MovieChat Forums > Quid Pro Quo (2008) Discussion > Help me understand this (Spoilers big ti...

Help me understand this (Spoilers big time)

posted 16 years ago by csutton-3
14 replies | jump to latest

1. When did she realize that he wasn't really paralyzed?
2. Did Fiona really want to be paralyzed?
3. After helping Nick realize he wasn't really paralyzed, does she still want to be paralyzed?
4. Why did she blame herself for the wreck. Her mother was driving.
5. If he wasn't really paralyzed when did Fiona say that the Doctors had told her mother that he would never walk again?
And last but not least...
6. WHY THE F DID HE NOT GO BACK TO HIS EX GIRLFRIEND AND RUB IT IN HER FACE THAT HE CAN WALK NOW? That would have been nice to see.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nemesis718_99 15 years ago

I think Third-Age-Mage's answers are pretty much solid.

I don't think she ever really wanted to be paralyzed at all, it was all a set-up to bring Isaac to the realization that he had never really been paralyzed. And she had been driving the truck while running away, not her Mom.

As for #6, if you watch the deleted scenes on the DVD, his ex splits up with the new guy and her and Isaac do have a semi-reunion at the end.

[–] DtSumB 15 years ago

Third Age Mages makes some great points, but I would seriously question how she somehow knew he wasn't paralyzed all along. That's speculation beyond belief.

[–] kcolli11 13 years ago

Yuck. I'm glad they deleted the scene where they got back together. It would have looked like she only got back with him because he could walk again. What kind of happy ending is that?

Call me Katie. ;-)

[–] kcolli11 13 years ago

I disagree with the idea that she knew he was a hysterical paraplegic. There is no possible way she could know this. And why would she own the brace, go out in public in a wheel chair, if she didn't want to be paralyzed?

I think she did want to be paralyzed, and finding out about his "magic shoes" was when she realized it wasn't real for him. This realization set her free from her own desire to be paralyzed.

Call me Katie. ;-)

[–] DiamonDie 15 years ago

2. I'm fairly sure she initially did (or at least she thought she wanted that). It may sound totally nuts, but remember that there are many people who are like that for real.

[–] valis1949 15 years ago

She was guilty for causing the accident. After all, she killed both of his parents. This guilt probably caused her to feel that she should be crippled. And, she was driving the car, not her mother. The reason he didn't confront his ex girlfriend with his change in status, is that HE WAS A GENTLEMAN.

Excuse My Dust...

[–] kcolli11 13 years ago

Regarding number 5, Fiona says that her mother told her the boy was paralyzed. It could be that her mother heard it as gossip around town or that she got bad information from a medic on the scene or that she overheard a medic on the scene. There's no way of knowing, but it would have been illegal for the doctors to share medical information with Fiona's mother. It's safe to rule that out.

Call me Katie. ;-)

[–] cinesteam 13 years ago

Having now just viewed the film, through the guilt
of causing the wreck, I felt as if she wanted to
feel how he felt being what he thought was crippled.

It's as if a psychologist joining their patient in their
fantasy to better understand the root of the problem.
Even though he thinks he is reporting on why people want to
be crippled, it is her pulling the strings and letting the
fantasy play out.

That makes sense, right?

[inject cathexis]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Myth-and-Mayhem 11 years ago

5. If he wasn't really paralyzed when did Fiona say that the doctors had told her mother that he would never walk again?

It's unfortunate that Third-age-Mage's response was deleted by the administrator, I really would have liked to have read that reply based on all the responses that followed.

Anyway, I just watched it and in answer to number 5; I think the Mother's credibility was seriously tarnished by the barbecue scene, making her an unreliable witness. To actually go out of her way to humiliate her daughter in front of a gentleman is beyond cruel. The type of "mother" that would actually tell her daughter something awful, like the boy who's parents she killed was paralyzed, just to punish her. I think the question is not when, but why? Her mother was an awful person, we witnessed that.

My Ratings: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur10767293/ratings

[–] lulupalooza 11 years ago

That's a good point. While the mother's credibility is unreliable, I had figured that he had been paralyzed temporarily (I had a paralyzed foot for about a year), but over time regained full ability. Some people are told they will never walk again, but they do. Depends of the extent of the nerve/cord damage and its potential for regeneration.

He admits to working out his legs regularly too. Perhaps as he healed over time - he was so young when it happened and had few follow-up tests - he was unable to accept his actual healing status, since he was becoming too comfortable with being disabled. It was his identity now....especially with his parents gone.

Speaking of, does anyone remember who raised him? I cannot recall if that was mentioned at some point in the film.

[–] Wryter47 11 years ago

When he's playing basketball he says he went through a series of
foster homes and wound up at a Jesuit seminary, where he met the
guy he's playing basketball with, who's a Jebbie priest. I think
this is correct.

[–] Iwishyouwell 10 years ago

The mother wasn't being cruel or awful. Unfortunately the movie doesn't make a lot clear and rushes through pivotal points.

Isaac was paralyzed. He simply wasn't permanently so. His subconscious guilt kept him in the chair, but the doctors would be the ones who initially put him there as a little boy.