MovieChat Forums > Danika (2005) Discussion > Homeless + free??

Homeless + free??

posted 15 years ago by shanael95
10 replies | jump to latest

I think of all the explanations I have read, the "all was a dream" ones make the most sense to me. BUT for those of you that say the end depicts what she really wants when the whole family walks off together & that she killed her husband in the hotel... How could she be on the streets homeless? Even if children's deaths were perceived as an accident by police which most of us agree it was not, deliberately slashing the husband's throat was murder. She would probably not be in prison considering her mental state but at the very least, in a mental hospital, not walking the streets freely. If I'm missing something... Help. :-)

I know, I know... It's only a movie.

[–] CaoilfhionnAibigeal 15 years ago

This is what has been nagging at me, as well. Even if the husband had miraculously survived, she still would have been facing attempted homicide charges. Right?

[–] Zando777 14 years ago

I thought she only cut her husband, not slashed his throat. He wouldn't be likely to report the cut given the context, especially after the accident.

[–] lindaoak2001 14 years ago

I tend to agree that she didn't kill her husband, only injured him, and he didn't press charges for the reasons suggested.

Another possibility is that if her husband died, she was deemed insane and never tried. If she was incarcerated in a psychiatric facility, she may have been "cured" and released. Happens in California all the time. It's perfectly legal. We don't know how much time has elapsed since the accident, so it's feasible.

Let me tickle your imagination with this one. The nanny, Evelyn, got tried for killing Randy. Now that's revenge.

[–] ashley_davenport43560 14 years ago

I think maybe she was tried for the murder, placed in a psychiatric facility, and then released.In the last scene with the psychiatrist/nanny, the room she is in is stark white which reminded me of the rooms in a mental facility. I did think she was committed at that point and only imaging the chair, table, and lamp from the psychiatrist's office as being there.

[–] smidget28 14 years ago

What if THEY ALL DIED and this is her afterlife?

Now Playing: Danika

[–] lindaoak2001 14 years ago

Wow, that's heavy. Purgatory? Maybe even hell. Very good suggestion.

[–] septimus77 14 years ago

That they're all dead, and this is her afterlife-- yes, that is how I interpreted the film when I saw it.

She keeps trying to "re-do" some of the key moments of her life, and she has the chance to choose a better action this time, but so far she always chooses the same fears or the same anger. Yet there is a part of all of them that has forgiven, and understands; hence there are times they come together and walk together. But she has not yet resolved her own role as the active agent in her life, rather than as victim, so she walks the streets with the symbols of her life in her cart until she can relive the moments again and have a chance to choose better action this time.

I have to admit, though, after I read some of the interps under the "Spoiler" topic that are focused on her as a psychotic woman who is trying to sort out what's real from what's hallucination, I was convinced by some of those interpretations, too.

Still, the image of her family joining her and all of them walking away from the accident together is, for me, most compelling of all.

BTW, I thought the film was sensitively made--very artful-- and the fact that there are all these possible interpretations is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. I also didn't see any boom mics, but I suppose I'm not very attentive.

[–] winkat 14 years ago

Why wouldn't she be able to work free on the streets?? Most homeless people living on the street are mentally distrubed, she'd fit right in. Remember when the paramedic said "how can someone live after something like that"? Simple they couldn't, that's why the happy ending of her and her family walking off living happily ever after.

[–] ML_Badabing 14 years ago

She didn't kill her husband; just cut/injured him. You can hear him shout "Ow!" when it happens. Furthermore, the nanny would have let out a serious scream if she had just witnessed her lover's throat being slashed right in-front of her.

----------
It's a privilege to breathe the same air that I farted in.

[–] barcardimike 13 years ago

I agree. This movie is not that hard to figure out. She finds her husband cheating and cuts his face. Already under the influence of prescription drugs, she drives her kids through a red light (not sure, but looks like she took the light on purpose). They died and there is no reason to suspect that it was other than an accident. She could not handle all the adversity, and becomes mentally ill. In her schizophrenic state, which takes up the first 70 minutes of the movie, she deludes herself into believing that the family is still together. Her constant worrying about her children's well-being is a symptom of the guilt she suffers from causing their death.
If you watch the movie a second time, you can pick up on all the double meanings in the dialogue.
This movie is accurate in that many homeless people were once productive citizens who then suffer an unbearable trauma that causes them to lose their sanity.
This accurate portrayal of schizophrenia and homelessness, mixed with elements of horror, make this a great and underestimated film.

bacardi anyone?