MovieChat Forums > De rouille et d'os (2012) Discussion > How exactly are the legs lost? (Spoilers...

How exactly are the legs lost? (Spoilers)


We see her in the water bleeding heavily and can assume the damage from the destroyed stage may have been so severe that her legs had to be amputated, but later in one of her dreams presumably about the accident we see the orcas toothy open mouth and so I submit that maybe we are being led to believe the whale may have taken a bite?

I have found there have been a shocking number or attacks by captive orcas and more than a few deaths in reality so this is entirely plausible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale_attacks_on_humans

I don't really want to hear from the animal rights activists here, if you really cared you would put more effort into it than pathetic guilt trips on internet boards. If it isn't worth risking your life for what you believe, you don't believe with all you are. I would simply like to hear your take on how the director wanted us to believe she lost her legs. If the animal ate them it would add a much larger dimension to her recovery and state of mind.

Truly a beautiful movie shot in a beautiful location. I will not die a happy man until I get to see France. And Spain, India, the Netherlands, and Angkor Wat.

reply

I don't think it was clear either. It seems her legs were damaged by the stage, the whale smelled blood in the water then...

*´¨)
¸.·´¸.·*´¨) ¸.·*¨)
(¸.·´ (¸.·´ Director of Chaos, Whimsy & Euphoria

reply

that was my take, as well. the legs were initially attached and whole as she is floating in the water, she ends up with amputations, and we see the dream of the whale teeth.

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

orcas can do both tricks and bites quite well. they aren't mutually exclusive.

reply

I wondered too. FYI - very interesting documentary called "Blackfish" that follows the life of one particular Orca that killed 4 people over the course of 40 years. Seaworld suppressed that he was still active in shows until his final killing in 2004 (I think that was the year). It also shows a couple other whales that belong to Seaworld that were loaned/used in other shows which killed a couple of trainers. It's very interesting whether a person is an animal rights activist or not. It blew my mind that it could go on as long as it did without anyone realizing it. But I guess because the killings were spread across decades...

reply

A lot of people do a lot more than talk on message boards about these issues. Not sure where your hostility is coming from.

As for it making a difference, it didn't seem to bother her enough to stay away from the whales. I thought the scene of her going back to visit - doesn't matter whether it was THE whale or one of the others - and "petting" the whale to be the most moving of the entire film.






Rachel

reply

I thought the scene of her going back to visit - doesn't matter whether it was THE whale or one of the others - and "petting" the whale to be the most moving of the entire film.


It totally was and it made me cry.

reply

I didn't read that at all. My take was that she suffered severe damage to her legs from the whale hitting it followed by heavy steel and concrete collapsing on it, and the legs had to be amputated due to the extent of the damage. Once you get irreversible tissue death started there's no going back.

reply

In the book, the trainer is injured by the whale while performing with the Orca in the water. My assumption from that is that the whale attacked her after she was injured.

reply

[deleted]

My take was she injured her her legs on the stage, the whale smelt the blood and started biting them.

reply