How did Jeanne understood so quickly the 'can 1+1 = 1?' thing?
That felt a little off to me.
shareShe'e one smart gilr
SUDBA EST!
MovieChat Forums > Incendies (2011) Discussion > How did Jeanne understood so quickly the...
It was kind of obvious.
shareit was obvious. i figured out the twist as soon as i found out she got raped. i sat through the rest of the film waiting for it to be over already. no dramatic payoff, sadly.
shareYou concluded too soon. It was only a possibility at that point.
Yes, you do suspect this ending somewhere in the third quarter of the movie, but then it is put on the backburner until the son makes that solo visit. Good screenwriting and direction made sure that your mind was off it ASAP even if you figured it out early enough.
I wasn't convinced by the scene either. To be fair, the viewer's understanding wasn't helped by the inappropriate ages of the actors (the father/older brother looking about 5 years older than the twins in subsequent scenes), but all the same it was one of those lines that only happen in the movies. I hate those kinds of lines.
shareYeah, I thought that was a problem too.
It was also just plain bizarre that since the mother had figured it all out before she died, that she didn't just explain it to them. Of course, then there wouldn't have been a movie...and I did like the movie...but, as another posted noted, you really have to willingly suspend your disbelief.
Laurie Mann
http://www.dpsinfo.com
@ Laurie, Because if she just simply told the children, how would her son know that the mother he had searched for all those years was actually "The Woman Who Sings"?
shareWhy didn't Gandalf just ride that dragon thing he used to get off the top of Isengard and fly all the way to the volcano and drop the ring in? Because the film would be 10 minutes long and *beep*
Ridiculous to question things like that in movies. Trust the narrative and allow yourself to be immersed in it.
I didn't 'willingly' have to suspend my belief. I just didn't sit and pick it apart unnecessarily. I thought it was a wonderful film and any coincidence or unlikelihood within the plot didn't change that.
Why didn't Gandalf just ride that dragon thing he used to get off the top of Isengard and fly all the way to the volcano and drop the ring in? Because the film would be 10 minutes long and *beep*Gandalf didn't do that because he was afraid that on such a solo journey, something might happen so that he might fall for the temptation of the ring; and a mighty wizard like Gandalf is too powerful an asset to fall in the hands of Sauron, that's why it had to be a nobody like Bilbo.
However, I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
https://y2u.be/VI57QHL6ge0 share
Correction: I meant "that's why it had to be a harmless nobody like Frodo".
I got those two Bagginses mixed up, ha ha.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
I think she understood because she studied "Pure Mathematics" and it has something to do with what the teacher reference in the first half of the movie when she was a teaching assistant... I am not sure but I am just guessing...
shareOk so she I a good mathematician who knows about the 1+1=1 theory... But why the hell does he know about it?
shareThere is no such thing as a "1+1=1 theory". Simon was still confused (or rather in shock) about what he had just heard, and hence he was only able to express in an abstract but for him intuitive way about what was going on in his head, namely that one father (whom he never knew) and one brother (whom he never knew) turned out to be one and the same person.
Jeanne is an intelligent young woman and easily understood her brother's metaphor (or rambling, if you will). Moreover they were twins who have been together all their lives, and also at that moment their minds were occupied with the same issues (their mother's death and her past, the search for their father and their brother), so it's only logical they would interpret things according to a similar frame of reference. Her understanding/knowledge of abstract math (or the fundamental axioms of math) only made things easier even, but wasn't really needed for her to make the right connection. (However, the math motif throughout the movie served to highlight deeper themes in the story.)
______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg
Yes, her prof said there are two sure things, First: your father is still alive.Second: You have a brother. (I went back again when you said that, it's a good hint)
shareI think what trini_14glimmer was talking about is the old man who was rambling about the elegance of Euler's Identity ( e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 ); but that mathematical equation has nothing to do with "1+1=1" either. And that man (Said Haidar) was not Jeanne's prof, but an old friend/professional acquaintance of her prof's; so you two are thinking of two very different things/scenes.
By the way, her prof (Niv Cohen) didn't say "there are two sure things:", he said "you've come to learn two things:" (as in "you just heard about two things that you didn't know before"); his point being that Jeanne had to face these new facts (instead of denying them/hiding from them), investigate their truth and deal with them, otherwise she wouldn't have the necessary peace of mind to successfully continue her life.
______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY
Shes a smart girl
Took me forever to realise what he was talking about lol
Ashmi any question
Good math, that's.
shareI still don't understand what this meant? Please help!
shareit meant that the answer to their mystery was one in the same. 1 + 1 could equal 1 because the father is the brother. that's why he said how could 1 + 1 = 2 when 1 + 1 = 1. they weren't tracking down two different people, just one person.
shareTo be fair, most viewers probably figured it out as soon as the mother got raped and pregnant in prison.
sharethis.
shareTo be fair, most viewers probably figured it out as soon as the mother got raped and pregnant in prison.Probably not, because at that point in the movie there was no substantial/logical reason to conclude with certainty that:
- Abu Tarek was related to Nawal;
- the baby that she got pregnant with in prison was not the still living lost brother that the twins were looking for.
The story could still go into several different directions* from there. It's only when Nawal gives birth in prison that it becomes irrevocably clear that she was expecting twins.
Any viewers who "figured it out" before the birth scene were merely guessing, and their guess turned out to be correct.
[*] One possible direction that the story could have taken after the rape is: Abu Tarek (the jailer) and Nihad (Nawal's son) are not the same person. Nihad grows up, marries a woman, and fathers twin babies. After her prison time, Nawal tracks them down and is reunited with her son. Shortly thereafter, Nihad's wife is killed by rebels/terrorists and Nihad is kidnapped, the twin babies are adopted by Nawal and she raises them as her own kids in Canada. In the meanwhile, the baby that Nawal gave birth to in prison (i.e. Abu Tarek's son) was taken away but secretly raised by the sympathetic female nurse.
In other words, in this possible scenario there is no incest, Nihad is the long-lost father, and Abu Tarek's son is the long-lost brother that the twins are looking for.
______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg share
Whoa! What a great alternative than this contrived twist we got stuck with!
Good call. Are you a screenwriter or want to be one?
I wish you were the one
Wish you were the one that got away...
-The Civil Wars
LOL, yeah, maybe I should try my hand at screenwriting.
However, I wouldn't say it would make the movie better. It would be a more comfortable story with a clear villain and a clear victim(s). But by separating the father-character from the brother-character, you'd lose the metaphor of a fatherland torn in war, and the main message of what war does to a country. At least, that's what this aspiring screenwriter thinks.
______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg
Dear yurenchu, What a waste you are not writing already! All the same, you are the perfect audience - your power of reasoning is just great. You'll make a damn good criminologist, too. Thanks for your comments.
shareThanks for your kind words, ivyho-1!
______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg
Come on guys! it is not so difficult. How two (2) can be the same (1). Brother plus father equals two and are the same (1)...should i explain more?
shareYes, it was that easy for a viewer, because the viewer subconsciously accepts what the screenwriter is feeding us and the director presents it to us in a logical manner, with proper storytelling pacing, editing, multiple character POVs and such. One scene earlier we were in the room with Simon and Chamseddine, during their meeting. But the question was, would Jeanne (who wasn't at that meeting) understand it that easily too?
______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg
As a daughter and member of the family , involved in their emotions, she doesnt need check "facts" she understands faster than us
shareYeah, I agree. That's basically the explanation that I already wrote in this thread seven weeks ago.
______
last listened to: Michel Fugain - Une belle histoire
http://y2u.be/qFWv3g4y2Pg
Indeed, making the story more convoluted must have been a hard choice, but it probably paid off. Civil Wars are hard to understand and often defy the logic of the outsider. But they happen. And so happened Abu Tarek.
shareProbably not, because at that point in the movie there was no substantial/logical reason to conclude with certainty that:
- Abu Tarek was related to Nawal;
- the baby that she got pregnant with in prison was not the still living lost brother that the twins were looking for.
The story could still go into several different directions* from there. It's only when Nawal gives birth in prison that it becomes irrevocably clear that she was expecting twins.
Any viewers who "figured it out" before the birth scene were merely guessing, and their guess turned out to be correct.
[*] One possible direction ...
Or, the jailer and the brother could have just been separate people. The twins were still conceived by the jailer, but their long-lost brother was a completely separate person.
Other than pure guesswork, I don't think anyone would have had reason to get the twist beforehand. They didn't show his face during the sniper scene (just his heel), so we didn't recognize him in the jail. I would venture to guess a small minority of people who watch the film for the first time will guess the outcome (that the "brother" was also the jailer/"father") before they are told/shown at the end. share