cuts on face--NOT a goof - Premonition (2007) Discussion

[–] steven-digby-1 16 years ago

I'm probably over-analyzing this but the assumption of the viewer is that Bullock is going to somehow change things and save her husband. The assumtion of a flexible time-line is essential, because if the audience got into the mind set of thinking 'everything has already happened, she's just remembering it in the wrong order' then the tension is lost.

OK, so what about the cuts on the face? Well it could be a hint to the audience that some things are changing / changeable...

What do you think? Too much?

He's a semi-aquatic, egg-laying, mammal of action.

reply

[–] Frankychunk 16 years ago

People are assuming that she had already lived through the days leading up to Thursday.

Like the OP says, we did not see this; what we did see, however, was that her life was very boring and routine, and that it is possible that one day blends in to the next.

How do we know that she didn't jump straight to Thursday and not know it?

reply

[–] smerph 16 years ago

Sorry, but NO, there is no evidence of a second timeline in this movie (with the exception of the goof regarding the daughter's face)

The reason is the Answer Machine message that she finds on THURSDAY but was left on WEDNESDAY. This message includes her husband realizing that she's attempting to phone him at exactly the same time. Why? To warn him of the accident.

Thursday, therefore, must take place in the same time-line because the events of her "premonition" are present straight-away.

reply

[–] steven-digby-1 16 years ago

smerph, I agree that there is no second time-line, but if you know at the begining that there's no possibility of changing the events then you've basically watched the end of the film about 20 minutes into it.

So, what I'm suggesting is that by giving the viewer a reason to think that the time-line can be changed it gives the viewer a reason to hang on to the end.

The lack of cuts on the face is therefore a goof, but intentional by the writers to (1) not confuse an early part of the story (which is confusing enough) and (2) keep the tension.

He's a semi-aquatic, egg-laying, mammal of action.

reply

[–] smerph 16 years ago

Steven-digby-1, I believe you've just discovered why this film shouldn't have made it to the greenlight!

The fact that the child has cuts on her face could have been easily written around on the first day. Maybe someone else takes her to school, maybe she's staying over at a friend, whatever. It was avoidable and would have preserved the internal logic of the film.

>So, what I'm suggesting is that by giving the viewer a reason to think that the time-line can be changed it gives the viewer a reason to hang on to the end.

A good point. But a better way of keeping the audience interested would be to have her being prevented from identifying her husbands disembodies corpse (charred beyond recognition) thus leaving a little bit of ambiguity for the finale. Anyone watching would be more inclined to believe that the body is not the husband's and it's all been a dreadful mistake.

I thought it was a good idea, but it seems that the screenwriter(s) weren't clever enough to run with it.

_____
In case I don't see you ; good afternoon, good evening and good night!

reply

[–] steven-digby-1 16 years ago

<< Maybe someone else takes her to school, maybe she's staying over at a friend, whatever. It was avoidable and would have preserved the internal logic of the film.>>

Excellent! Why didn't I think of that?

<<...to have her being prevented from identifying her husbands disembodied corpse...>>

I think one of the points of tension in the film is that she HASN'T identified the body and we DO believe that maybe he's still alive. I actually think this works rather well. I kept asking my family, why she hadn't been asked to identify the body? And the funeral scene doesn't make any sense except that she hasn't had the closure of seeing the body. Then when we see the explosion it all makes sense, and even explains why the police took until the next day to inform her.

He's a semi-aquatic, egg-laying, mammal of action.

reply

[–] mjkoz 16 years ago

Goof or not, that was one of the most hilarious what-the-hell moments in the entire film.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GForce59 13 years ago

His head didn't look burned when it popped out of the coffin, though. (Yes, I slow-moed that to check it out. It actually looked like him.)

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Heidi_Smiles 14 years ago

Maybe someone else takes her to school, maybe she's staying over at a friend, whatever.

The interactions with her daughters in the beginning were important to the film. Besides, there would be NO way to explain how she didn't see her daughters the ENTIRE DAY when her husband died. Bridgette being "at a friend's house" - or anywhere else - would NOT have explained why Linda didn't bring her home when Jim died.

Si no puedo estar contigo, Ya no puedo estar sin ti...

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WandererFromYs (1676) 2 years ago

“ How do we know that she didn't jump straight to Thursday and not know it?”

At the beginning of the movie, the daughters wake her up and ask her when dad is returning from his trip. She is able to answer, demonstrating that she’s knows where and when she is. Every other day she is disoriented and lacking information

reply

[–] erikazboi2006 16 years ago

Dont think too much on it. its just a movie. im starting to think that they did it deliberately just to not start the movie with the b*tches face maulled.
then theyd have some explaining to do.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bdkarola 16 years ago

yes the scars aren't really a plot hole cuz they happen because she forgets to put on the stickers again...

reply

[–] CellarDoor_7 16 years ago

stickers?

WHAT?!You haven't read Twilight yet?go shoot your self!

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] justbeth82 16 years ago

They had already demonstrated that events could be altered but the ending gives viewers the impression that the husband's fate was unavoidable; a completely contrary notion. It leads people to think it was some sort of time paradox where Bullock's character had always caused the accident. It would have logically made more sense if the accident was completely independent of her interference and her presense actually changed the outcome. If there is a goof or plot hole in the movie, it's the ending.

that is the assumption I made as well , that Jim was supposed to die and her trying to stop him is what caused the accident. All her premonitions leading up to that point, included her trying to stop him, so it was meant for him to die, she really wasnt stopping it from happening, but her interfering actually caused it to happen..thats what I gathered

reply

[–] rosegoldenapple 16 years ago

she really wasnt stopping it from happening, but her interfering actually caused it to happen..thats what I gathered

that sentence is a contradiction in itself.
if he was supposed to die regardless.. then her actions didnt matter.

she wasnt present in the original accident so he was meant to die. i dont think her actions caused it to happen. she just couldnt prevent it from happenning. so it wasnt her fault that he died.

well if she really wanted to she could hav stopped it earler.. but she didnt.

reply

[–] justbeth82 16 years ago

well what Im tryin to say is that he was supposed to die..she was supposed to find out about him going away with that girl, she was supposed to follow him and call him and have him pull over, all of those events were supposed to happen, maybe if she wouldnt have followed him and called him and told him to pull over then the accident wouldnt have happened, but her premonitions led her to do this which is what life had in store for his fate, I guess is what Im tryin to say, it's hard to explain.

reply

[–] srcs 16 years ago

"there are no premonitions in the movie"

Well, technically there is one scene that could be considered a premonition.
When she is at the 220 mile marker (pre-accident) and all the little flash backs she is having.
There's one that we don't see, her running towards her husband yelling to get out of the car (can't recall if we hear the words, but we see her later on the day of the accident running the same strip).

If her goal was to save him, then she suceeded.
Yes, he died, but she saved him from ruining their marriage and marring the last thoughts she had of him to keep her going when he was gone.

reply

[–] BarryHamburger 15 years ago

I agree its definitely not a goof about the cuts.

reply

[–] NorrYtt 15 years ago

That would've been cooler - the husband was a con artist who faked his own death to run away with the blond manager. Somehow he would collect the triple life insurance policy for himself. Sandy premonitions allow her to find out about it and orchestrate events so that his death is real and she collects the insurance money. Then she slaps the blond for good measure.

reply

[–] dainty-1 15 years ago

No no no, it is not a goof - I was thinking so too, but listen the thursday she put the things on the glass door etc - it didn't happen, because she practically witnessed the accident - so a Thursday when they tell her about it couldn't exist - nothing after wednesday happened the way she saw it...

reply

[–] phishhead 15 years ago

Although not clearly displayed, I believe Thursday through Saturday are the dreams (premonitions). What I don't get, is whether these days are 'intended' to be dream-like, which would make it more plausible. You know when you dream it's confusing, and things don't happen logically like they should in reality.

Good example: the hearse showing up with the body as people are arriving for the funeral?? It would have been there either the night before, or early in the morning, way before people show up. Also the detached head rolling around, any funeral home worth a darn would have taken care of that. I don't know if that makes sense.

So, the scars not being there Thrus, could make sense, it's not reality, so not everything is what should be. She doesn't get the premonition of her daughter's scars until Sat.

My only beef is that the scars are not there Wed., which is where I would put the goof.

The premise of this movie is interesting, it's the execution. They make it too ambiguous. I know the director said she lives the days out of order, but I think is altered in a dream-like way.

reply

[–] jarilynm 12 years ago

Thanks phishhead, your explanation makes better sense to me than any other I've heard. I'm going to go with your interpretation.

While we are on the subject, one thing that still bugs me IS about the cuts on Bridgette's face: how can Sandra Bullock get dragged away and accused of having caused the cuts on her daughetr's face? The kids, especially Bridgette herself, are old enough to explain how the cuts happened. And even if adults doubted the credibility of a child (because some kids do cover up for the parents' physical abuse), the adults would at least investigate enough to find evidence of the glass door having been broken, etc.
Not that it's very important - I didn't take the movie that seriously, in fact it sounds like I enjoyed it more than most people did.

reply

[–] MademoiselleDaee 12 years ago

I also found ti strange that her mother did not know how the cuts got on the girl's face. I mean, as far as we can see from the movie it is Linda's timeline who is messed up but not everyone else's. As I read somewhere, Jim mentions to Linda later that evening that he called her mother and asks her to come over. That call was directly because of the daughter's accident so it seems strange that she doesnt know. It would make more sense to me that Linda reacts surprised at her daughter's cuts and then her mother would mention something like "but...dont you remember what happened?" I mean the girl got cut, not midswiped! She could easily say what happened to her. Heck! Why didnt the grandmother just ask her? And her youngest daughter could have backed it up as well. I guess they needed a reason to get Linda to be committed for added drama.

What do you all think?

reply

[–] abstract-sunflower 12 years ago

Her mother did know how the girl got the cuts. The reason she said, "How did Bridget get the cuts on her face?" was to illustrate to Linda why she needs to be committed. Her mother knew that Linda was there when the girl went through the glass door, and then earlier that day Linda was asking "What happened to your face?" Her mother was just showing Linda that she needed to be committed because she couldn't remember something that happened only a few days earlier. And Linda responding, "I don't KNOW what happened to her face!" was further proof of that to everyone there.

reply

[–] Flosive 11 years ago

Her mother was just showing Linda that she needed to be committed because she couldn't remember something that happened only a few days earlier. And Linda responding, "I don't KNOW what happened to her face!" was further proof of that to everyone there.

This is correct, I'd say, but they deliberately mislead the audience. The daughter's cuts when seen on the swing were a shock for us too, they came from nowhere, so when the grandmother is asking where they came from our answer is going to be the same as Bullock's, we don't know. Add to that the men entering the house to take her away, the talk of neglect and the children being in danger, and especially the tone of the grandmother's voice, we're going to assume that Bullock is being accused of causing injuries that she's too unstable to remember. I feel that's precisely what the film meant us to think, it added a sense of horror.

The trouble is when thinking back to the scene most of us (I'm assuming) still see it with that horror twist, the grandmother not knowing anything. That would be a nonsense of course, she had to know, but because there are other gaps in the film's logic (e.g. not putting stickers on the door the moment she knew it was Sunday) we automatically assume it's just another goof.

reply

[–] smerph 11 years ago

It's a goof, people. It's an awful movie and it makes no sense.
_____
In case I don't see you ; good afternoon, good evening and good night!

reply

[–] nofret-1 11 years ago

Maybe I can ask a question here. Tuesdaynight Jim cleans up the broken glass door. Wednesdaymorning he went out before nine with the girls. Linda runs through the house to the car, and when she walks through the room I don't see any broken door, everything looks allright to me. So when was the door repaired? Or do I miss something?

Also somebody in this thread said that Bridgette had no scars on wednesday, but I can't recall seeing the girls on wednesday, except from behind when Jim took them to school. Or did I miss something here too?

reply