. That is in part due to really nicely understated acting and a story that got more interesting as it went along. I got confused, too, when Rachel tells the birth mother Mark has died, and then immediately after, the phone rings, and subsequently Bonnie Hunt tells Chris Sarandon "he called." I absolutely had no awareness at that point of the "real" time periods. But in general, that confusion aside, it was an enjoyable movie.

reply

Yeah, I've seen movies where fractured timelines help with telling the story, but it didn't get it here. I'm not really sure why the writer/editor decided that doing this would enhance the story or the emotional impact. The fractured timeline can show how different characters react to the same event, but here the unannounced shifts in time seem like an gimmick to keep the audience guessing.

reply

They do give you hints here and there about the date of each story.
In the beginning they tell you it is 1999, when Mark arrives in Kure I think.
But the clever part is that the movie uses sound bites from the radio to let you know when the time range is.
1999: In the part where Mark arrives in Kure Beach, you hear clips of Bill Clinton talking about the Y2K issue looming. And you know it is mid year before August.
2000: In Eden, NC with Mark's parents, you hear clips of the Gore and Bush campaign which puts you in year 2000. Plus you know its right before Mothers Day.
2001: In Asheville, NC with Mark's biological mother and grandmother, a clip of GW Bush talking about his first 100 days in office, again, just before Mothers Day.

reply

I thought maybe Mark said he was dead, pretending to be a friend or something. Then took off so birth mom couldn't find him. He did say he thought about finding her, but no way, since he figured she wouldn't want to meet him.

~I'll meet you in the place where mercy leads.~

reply

I thought the ending last 20 minutes was done badly and detracted from the film.

reply

Am I the only person here who thought that the disrupted timeline was a brilliant idea? For me it made half of the movie. And I didn't think it was one bit confusing, on the contrary, it's all very clear to me.

I mean, you get a few hints, especially when Ruth shows the famous postcard we've seen about 580 times before.

I thought that movie was really brilliant and beautiful, and the timeline play was genius, because it introduces many twists. It helps you not expect what is going to happen. I thought that Grace was Mark's bio mother. Then they say her son's dead, so I thought "all right, they were leading us on then, good for them" and then, when you get there's definitely a twisted timeline, and that it *was* her son, then it's marvellous. And it gives a lot of power to the final scene between Mark and George because you know that they stayed together till the end, after he ran after him - that they weren't doomed.

*****
With the newspaper strike on, I wouldn't consider dying

reply

deadxkorps wrote: Am I the only person here who thought that the disrupted timeline was a brilliant idea?

Um, I am not sure. You might be. . . . I do recognize the writers were being creative.

For me, the timeline scrambling was a bit challenging. Maybe I should not have seen this movie late on a Saturday night.

Certainly, we are warned early on. One of the first screens says it is 1999, and we see Mark talking. Then suddenly we are told it is 2000. Mark's adoptive mother says she will bake a pie for the new neighbors. Then we are told it is 2001.

I turned to my wife and said, "Fast movie. We are already two years into it." But then, I see Mark's mother bake the pie and go to bring it to the new neighbors....

The movie makers have the job of telling a universe of a story in about 90 minutes of my time. They have to drop clues or facts for me to pick up to pull the story together. That is hard enough.

So it is not too hard to use those few facts, etc., to confuse the audience. I suppose that is creative.

But what would be wrong with just putting up a notice "Next scene: sometime before or after the last scene, and in a very different part of Carolina"?

Good movie.

reply

I thought it was great (but, again, I'm a fan of films such as "The Hours," et al, where this is a popular thing to do), and I think a lot of people got confused as to the filmmakers' intentions with this project and the way the time was set up. You are supposed to forget about it (at least it helps if you do), and become so engrossed in the film that when you finally reach the conclusion and realize what's happened, and when, you are shocked to your core. And it sits with you, it really does. Plus, it makes you realize there was a reason for those dates at the beginning(foreshadowing), and that you shouldn't be so quick to dispose of something given to you(obviously for SOME reason).

reply

deadxkorps

Are you saying this type of storytelling was brilliant for THIS particular story or is it a generally great way to tell any story? Should all stories from Titanic to Romeo and Juliet be told like this?

reply

I just watched this on sundance channel. I was going to ask the same question. I am glad I am not the only one that didn't get the timeline. I though the lady the birth mother hired was lieing to her.

---------
An eye for an eye would make the whole world blind.

reply

[deleted]

I'm very glad that I did not watched this movie on tv (which always has those commercials that distracts you) and that throughout the movie I was fully aware of the three separate story line (separated by time and location), which was a bit of a foreshadowing of the tragic end. After all, why else would there be three story lines if there is not a big dramatic moment/revelation when three time line and plots eventually meets, and given the positive statue of of the main character, it would not have end happily ever after.

While I do find the entire movie slow-paced while highly engrossing, I did not find the end to be a let down. To me, it did have one of the best ending of the movie, with a very powerful lasting impression. IMHO, that's is pretty rare for the HIV/AIDS movie sub-genre, which is already over-saturated with mediocre movies.

reply

The three interconnected stories are taking place in three seperate years.
The scenes involving Mark take place in 1999.
The scenes involving his parents take place in 2000, years after he's left home.
The scenes involving Mark's birth mother take place in 2001. So when she meets Mark's adoptive mother at the end, Mark has since passed away.

reply