Question: When Annie and her boys are coming home from the neighbour's place, next door, there's a blue light coming from the main bedroom. Leaving her boys, Annie goes into the house and there is all this noise that sounds like a radio not completely tuned in, of an evangelist preaching really loudly. Now, where is all this noise coming from: Annie's mind, Donnie's car radio parked outside? Or is it just for our benefit?
Question: Was Roman just playing dead in the coffin or was it a dummy? Hard to believe that he could be pretending because Gale checks his pulse.
Answer: No it was Roman. There is a technique you can do where if you apply pressure on the correct artery you can stop the pulse. EXTREMELY dangerous though.
Question: I still don't understand why Leonard switches clothes with Jimmy and steals his car after he kills him. "I'd rather be mistaken for a dead guy than a killer." That makes absolutely no sense. Driving around in Jimmy's car and wearing his suit would make him the prime suspect in the investigation. He was much safer when he was just an anonymous guy driving around in a pickup truck.
Answer: It is never explicitly given. The most Leonard says on the subject is: "I'd rather be mistaken for a dead guy than a killer." Speculations include (you can make up your own motives as well) : (1) The clothes and car are so much nicer than his. If you are willing to kill someone: stealing is not really a "crime." Why not take the nicer objects? (2) It could be part of his "routine": Kill a man, take his clothes and car. The clothes he had on and the truck may be from the man he killed a year ago. (3) It could be that he wants to make the killer of his wife suffer even more, and takes his clothes as a way of humiliating him. Leonard takes the man's life-his clothes and car, which are wrapped up in his identity-just as the man took his. This idea seems to work with a theme in Memento about "Identity" (especially mistaken identity). Natalie thinks Leonard is Jimmy, then thinks he is Teddy, then learns he is Leonard. Teddy is "mistaken" for the second killer, Jimmy is "mistaken" for the 2nd killer. Sammy's story as a part of Leonard's story, etc. (4) It could "simply" be explained as a "plot device": Leonard has to do it, otherwise he won't find the note in "his pocket" and meet Natalie. (5) Leonard doesn't want to admit he's a murderer. He's lying to himself. If he's the victim, then he cannot be the murderer. (6) Leonard takes Jimmy's clothing as part of his routine of killing J.G.'s he becomes another person, he's the victim not the killer, thus "I'd rather be mistaken for a dead guy than a killer." and that's why he also takes his car, so he has to, once again, find his wife's killer and kill him.
Question: After the dog and Prince Wendell have been switched, why does the Queen even care about having the dog (who is really Prince)? She doesn't know that Tony can talk to him, so as far as she knows, no one can understand the dog at all. Why would she be concerned?
Answer: Because if Wendell and the switched dog somehow came in contact with each other then they would switch back. She does not want to risk this happening.
Question: On the back of the PAL DVD there is a picture of Alex holding back Clear from a car during the day. It looks to be at the place where Terry was killed. Does anyone know if this is a deleted scene not on the DVD? Also, on the commentary the makers of the film said that they shot the bus hit from inside the bus, as well as from the side. Does anyone know where these scenes are now?
Answer: The scene where Terry was killed was most likely shot during the day. It is quite common for film makers to film a scene during the day to get the right lighting effects and then later CGI the night sky and the proper shadowing. This is most effective when you have an area that would otherwise be too dark or have environment that wont allow for the proper lighting for a night shoot. As for the bus, your guess is as good as mine.
Question: When Norman says the guy "that wrote that book he loves" (Shumway?) congratulated him on Spencer's Theorem, then Claire says "He didn't know your father was dead?" and Norman says "He knew". What does one thing have to do with the other? I've seen this movie at least 20 times and I can't figure out this conversation.
Chosen answer: Spencer's theorem was Norman's father's theorem. Norman wants to be greater than his father was, so to be accidentally complemented on something that his father did would be bad enough. To say that the guy knows that his father is dead is to imply that the guy probably insulted him intentionally.
Question: In the original novel, it was Shogo (not Shuya) who hacked the system to discover how to disable the collars; at the same time he found out that the class would be doing the Battle Royale and transferred into that class to try and use his knowledge to mess it up. In the film, the person who found out how to disable the collars and the person who found out about the Battle Royale and transferred into it are different people. Does anyone know why this change was made?
Chosen answer: Kawada hacked the system, learned about the collars, and transferred voluntarily to the class he knew would be participtaing in both versions. The only difference is when he transferred: in the book, it was right after his win, and in the film it was just for the battle. Shuya never hacked anything in either the book or the film. As to why the change was made, I can only assume that, given the shortening of novels involved in film making, it's easier to make Kawada a complete stranger than a loner that the kids recognize.
Question: On the DVD (UK, not sure about anywhere else) there is a feature called 'the secret of esrever', which tells you to look for very subliminal hidden images in the film - I have looked so many times and there is still one I can't find - does anyone know where the 'water' one is? The only thing I can see is what looks like an owl's head made out of the trees in the scene where the woman is drowning a baby in the lake. If this is it how does it relate to the film? Also is there a message in the images? There are a few words but I can't make a sentence out of them.
Answer: In the scene where the baby is submerged in the water, watch the lower right-hand side of the screen. You'll see the shadow of a stickman emerge and come higher into the frame.
Question: Did Patrick really kill anybody or was it all in his mind? He killed a homeless man but there's no news report about it on TV. He murders Paul but is told Paul is in London. He severely beat and bloodied two prostitutes but no cops show up to arrest him. He murders Elizabeth and Christie but when he goes back to the apartment later, it is empty and put up for sale.
Answer: The situation is intentionally left vague. The homeless man being murdered wouldn't necessarily make the news in the time (there were over 4000 murders in 1989-90 when the book and movie are set). He and his friends are so alike that they continually mistake each other for others. The prostitutes would likely be loathe to call the police because they might be arrested themselves and he would likely get off with a much better lawyer.
Question: I heard in the DVD commentary that what the Russian gangsters are saying in the beginning is total bull, because they ran out of time to translate the actual dialogue. Is there anyone from Russia, or who speaks Russian, that can understand what they are saying?
Answer: Yes, I can speak Russian, and what they said in the movie did make sense but they spoke so horribly it was almost impossible to understand them. But it wasn't bull.
But what was said?
Question: It's never explained why Bobby would ever even consider going into business with Jeff? It's not as if Jeff is some great business mind. The entire Dearly family has no respect for him and treat him like a buffoon. There's absolutely no reason given for why Bobby would ever set foot on their property, much less inside their house.
Answer: [Continued] Bobby may have had a better "presentation of self" than Jeph and LOOKED smarter, but he had his own deficiencies (plus mowed over Peaches, losing that contract, and intended to kill Jeph, not Mona). Would a stranger (outsider) be willing to enter a business agreement with Bobby? When choosing someone you have known for years, you have a good idea of what to expect from that person and might have fewer doubts and face fewer unknowns (such as whether the person can be trusted). Partnering with a stranger can be a very risky endeavor. When starting a business, there's no guarantee that you will be successful. Landscaping businesses/ jobs involve hard physical labor - something a lot of people are not interested in doing, so Bobby may not have had (m) any potential candidates with the exception of Jeph.
Answer: I doubt anyone can give THE answer with any degree of certainty. This may be why your question hasn't been anwered yet. One possible answer lies in the film's setting, Verplanck, NY. In real life, Verplanck is a small area (less than ONE square mile) with maybe 300 houses within the city of Cortlandt. Such an area, where "everyone knows everyone else," is classified as a hamlet (smaller than a village). Household/ family income probably falls below the U.S. median. In the movie, residents were portrayed as poor and not very intelligent (read: dimwitted, "Forest Gump smart" or "idiots"). Jeph and Bobby were part of this close-knit community and probably had more similarities than differences. Bobby didn't even have money to start the business - his brother Murph put up his half. Who would become business partners with someone who didn't have the start-up money? Someone in the hamlet who needed a job and could get money from his parents - Jeph. [Why would Jeph partner with Bobby?].
Answer: The TV in Annie's room.
The TV wasn't on before, and Annie is suspicious of the noise and light, which she wouldn't be if it was just the TV.