Was there a color coding in her journal, that contained names and tallies? If so, what was the code?
(Is there any particular reason she put a scrunchie around her wrist while writing?)
What exactly did she do to Madison – got her drunk (or drugged?) and then paid a guy to take her to her room…?
And two on directorial choices:
What was the significance of the big Roman numerals on screen?
Was there any particular significance to the scene where she’s blocking an intersection, and bashes the guys car with a tire iron? We don’t know why she was slumped over the steering wheel. Seemed completely out of continuity.
I wondered that too, but from everything I could find, it appears that the ink colors didn’t mean anything. Perhaps it was just the pen that she had at the time.
It’s just something that a lot of girls and women do. My husband commented that they were a bit heavy-handed on making her very feminine, with her clothing choices, colors, etc. I think the use of the scrunchie is just more of this. (I didn’t agree that it was heavy-handed, but they did make her a feminine woman.)
She got her drunk and the paid the guy to take her to her room so that she’d think she was raped, but not to actually rape her. Someone in a reddit discussion pointed out that she very cleverly made people think she was being vicious and vengeful but she stopped short of actually hurting them. She didn’t want to stoop to their level. It was true of Madison and also the dean.
I think they were just the acts in the script. I’m not sure why the director felt the need to call out the division between the acts like that.
She was just having a moment where she let the rage out. I don’t know from your username if you’re a man or a woman, but if you’re a woman, you should be able to relate. The movie was actually quite deep and extremely relatable to everyone who’s ever been raped or molested and then gaslit by the rest of society.
I did, too, although I found it deeply disturbing.
But on the other hand: the numbers don’t begin at the beginning, they start approximately when Cassie hears that Al was no longer in England, and starts to focus on revenge. And “act 5” isn’t the roman numeral 5 (which 1-4 were) but was represented with a slash through the 4 previous I’s…a call out to the journal.
I can’t help but think how Cassie’s life would have been different if she just hadn’t seen the video. (which indicates how much the film got into my head.
I also thought the pink I/II/III/IIII were numbers originally, but now I think they are just tally marks, like in the journal. A new mark shows up when she gets to a new person on whom she takes revenge - Madison, the Dean, the lawyer, Al. I think there was another one - Ryan? I don’t know why they chose the font they did, though, because it looks more like a Roman numeral for one than a tally mark.
The script is available online. Many films post online scripts during Oscars season. The marks aren’t mentioned as far as I can tell.
I really liked the film, and I’m rooting for Carey Mulligan at the Oscars. But the video part seemed too convenient. Would Madison really have forgotten the video existed? And why would Madison give Cassie her actual old phone? Wouldn’t she just give her a thumb drive or a link to a cloud source? I realize that Madison giving the phone is more cinematic because it allows Cassie to play it right away without downloading it but that seemed odd. I also wonder if that Paris Hilton song has more staying power in the UK because I don’t think too many Americans could sing much of it spontaneously. It came out in 2006 and I doubt I’ve heard it since 2007. Small quibbles, though, in a very thought-provoking film with a fantastic lead performance!
IMHO, the least likely/most flawed element of the script is the point where Ryan catches Cassie coming out of the bar, engaged in her weekend pursuit. At they point they should have either never seen each other again; or she would have been honest and forthcoming and explained herself. Somehow, they did neither.
I’ve read other online commentary that had a real problem with the wedding denouement. I liked it, a lot. It felt so emotionally satisfying that it was almost like a happy ending.
Some people just have no sense of cinematic drama. I thought the ending was terrific, starting right with that dramatic “IIII” with the line through it – the metaphorical final act, the end of the road.
Just to add, the first time I watched this movie I had only a vague idea of what it was about and no other knowledge of it nor any particular expectations. That’s a wonderful way to see a great movie for the first time. It just blew me away. Little did I know before I saw it that Carey Mulligan would be nominated for an Oscar for her performance, and the film itself would be nominated for Best Picture. I’m rooting for both, although IMHO the Oscars have a nasty way of picking some crap instead of the most deserving nominee, especially in the Best Pictures category.
P.S.- I’m a guy, and though some regard this as some sort of “womens’ rights” movie I just see it as an excellent and powerful film, well written, well directed, and well performed.