Unseen ending of "The Entire History of You ' - Black Mirror (2011) Discussion

If it's still clear, then why is it interesting that they left it out?

http://twitter.com/solmaquina

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Because usually pivotal endings are not left out.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

Perhaps that's indication the ending is meant to be ambiguous? She could also simply have left him. It works either way.

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

She could also simply have left him.

Nothing in her last scene, or his last scene, indicates that is a valid assumption.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] thebigmouth 9 years ago

Nothing in her last scene, or his last scene, indicates that is a valid assumption.

Did I miss something? Aside from her absence, what indicates that it's valid to assume he killed her?

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Aside from her absence, what indicates that it's valid to assume he killed her?

Before the viewing, he almost killed the guy and that was just for the memory tapes.

During, she did nothing to indicate she would leave.

After, he was remorseful, or at least sad, a stage that comes after anger.

Add it up, it's the ultimate example that these tapes would fail, what the episode is about.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] thebigmouth 9 years ago

To me, the fact he failed to kill the guy who cheated with his wife actually undercuts your inference. Not only does it hint he may be incapable of the ultimate act, it raises the obvious question of why he isn't arrested for his wife’s murder despite being an obvious suspect.

His wife's failure to indicate she would leave him is irrelevant. I don’t need some on-the-nose dialog like “I’m leaving you” to infer that’s what happened. Divorce is a perfectly plausible response to being assaulted and accused of cuckholding. And it’s not like he ever indicates he’s going to kill her either.

As for his sadness and remorse, he could just as plausibly be torn up over destroying his relationship with the woman he loved in a jealous rage. Happens every day.

Ultimately, the real problem with your interpretation is the point you've alluded to yourself. If murder were so clearly the intent, what's to be gained by not showing the act itself? To me, the more plausible interpretation is they wished to tease the possibility but leave it ambiguous.

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

it raises the obvious question of why he isn't arrested for his wife’s murder despite being an obvious suspect.

The obvious answer is it just happened, and she is still in the bedroom.

I don’t need some on-the-nose dialog like “I’m leaving you” to infer that’s what happened.

I don't need a murder victim to infer that's what happened.

As for his sadness and remorse, he could just as plausibly be torn up over destroying his relationship with the woman he loved.

That's only plausible if he didn't catch her, and watch her, cheating and lying.

what's to be gained by not showing the act itself? To me, the more plausible interpretation is they wished to tease the possibility but leave it ambiguous.

Or, no need to show it because it was obvious. It is a dramatic element that, although an answer was expected, we never got one.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] thebigmouth 9 years ago

The obvious answer is it just happened, and she is still in the bedroom.

Obviously not since her favorite picture is gone and there are unwashed pots in the previously neat kitchen.

I don't need a murder victim to infer that's what happened.

For sure. And to be clear, I'm not saying that inference is unreasonable. I'm saying both possibilities are plausible, which is why it's ambiguous.

That's only plausible if he didn't catch her, and watch her, cheating and lying.

I don't follow you. People catch each other in the act of cheating and lying all the time without committing murder.

Or, no need to show it because it was obvious. It is a dramatic element that, although an answer was expected, we never got one.

Like you yourself said, "usually pivotal endings are not left out." If her murder were the big twist, it would be odd they didn't show her dead body at the very least. Contrast this ending with "Be Right Back," which resolved the ambiguity... unlike here.

Personally, I think they left it ambiguous because it's ultimately irrelevant whether she died or divorced him. The story is about the destructive effect the implant has on peoples' lives and relationships.

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

People catch each other in the act of cheating and lying all the time without committing murder.

This isn't just catching, it's seeing and hearing something saved, by someone who has already exhibited violence against someone far less guilty.

The story is about the destructive effect the implant has on peoples' lives and relationships.

Nothing more destructive to someones life then murder.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] thebigmouth 9 years ago

None of which proves anything, let alone "clearly" like you've been claiming.

You're certainly entitled to your preference about which ending is better. Personally, however, I'm not persuaded, especially since you still don't have good answers to some fairly obvious problems with your interpretation pointed out by myself and others.

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

None of which proves anything

Not if you don't take the characters history into account.

you still don't have good answers

All I've done is reply with "good answers".

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] thebigmouth 9 years ago

All I've done is reply with "good answers".

If you say so... but you don't seem to be persuading many people.

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Generally it's the ones that disagree who post.

And I've refuted all your posts, so....

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] thebigmouth 9 years ago

If you say so... lol.

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

I don't have to say so, anyone can read my replies to each of your posts, include the last one which had no further objections.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] CountJonnie 9 years ago

Geez, IMDB is too smal for your ego.

----
Suggestions?

reply

[–] danzig138-668-939218 9 years ago

And I've refuted all your posts,

You didn't refute anything, you jackass.

-----
WORDS MEAN THINGS! Also, before you come to bitch about a plot hole, rewatch the show/movie.

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Thanks for also proving my point, you only reply to posts about me.



http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] qazzie3 9 years ago

jesus christ, 9 years of imdb and I've never seen anyone being remotely as stupid as the OP. Do you have downsyndrome?

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] viamber 8 years ago

I kinda agree. Maybe that's why he took the memory chip out...so he can "forget" what he did, what she did, the past, etc.???

reply

[–] Starwarsfan777 9 years ago

e could just as plausibly be torn up over destroying his relationship with the woman he loved

What? She cheated on him. She destroyed their relationship.

reply

[–] raf-33 8 years ago

Nothing in her last scene, or his last scene, indicates that is a valid assumption.

Yes it does, his home is a mess, he is single and doesn't groom himself or his home. It's more valid than the utter lack of any bodies so I'm not sure you understand how assumptions work.

Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. -Isaac Asimov

reply

[–] submachine 8 years ago

his home is a mess, he is single and doesn't groom himself or his home.

And?

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] anthonylchamberlain 9 years ago

In the show they let her go and they found her drugged on the street.

But who was the person hanging above the chair by the TV (dead)?

reply

[–] anthonylchamberlain 9 years ago

Sorry, I thought this was discusscion about the prime minister and the pig.

reply

[–] jprahn01 9 years ago

I don't see this at all.

After their last scene together, there's a lengthy black screen then a fade-in. This generally represents a not-insignificant passage of time. Plus, the house looks very different inside. It looks like she's moved out and he's living a miserable bachelor's life.

Aside from concrete details, however, consider the storytelling angle: is the story "better" if we think her dead body is lying in another room, unseen? To me, the story makes its point and is suitably grim without the need for a murder -- it just adds nothing whatsoever.

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

there's a lengthy black screen then a fade-in. This generally represents a not-insignificant passage of time.

Only if there are obvious differences between the before and after scenes, and in this case:

the house looks very different inside.

What exactly is different? The house looks the same, and he looks the same. The fact that nothing is obviously different (like he grew a beard, hair style change, weather change etc) is more evidence that it wasn't a significant passage of time.

is the story "better" if we think her dead body is lying in another room, unseen?.

It is more true to the character, and also its the perfect exclamation point on the entire theme of the episode. I think the only reason they didn't show it is because it was deemed "too grim" for viewers like you.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] jprahn01 9 years ago

What exactly is different?

Much of the furniture is missing, for one thing. Look in the living room and the bedroom. The lighting has also changed, which to me communicates a sense of 'this is now a different space and time.'

It is more true to the character

I don't think that's true. He had means, motive and opportunity to kill the guy who F'ed his wife and possibly fathered his child -- and he was sufficiently drunk to be uninhibited -- and he still didn't. Later, when sober-ish, he was positively horrified by his actions. This indicates to me that he doesn't have it in him to kill someone. That, to me, was the climax of the episode; the bedroom scene with his wife and the last scene was the denouement.

its the perfect exclamation point on the entire theme of the episode

From my point of view, the theme of the episode is that a technology which you would imagine being incredibly beneficial could ironically be quite destructive, especially to human relationships. And that theme is more than sufficiently exclaimed without a dead body.

The story is complete and whole if we imagine her out in the world, making and recording new memories, with him yanking out his seed and trying desperately to forget his organic memories.

I think the only reason they didn't show it is because it was deemed "too grim" for viewers like you.

As a horror aficionado, there's nothing really too grim for me. Also, the snide tone is really unnecessary. I'm respectfully disagreeing with your reading of this text. It's nothing personal.

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Much of the furniture is missing, for one thing. Look in the living room and the bedroom.

They showed the bedroom after? Isn't that where they both were watching the video?

This indicates to me that he doesn't have it in him to kill someone

.

He barged into the guys house and physically assaulted him, any remorse was more likely about getting caught. It's completely clear he is a man who acts on his emotions, and we know very clearly that last video was the strongest emotion he ever felt. It's only natural for the characters reaction to be equally as strong.

And that theme is more than sufficiently exclaimed without a dead body.

Not sure why, the whole episode is about extremes, as in given the technology, what is the absolute worse-case scenario. The cheaters murder would be the most fitting ending.

the snide tone is really unnecessary.

Wasn't being snide. I meant the only reason they didn't show it was because, for some people, it would remove sympathy for the main character.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] jprahn01 9 years ago

They showed the bedroom after? Isn't that where they both were watching the video?

Yes, they showed the bedroom. Pretty much everything is missing except the bed. The living room looks like about half the furniture and decor is gone. Basically, it seems to be a depressing bachelor pad now. So unless he killed her AND decided to pack everything away to storage immediately thereafter, then the implication is that she's left and taken most everything with her. Which makes more sense?

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Yes, they showed the bedroom. Pretty much everything is missing except the bed.

But they didn't show all of it, to erase any doubts that her body was in there. But if it was changed as you said, it seems time has passed, likely he didn't kill her, meaning they omitted the breakup because it was both unrealistic and unsatisfying. My endings better 

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] thebigmouth 9 years ago

But they didn't show all of it, to erase any doubts that her body was in there.

Oh, so you mean they left it ambiguous?

TV: http://ihatemydvr.blogspot.com
LOST:http://eyemsick.blogspot.com

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

They didn't want a blatant ending, but clues are there for those who can decipher them.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] jprahn01 9 years ago

Clues such as everything missing from the bedroom save the bed, along with roughly half the furniture and decor from the living space? I interpret that to mean that she moved out and took what was hers and some time has now passed. Your alternative just doesn't seem terribly logical. Do you kill someone, then put all their stuff in storage? Pile it into the garage? Why?

Show me a clue that points to his having killed her.

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Do you kill someone, then put all their stuff in storage? Pile it into the garage? Why?

The same reason you'd remove a memory seed with all their videos.

Show me a clue that points to his having killed her.

It fits his character. And hers, that she wouldn't leave.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] rowox 9 years ago

I think it's clear she took the baby and all her stuff (including the painting) and moved out.

reply

[–] aardvarkspark 9 years ago

Yeah, that is definitely why he's watching the three seconds of footage of his baby over and over again; because she left with the baby and he is replaying a happy memory of when his family was still together.

If he'd killed her, what would he have done with the baby? That's too big of a plot thread to just ignore; did he kill the child too? There's no way to infer that ANY of that happened.
What we're presented is several cuts from one happy scene with her to an unhappy scene without her, each with a different color scheme to denote a change of time or a change of mood. What we're meant to take away from that edit is that she's gone and everything in the house still reminds him of her.
Because of the technology, he can watch her over and over again - which makes me wonder if he wouldn't just replay their whirlwind romance from start to finish. I think that's a choice I would have definitely considered as a writer, but obviously removing the grain is symbolically and visually much more powerful.
If there was a drastic action, such as murder, I'm sure he would be feeling more remorse or guilt (like he did after the car crash) for what he did there, rather than the kind of lifeless, meaningless meandering he does now.

reply

[–] KingPretz 9 years ago

Lol. Having read this entire thread, I'm n the same place I was after watching the episode. She has taken her stuff and left him. None of the arguments in favor of him having killed her work for me. They also seem like a fairly shallow interpretation.

She has left, with their baby. He is infinitely depressed that he ruined what, in spite of her infidelity, was a good relationship with a wife who truly loved him. The beginning of the episode, when he meets with his employers, serves only to illustrate that his downfall would be his tendency to over analyze everything. (Although, seeing the concrete proof of the infidelity would be a hard pill to swallow, for sure.)

reply

[–] Rat_27 8 years ago

Keep in mind that the baby is Jonas's ... I don't think she exactly "moved" out.

reply

[–] skane110-1 9 years ago

No, I totally disagree as other people on here. It's painfully obvious that he did NOT kill his wife and I also agree that you haven't properly explained why you feel that way. This is why I disagree:

1. When walking through the house, it's disheveled and things are missing like the painting, and a bunch of furniture. They clearly show that his memories of the house and what it looks like currently are completely different. He's obviously been living in the house without his wife and child for awhile, at least a couple of months. It makes no sense at all that he would kill his wife, get rid of a bunch of furniture and then make a huge mess everywhere. He also looks messed up himself like he hasn't slept in days, or showered.

2. When he removes the memory implant from behind his ear, he does it slowly and methodically, like he's thought about this for awhile and has decided that being able to remember his wife so vividly is just too painful. If he had killed her, he probably would have removed the implant right afterwards, not waited months later.

3. At the end we see that the reason why he's so upset is all of the happy memories that he shared with his wife in the house, he re-watched memories of her sitting in the living room (on a couch that is no longer there in the present), and walking up the stairs, etc. If he killed her then, those wouldn't be the only memories that are destroying him but, also the memory of killing her. If she is dead then, it doesn't make sense that we wouldn't be shown that. It would have actually made the episode way more disturbing if, after seeing his happy memories, we're suddenly shown him killing her from his point of view, or at least showing their last big argument that led to the murder. Remembering the good times is the hardest part of a break-up or divorce. If he killed her then, the murder itself would be the hardest thing for him to re-live.

4. As others have mentioned already, he is not in jail. Again it's obviously been awhile, and if she's dead then the police definitely would have found out about it and arrested him, especially in a world where you can see another person's memories. Even if they didn't have that evidence, he's the husband, and they have witnesses to say that he showed up at her ex-boyfriends house and threatened him, and made him erase all memories of her, that's obviously motive. If he killed her then, the only way that makes sense is if he did so, possibly killed the child also, and then continued to live in the house for awhile afterwards without anyone knowing what he did yet. I don't get that impression at all, What I saw was a man who lost his family due to his insane jealousy and rage issues.

I can't even think of one single reason why it would make sense that he killed her, not one. I also don't agree that the ending is ambiguous, I don't think it's open to interpretation, i think it's a fact that they're divorced now and that's it.

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

If he killed her then, those wouldn't be the only memories that are destroying him but, also the memory of killing her. If she is dead then, it doesn't make sense that we wouldn't be shown that.

Maybe they did film that, then decided against showing it. It was certainly expected. It "makes sense" if the goal is to create mystery.

It would have actually made the episode way more disturbing if, after seeing his happy memories, we're suddenly shown him killing her from his point of view

There, you just gave an example of why they would edit that scene out.

I can't even think of one single reason why it would make sense that he killed her,

Because according to him, she deserved it, so he was willing. And we already know he is capable of acting out his emotions, so he was able.

Also, we know she was the one who wanted to stay with him, she was the one who felt guilt over destroying their relationship. And if the baby was not his, as he questioned, he could have rage-killed that baby as well. Which is even more reason to keep things ambiguous, yet by implication making the ending that much more powerful. .

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] rowox 9 years ago

Wow, you only chose three of Skane's points to argue, what about the rest of them? Is it not obvious to you that your OP is patently wrong?

Maybe this will convince you:
(copy and pasted from the screenplay)

BLACK MIRROR - The Entire History Of You - 65.

There’s a discarded top of Ffion’s -- maybe the top she was wearing in the last scene. It’s been forgotten during her packing. Liam picks it up. He holds it to his face and smells it, trying to remember her, as he clicks his remote to see...

If you love the Very Hungry Caterpillar and are proud of it copy this and make it your signature

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

(copy and pasted from the screenplay)

lol. source?

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] rowox 9 years ago

The UK DVD has the screenplays in ROM form. Lol.

If you love the Very Hungry Caterpillar and are proud of it copy this and make it your signature

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Nice try, but no source.

Before sadness there is anger, making his prior display of anger look like nothing in comparison. True to his character, he would have killed her. If not, it's a flaw in the script.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] CountJonnie 9 years ago

No, it's a flaw in your trolling.

----
Suggestions?

reply

[–] AngelGG 9 years ago

OP is definitely trolling. Could only read three pages of this rubbish topic and gave up reading any more. No matter what replied from anyone else, if it doesn't agree with the OP's point of view, he gets immediately aggressive and insults the person in reply.

Classic textbook sociopathy. Don't feed the troll.

Oh, and they broke up, he wanted to forget the memories, the OP is making up a murder out of thin air when there wasn't one, and attacking others who don't agree with him.

reply

[–] SpinningPlatesTrick 9 years ago

I'd just like to add my voice to the chorus of disagreement here. The OP is an idiot. Their posts are 100% conjecture and fantasy, as many other people have since proven.

reply

[–] nny1980 8 years ago

Page 65 http://www.zen134237.zen.co.uk/Black_Mirror/Black_Mirror_1x02_-_The_Entire_History_Of_You.pdf

reply

[–] ksperrye 9 years ago

My Reply to the poster whom I've quoted below for the sake of clarity (as there are other replies above mine in the thread which destroys the visual continuity):

NICE. Swept away all the imaginings of the OP with ONE, indisputable Quote ....from the source.

I wish I could attach a sound effect clip, lol.

By User: < rowox >
on » Tue Jan 13 2015 at 19:46:36

From The Script of "BLACK MIRROR - The Entire History Of You" :

65. There’s a discarded top of Ffion’s -- maybe the top she was wearing in the last scene. IT'S BEEN FORGOTTEN DURING HER PACKING. Liam picks it up. He holds it to his face and smells it, trying to remember her, as he clicks his remote to see."

reply

[–] rowox 9 years ago

If you liked that, I also quoted someone else further down this thread. The OP actually said this on another board:

If one definition of stupid is keeping to the same opinion despite receiving conflicting information, then one may consider Martyrs an intelligence test

If you love the Very Hungry Caterpillar and are proud of it copy this and make it your signature

reply

[–] ksperrye 9 years ago

@rowox

You're definitely up by 2....

Excellent handling: clear, concise, indisputable, and free of ad-hominem attacks (which only highlight the weakness of that person's argument).

One rarely sees this (level of intelligence) anymore, whether on IMDb or elsewhere, and it's both refreshing and reassuring.

Bravo!

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] skane110-1 9 years ago

Maybe they did film that, then decided against showing it. It was certainly expected. It "makes sense" if the goal is to create mystery.

Why did you put "makes sense" in quotations? lol, that doesn't make sense. Anyways, the answer that they maybe filmed her murder and didn't show it is a stupid answer. The real answer is they never filmed her murder because her character isn't dead, DUH.

There, you just gave an example of why they would edit that scene out.

Uh no, the show is supposed to be disturbing so, if she's dead, they would show us that or at least give us evidence that she's dead but, there is not one single shred of evidence to suggest that, not one.

Because according to him, she deserved it, so he was willing. And we already know he is capable of acting out his emotions, so he was able.

Also, we know she was the one who wanted to stay with him, she was the one who felt guilt over destroying their relationship. And if the baby was not his, as he questioned, he could have rage-killed that baby as well. Which is even more reason to keep things ambiguous, yet by implication making the ending that much more powerful. .

What I meant and you clearly didn't understand (what a surprise) is that there is not one reason to believe that he killed her from what we can see from the ending. If you think that his personality is a reason then, I completely disagree. Just because he got mad and jealous isn't a good enough reason to believe that he killed her. People get upset and angry over being cheated on, that's a normal reaction. That doesn't mean that they're going to kill their wife and an innocent little baby. And yes, the wife seemed like she wanted to stay in her marriage, and she seemed very sorry but, after everything her husband did, it totally makes sense that she would get the hell out of there. That was the final straw for her, and her guilt would make it even harder to stay with him, it wouldn't make her stay, there would be way too much tension and anger after all that and the husband will never trust her again. No one is saying that it would have been easy for the wife to leave him, especially with a small child but, that's exactly what happened. Also, the episode doesn't need any mystery or ambiguity to be powerful, and like I said, there is no reason to think she's dead, not even a subtle one. The episode said what it wanted to say with the ACTUAL ending of the wife being gone (and very much alive) with the kid (who is also still alive).

I also must say that you clearly either weren't paying attention to the episode at all, or you have some serious comprehension problems. Me and other people on here have brought up ample reasons why it's obvious that the wife is just gone and still alive somewhere. You have not made your case at all and I try not to be rude but, goddamn, you're just a dumb person, lol. You're a straight-up moron and I will leave you with that.

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

Why did you put "makes sense" in quotations?

I was quoting someone, dummy.

the wife seemed like she wanted to stay

Thanks for proving my point.

She "seemed like" she wanted to stay. He "seemed like" he was willing and able to kill her.

The reason they didn't show the murder is to create ambiguity, sympathy, because it would too overwhelming for some (like you) etc.

The reason they wouldn't show her leave, is because they couldn't. It would betray both characters motivations.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] KingPretz 9 years ago

Lol. Apparently they made the ending so ambiguous that only one viewer would really get it. Not only that, but it is so ambiguous that every other person who saw it would argue vehemently that the one person enlightened enough to get it is wrong.

Too funny, watching you endlessly argue against valid points, and acting like everyone else is just too dumb to get it. I've re-watched the episode with a few other people, and am now even more convinced that the wife is still alive, and has just left him. And with no leading questions whatsoever, none of my friends even suggested that he might have killed her.

Lastly, it seems like this would be pretty easy to clarify, if the screenplay is on the UK DVD. But maybe the writer didn't even actually truly get it?

reply

[–] submachine 9 years ago

acting like everyone else is just too dumb to get it.

Like I don't have experience with dummies? LOL

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1029234/board/inline/188235766

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246578/board/inline/230716142

But it's generally the ones who agree don't bother posting, just lurking and laughing. At you 

Given all the information about the characters, she wouldn't have left, and he would have killed her. Anyone who understands the characters understands that, thus no need to show it,. Anyone who understands basic psychology knows before sadness, there is anger. He killed her, and he was glad to be rid of the cheating c u n t. What made him sad are the memories that he believed and felt were real, thus giving him the strongest motivation for getting rid of those memories.. It's high praise for the writer for creating such convincing characters.

That we didn't see her leave is just more evidence they could not film that scene without clearly and blatantly betraying the characters they have given us, thus ruining the entire episode.

http://TheMovieGoer.com

reply

[–] rowox 9 years ago

Something you wrote on another page:

If one definition of stupid is keeping to the same opinion despite receiving conflicting information, then one may consider Martyrs an intelligence test

Hilarious!

If you love the Very Hungry Caterpillar and are proud of it copy this and make it your signature

reply

[–] spaniardguitarist 9 years ago

Why did the wife even cheat on the husband? and who was Dan?

reply

[–] FelaAKuti 9 years ago

They had a fight. He left for days, she got drunk and hooked up with an ex.

I dont believe she was murdered.

reply

[–] SdZoppUZsZZ33 9 years ago

No, it's not necessary for him to have killed her.

reply

[–] lockboy84 9 years ago

Until I saw this thread it didn't even cross my mind that he killed her and I gotta say, after reading it, I still think she just up and left.

reply

[–] timothy-jan-atkins 9 years ago

Yea of course she wasn't murdered. The giveaway is that the baby and her stuff is gone and its just him replaying memories they had together. Its preposterous to think he would kill her.

reply

[–] shauna-mark 9 years ago

Yep, makes no sense at all that after making us watch him psychologically torture her for 49 minutes to (accidentally) uncover one old indiscretion caused by HIM walking out in a jealous fit, the ending would be HER murder. The tragedy for him is he's basically proven (by seeing Jonas's dated files) that she's NOT having an affair, but learned about this once-off that his personality won't allow him to understand or forgive. He's also done it to her in such a horrible manner that she'd leave him anyway, as she clearly has. No murder here, he's wrecked his family and is left with the miserable personal consequences, simple as that ...

reply

[–] luxerus 9 years ago

Why do you say that he wrecked the family? Cheating is alright according to you, as long as you only do it once? There was the whole way she was talking to Jonas, the way she was treating him. Plus she lied to the main character many times. How could he ever trust her? She ruined the relationship; it's normal to feel depressed and conflicted once he thinks about his old relationship and mostly about the good moments (that's nostalgia). But to her, Jonas was more important than the relationship.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]