tds@ihlpg.UUCP (Tim Sullivan) (12/26/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** I've read most of the replies to the movie Body Double and agree with most of the interpretations. HOWEVER, I do have a problem with 2 parts of the movie that seems to me to be a mistake. First of all, we have Jake following Gloria around at the mall and later to the beach. We also see the Indian following her. Gloria calls her husband from an apartment on the beach. Now if the indian is actually her husband in disguise, then how could she call him when he is hiding around the beach?? Next problem: When Jake is watching Gloria come home and sees the indian in her room apparently stealing valuables, Jakes friend who set him up in the house, who is supposed to be Glorias husband, who is actually the indian in disguise calls him on the phone to make sure that he is watching Gloria's house. But how can that be when you already see him in the house disguised as the indian? If this was confusing to read, try the movie. Did I miss something?? Was there 2 indians?? Can someone clear up this mystery for me? Thanks in advance, Tim Sullivan
rcook@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (12/27/85)
1st : The lady was talking to her lover not her husband (the Indian).
(listen to the dialogue)
2nd : The Indian is not visable (and I think not talking) when Jake
see's the "action" in the house.
Rob Cook
UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!rcook
'Life is just a cocktail party on the street'
-Mick Jagger- krantz@csd2.UUCP (Michaelntz) (12/27/85)
> Can someone clear up this mystery for me? > > Thanks in advance, > > Tim Sullivan I thought I remembered and understood Body Double pretty well, Tim, but your note makes it clear that I haven't the faintest idea what was going on. Time to see it again. Over the years I've discovered that, like his mentor Hitchcock, DePalma's films get better and better as time goes by... - Michael Krantz - - - - - "The text reveals the process of its own production."
tds@ihlpg.UUCP (Tim Sullivan) (12/27/85)
> > 1st : The lady was talking to her lover not her husband (the Indian). > (listen to the dialogue) > > 2nd : The Indian is not visable (and I think not talking) when Jake > see's the "action" in the house. > > > > Rob Cook > Well that is what I originally thought for the first point, but no where else in the movie is it implied that she has a lover I don't think. Okay, I can live with this answer. I have to disagree with you on the second part. I've seen the movie three times and Jake can see the indian in the house while he is on the phone. The indian is in the process of robbing the house and Jake has a hard time paying attention to the phone conversation because he is so busy watching the crime taking place. Even the husband on the phone asks if anything is wrong. So I think you are mistaken on your second conclusion that Jake doesn't see the indian until the conversation is over. I think it was a mistake that was left in there to intentionally mislead the viewer from suspecting the right person. Tim Sullivan
lo@harvard.UUCP (Bert S.F. Lo) (12/30/85)
In article <1504@ihlpg.UUCP>, tds@ihlpg.UUCP (Tim Sullivan) writes: > > > > 1st : The lady was talking to her lover not her husband (the Indian). > > (listen to the dialogue) > > > > 2nd : The Indian is not visible (and I think not talking) when Jake > > sees the "action" in the house. > > > > Rob Cook > > Well that is what I originally thought for the first point, but no where else > in the movie is it implied that she has a lover I don't think. Okay, I can > live with this answer. When Gloria first entered the atrium, she placed a phone call to her lover, telling him/her that "he" hit her again (we come to realize that the person who hit her was her husband, Alexander/Sam). So there was a previous reference to her lover. > I have to disagree with you on the second part. I've seen the movie three > times and Jake can see the indian in the house while he is on the phone. The > indian is in the process of robbing the house and Jake has a hard time paying > attention to the phone conversation because he is so busy watching the crime > taking place. Even the husband on the phone asks if anything is wrong. So I > think you are mistaken on your second conclusion that Jake doesn't see the > indian until the conversation is over. I think it was a mistake that was > left in there to intentionally mislead the viewer from suspecting the right > person. I've seen this movie seven times, twice in the last 2 weeks, in fact once last night and the Indian isn't visible in Gloria's house until after Jake hangs up. Jake is preoccupied watching Gloria and the policeman in her house. When he hangs up, the Indian and his drill appear. ::: :::::: ::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: :::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Bert S.F. Lo ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: lo@harvard.HARVARD.EDU ::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::: :::: :::: ::: :: ::: :::: ::: ::: :::: ::: ::: ::: :::::: :::
kato@utcsri.UUCP (John Kitamura) (12/30/85)
I'd like to point out another bit of confusion. At one point (I think
where Craig Wasson is explaining how he was set up) we get a very quick
scene where the husband puts on a pair of mirrored sunglasses and
the Indian is reflected in the lenses, implying that they are
two people. Did I miss an obvious reason for this?
J Kitamura/Univ. of Toronto
UUCP: {decvax,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,allegra,utzoo}!utcsri!kato