I don’t think that’s a “theory” – I think it comes as close to being explicitly stated as anything in the movie; it’s my version of “taking it at face value.” They know EXACTLY how Cole’s mission will come out: he’ll succeed in identifying the carrier, but fail to get the sample. She’s there to insure that they get it.
As others have said; if the science cabal’s intentions aren’t what they claim, the rest of their actions make no sense.
But, again, I’d argue the movie does explicitly imply that: “I am simply trying to gather information to help the people in the present trace the path of the virus … That’s my mission. I just have to locate them, because they have the virus in its pure form, before it mutates. When I locate them, they’ll send a scientist back here; that scientist will study the virus, and then, when he goes back to the present, he and the rest of the scientists will make a cure.”
Granted, that’s not a slam-dunk proof – but they can’t do much better at implying that one of them is there right then for that exact reason, can they? Cole just puts it out there, as if it’s mere exposition about what’ll happen if things goes according to plan; and then Hey She’s Right There Right Then For Some Reason.
As I’ve said before, better than the movie 12 Monkeys or the TV series of that name is the 1962 short French film La Jetée, which the movie is based on:
In the documentary about making the movie, it is shared that the film was originally to end with the scene in the airport wherein Cole sees himself die. The movie execs didn’t like that ending, because they felt that it was ambiguous. So, they asked for a different one - one that wrapped up all of the details. Terry Gilliam resisted this at first, because he thought that the ending - the fate of the world - wasn’t as important as Cole & Cole’s journey. Ending the film in the airport wrapped up Cole’s journey.
But, eventually, he agreed to add a little more on the end, including the bit with the scientist on the airplane.
Seeing, however, that there is no agreement as to the meaning of the ending… Maybe Terry got his way after all. I’m sure that if he were reading all of this he would be pleased.
Kind of silly of him, really. Yes, tell your story of a single man’s life against that backdrop, and tell that story well, but when the fate of the world is at stake, people are going to care about that, too. No matter what emotional connection we might have to an individual character, we also have an emotional connection to the world. After all, that’s where we keep all our stuff.
The idea that she really was an insurance agent who just happened to be sitting there makes no sense since it’s 40 years in the past. Since she’s clearly at least 40 years old on the plane, does she seem 80+ in the future scenes?
This movie is a special one for me. When it first came out, I saw it in a theater. I was crushed that it had a sad ending. Then, years later, I’d forgotten the details of the plot and watched the movie again - and, once again, was crushed at the ending.
Then, reading about the film here on Straight Dope, again, a few years later, I saw comments written by people who were discussing the fact that the film ended happily. I bought it on DVD and decided that this time I was going to catch every detail & again, for the third time, was crushed by the end. I threw the stupid thing across the room, cursing my stupidity at having watched it - yet again - and daring to hope for humanity’s salvation.
I was actually given the film on a bluray disk… and watched the “Hamster Factor” documentary… and, eventually, rewatched the film yet again… and I finally saw the happy ending. I finally understood. It’s brilliant.
I am very happy to have spent the time to really get into this film. I’ve seen all of Gilliam’s films… and this one is probably my favorite one to date. And, it’s all thanks to you lot. So, Thanks!
I wish I had seen it in the theater. But the ads for it at the time made it look like a big pile of stupid served with idiot sauce. I only saw it, years later, because I was visiting a friend and he was watching it. I guess it’s tough to advertise “brilliant time-travel movie that does a remarkably detailed job of holding together”.
I would agree. Except we don’t have any evidence that they knew about the airport shooting or that it was Cole being shot any more than they knew the true source of the virus wasn’t Brad Pitt and his 12 Monkeys.
They were very clear that Cole wouldn’t be able to change the past. IIRC, the intent was always to obtain samples of the original virus so they could fashion a cure.
Presumably the “insurance” lady was there to collect the samples.
Clearly it is a film from another age where there can be a shooting in an airport and all the planes take off on time.
It’s brilliant, in my opinion, because it is so very understated. Most plot points in most movies hit you right over the head. This is a movie which turns on the smallest details. It took me four times through before I finally put the pieces together. So, it rewards repeated viewings, and that’s a thing that is rare.
It’s happy because the plan is able to move forward. The scientist is able to get a sample. Cole’s struggle is not in vain.
You might want to think of it as a “glimmer of hope” ending, rather than “happy”, per se. I mean, yeah, there’s still a society-destroying plague being released, but at least there’s a good chance to cure it now.
There’s another possibility: Maybe James Cole really was insane. He wasn’t a time traveler. He was just a regular guy who had delusions he was a time traveler. All of the scenes of him in the future were just his delusions.
It’s not impossible. Characters who visualize their delusions like this are a regular theme in Gilliam movies. And there’s lots of foreshadowing in the script pointing in this direction. There was the scene where the other patient describes his mental illness and it’s what I’ve just described: somebody thinking they’re living in a separate reality. There’s the fact that early in the movie, Cole is remembering the airport and he sees Jeffrey Goines as the shooter - this indicates Cole’s memories are not necessarily real. There are several lines in the movie that support the idea that the future in the movie is a delusion.
So the final scene was the proof of all this. That woman that Cole had been imagining was a scientist from the future? She was just a random person - an insurance agent - that he saw in the airport and incorporated into his delusion.
I mentioned this theory before and people have argued against it. They argue there’s proof in the movie that Cole was a time traveler. But the proof is pretty thin. Okay, Cole had an old bullet in his leg - that doesn’t prove he was in WWI. And the photo from WWI isn’t overwhelming proof - is it really Cole or just somebody who happens to resemble him in a poor quality photo? Or his knowing that the missing kid would be found - that’s not an overwhelmingly improbable thing to just guess. Or Jose showing up at the airport - except nobody other than Cole encounters Jose so we have no proof that Jose is real.
I’m not sure I understand: when you say you think she could’ve just been someone he “saw in the airport and incorporated into his delusion”, do you mean that he saw her in the airport when he was a kid? Or that he saw her in the airport the day he got killed, when he was a grown man in his forties?
The biggest argument against this is the few minutes at the end of the film following Cole’s death. Whether he was lucid or delusional… it no longer matters. He’s dead. The virus guy continues being the virus guy. He’s got no innocent explanation.
Cole has 3 realities. 1) The insane asylum. 2) The post-virus future 3) The present day outside the asylum.
Cole doubts the objective fact of all of these locations. We are supposed to doubt all of them as well. And, had the studio not pushed Gilliam into those last few scenes, I think any scenario would’ve been possible. But, as it turned out, we are handed the objective facts that Cole lacked.
I’m opposed to any “it was all in his head” explanation, not because of the evidence, but because it’s a cop-out. Any movie at all can be explained as the delusions or hallucinations of a madman. And then of course there’s the matter that of course none of it is real, because it’s all a movie. If we’re willing to discuss the fictitious world of a movie anyway, why not also discuss the fictitious world of the delusions of a fictitious madman? And if we’re discussing that world, why bother to posit the madman at all?
If the theory that all the memories of the future are just delusions of James Cole is correct, that would mean that 12 Monkeys has a wildly different point than La Jetée. I don’t see any way to interpret La Jetée to say that the scenes in the future are delusions of the main character. Incidentally, you can watch La Jetée (which is 28 minutes long) on YouTube. Of course, Terry Gilliam hadn’t even watched La Jetée before making 12 Monkeys. The screenwriters had, but he didn’t. I know that because I asked him. There was a preview of 12 Monkeys a week or so before it opened in most theaters put on by a group here (in Washington, D.C.) that would do previews a few times a year. They would get someone involved with the movie to introduce it and answer questions afterwards. (The preview cost about twice what it cost to see the film in its regular showings.) The group got Terry Gilliam to come for that preview. In the question period afterwards, I said that I liked 12 Monkeys but didn’t think it was as good as La Jetée. Gilliam said that he hadn’t seen La Jetée. In a video I just looked at on YouTube that was clearly shot years after 12 Monkeys came out, Gilliam praises La Jetée in a way that implies he has since seen it.