I thought that the survivors of the plague had an immunity but needed the pure virus to develop a vaccine against mutated versions? Or am I misremembering?
Just watched it again, courtesy of YouTube.
Guard: Excuse me, sir. Would you mind letting me have a look at the contents of your bag, please.
Peters: Me? [Guard lifts one glass vial from Peters’ bag, begins fiddling with it] Biological samples. I have the papers right here.
Guard: I’m going to have to ask you to open this up, sir.
Peters: Open it? Why, yes, of course. [takes vial] See? Biological, check the papers. [guard flips through paperwork] It’s all proper. Permit. [pops open vial with a faint wince, then smiles and reaches for inner test tube]
Guard: It’s empty.
Peters: Well, yes, to be sure, it looks empty, but… I assure you it’s not. [Guard takes second vial from bag, begins shaking it] There, you see, also invisible to the naked eye. [look around briefly, opens test tube] It doesn’t even have an odor. [holds open test tube under guard’s nose]
Guard: [chuckling] That’s not necessary, sir. [puts bag back together] There you go, thank you for you cooperation. Have a good flight.
Peters: [recaps test tube] Yeah. [looks around again]
The scene is full of pauses and dramatic musical stings that a mere transcript doesn’t really capture the feel of it. I get the impression Peters wasn’t expecting to start spreading the pathogen in that city, and may even have harbored some hesitation about doing it at all, but then went for it, past the point of no return.
And looking at the final interaction, I figure the woman is indeed there to “insure” collection of an original sample. I don’t think it’s ever really made clear why this is important, but whatever.
Considering that they still live underground in quarantine, I doubt that anyone is immune.
Actually, on further reflection, one of the minor tie-ins was that the pathogen had spread to a specific list of cities that coincided with Peters’ itinerary. Actually, if Patient Zero was a guy who worked security at a departure gate (assuming Peters himself doesn’t deserve that title), he’d be unknowingly spreading the disease to thousands of people heading for dozens of cities until he himself started showing symptoms.
I agree with the theory that Cole had collected enough information to identify a time and location where the pre-plague virus would be - in the hands of David Morse in that airport at that specific time. With this information, the scientists from the future were able to send Dr. Jones to that time and place to 1. stop him; or failing that, 2. get an unmutated sample of the virus.
Before Cole’s adventure, those in the future didn’t know who or where the virus had come from. He was able to trace it to Dr. Peters. That information lets the scientists from the future get closer to their goal.
This interpretation implies that eventually the people from the future will be successful. If Jones fails, they can send somebody else back with the knowledge Jones had gained to try again.
It’d be sort of funny if everyone on the plane but Peters was a time traveller either trying to get a sample, Kill Peters, interefere with the gathering process or warning somone else not to interfere. One of the pilots could be bent on crashing the plane in the ocean to destroy the virus and the co-pliot was there to prevent him from doing so…
Wouldn’t want to spoil any of the ambiguity that many people see in the ending of this movie… but for those of you that own the DVD, if you watch this scene with the director’s commentary turned on, Terry Gilliam is quite clear as to why Dr. Jones is on the plane and what her intentions are.
Could you elucidate, in a spoiler box if you want?
I didn’t realize people still thought of Brad Pitt as just a pretty face. I thought his acting credentials were considered up to snuff years ago.
Yeah, I used to dismiss Brad Pitt too, but then I saw him be good in too many things (starting with 12 Monkeys). He was good in Benjamin Button last year, although it was a flawed movie.
Seconded. Though I dont think director’s commentary is authority when discussing deliberately ambiguous ends (I’m thinking Ridley Scott’s commentary on Blade Runner). You cant have your cake and eat it, if you go for ambiguity you dont get to say which end is ZE correct one.
I like Brad Pitt as an actor, but my main reaction to his role in this movie was… annoyance. He was just so over-the-top CRAZY that it almost became self-parody.
Thirded. I’d really like to know (not that directorial intent is necessarily binding on the viewer).
BTW, was it a given that Dr. Peters would die during his mission? Or was he himself immune to the plague? It’s been a long time since I’ve seen this movie.
I do’t know what the director’s commentary says, but I never got the impression that the ending of 12 Monkeys was meant to be ambiguous and have never understood why so many people found it confusing. It seemed clear enough to me that the past could not be changed and the Bruce Willis character was doomed all along, but that the greater mission succeeded thanks to the information he gathered and the other time-traveling scientist.
Since I’ve never heard the commentary it’s possible that Gilliam says otherwise and I missed his point entirely, but the ending did not strike me as being particularly open to interpretation.
Just dug up my copy of 12 Monkeys in order to check the commentary. Turns out I’ve got the cheap edition of the DVD - mine doesn’t have the commentary or any other special features.
[QUOTE=dzray]
Wouldn’t want to spoil any of the ambiguity that many people see in the ending of this movie… but for those of you that own the DVD, if you watch this scene with the director’s commentary turned on, Terry Gilliam is quite clear as to why Dr. Jones is on the plane and what her intentions are.
[/QUOTE]
Well… let me backtrack a little here. I don’t have the DVD handy to check, but after finding the “making of” documentary on Youtube (titled** The Hamster Factor **if you want to search for it), my recollection of Gilliam’s comments in the director’s commentary (which admittedly may be a little hazy) do not quite jibe with his feelings expressed about this scene during the making of featurette.
Given that his comments during The Hamster Factor were made at the time the movie was being filmed, I would have to say that they should hold a little more water than any comments made during the recording of the director’s commentary, which was likely made some time after the movie’s theatrical release.
[spoiler]In essence, Gilliam did not want to include the airplane scene at all and felt it weakened the “emotional impact” of the ending. Later in the documentary, we learn that the movie was screened for test audiences both with and without this scene. I guess it can be inferred that the test audiences preferred the version with the airplane scene included. According to Gilliam, this scene was to show that the scientist was indeed there to “save the future”, although he is not specific about how this was to work exactly.
I think its interesting to keep in mind that although Gilliam did not create the story or script for 12 Monkeys and was essentially a “hired gun” as director, the documentary makes clear that he *did *have the final cut. So if he was truly as against this scene being included as he appeared during the doc, I find it interesting that the scene ended up being included after all. [/spoiler]
The Hamster Factor is posted in 9 different parts on Youtube. The pertinent info starts at about 4:15 of part 6 and continues through part 7. That being said, I highly recommend watching it in its entirety if you are a fan of this film and/or Terry Gilliam.
Well, Gilliam was wrong.
The scene is necessary, otherwise the movie has no ending at all. Besides, it plays consistently with what we’ve already seen - that the scientists viewed Cole as just a means to an end. This strikes me the same way Ridley Scott is supposed to have felt about the final scene in Blade Runner. Hey, guys, just because the story seems satisfactorily tied up to you doesn’t mean the audience is going to feel the same way. Ambiguity’s fine, but at least show us the ambiguous element, don’t assume that just because it’s obvious to you, the rest of us will get it.
Well, I like the scene at the end on the airplane, and I’m glad it’s there, but if it hadn’t been included, that would’ve been a statement in and of itself. So much of the movie is about circularity, Ouroboros, going back and forth in time. If the last thing we saw was the young Cole leaving the airport with his parents, having seen his own shooting death many years in his own future, that would, IMHO, have been almost as good an ending as the one Gilliam finally decided to give us.
Agreed. That’s practically a perfect ending right there. I’ve always considered the airplace scene as more of an epilogue than the ending anyway.
Regarding Brad Pitt:
Some years ago I read a commentary that said the author thought Pitt was at his best in comedic roles, and that the hunk factor kept him in a lot of dramatic roles where he’s competent, but not inspired.
12 Monkeys, the Mexican, Thelma and Louise, True Romance, Snatch, Oceans, he was the best part of Burn After Reading. Granted monkeys and true romance aren’t comedies per se, but his role in them is. I always considered Mr and Mrs Smith as a comedy, myself, halfway between James Bond and Austin Powers.
Anyway, it’s an interesting point.
He also did a nice comedic turn in Inglourious Basterds.