MovieChat Forums > Trois couleurs: Bleu (1993) Discussion > Did Julie cause the accident? (spoilers)

Did Julie cause the accident? (spoilers)

posted 18 years ago by Invariable Self
16 replies | jump to latest

Can we assume that Julie found out about her husband's affair and so became suicidal and caused the car to crash? Aside from her apparent lack of grief, here is some evidence I think shows this:

1. Her attempted suicide at the hospital also involves a crash (the crash of the breaking window glass). Thus the implication that the car crash and her attempted suicide are somehow connected in a different way.

2. She seems to want to rid herself of any memory of her husband and daughter, including throwing away his music score for the unification of Europe. Thus the hint she wants to destroy any sense of "union" she has with her husband and daughter.

3. The cold way she releases the cat to kill the mouse and its babies. Like her cold way of killing her husband and daughter.

I.S. Oxford

"The books have nothing to say!"
-- Fahrenheit 451

[–] quaddo 18 years ago

"Can we assume that Julie found out about her husband's affair and so became suicidal and caused the car to crash?"
Sorry. No. Don't think so....

RIP Ian....

[–] jasongrimshaw 18 years ago

Absolutely not. Julie was not responsible for the accident. Her suicide attempt is a reaction to the initial guilt of surviving the accident that killed her family.

Julie is so profoundly disturbed by her loss that her only reaction is to remove her past from her life, something which is ultimately impossible for her. Kieslowski hints that "true" liberty is in fact impossible.

[–] hannahjaneparky 18 years ago

Er, no. Clearly dripping brake fluid caused the accident. There's a lingering close-up of the brake fluid dripping when they stop roadside & in addition there is the car speeding past the hitchhiker without even a slight slowing down as the car approaches and turns a bend = brakes don't work. I really think people over-analyse things/don't pay enough attention/come up with pseudo-academic theories/conspiracies which are a tad silly.

[–] Beatchick 18 years ago

Also, I thought she'd thrown the score away because it might have shown that Julie indeed was the author and it would've exposed her husband for a fraud. So there's the dilemma of hiding the truth to preserve her husband's reputation or finishing & releasing the score thereby letting people know who the real genius in the family is (and her subsequent exposure to the public).

[–] Sanjuro-15 17 years ago

Weren't they in the middle of laughing about a joke or something when they crashed? Doesn't sound like someone trying to cause a triple suicide.

[–] ruangvith 17 years ago

What do you mean by 'her apparent lack of grief'?

I think she was so sad that she tried every way to get away from it, though she'd finally find that was impossible. We just can't live alone anyway.

[–] LeofricsBeloved 17 years ago

If this is a Hitchcock movie, that might make sense. Kieslowski doesn't really do thrillers with twists.

[–] just_passing 17 years ago

her 'apparent lack of grief'
what because she wasn't crying? i think that makes it more intense, harder to watch..

[–] alice_in_punderland 17 years ago

She isn't cold when releasing the cat. When she first sees the mouse, she wants to kill it, but then when she sees the babies, she is sympathetic.

She is horrified at the prospect of destroying the object of her fear, especially when that object is a creature that has children because she knows the pain of losing a child. The pool scene right after reveals how torn up she is about it.

Having your book made into a movie is like seeing your oxen made into bouillon cubes. -John LeCarre

[–] JimmyCagney 16 years ago

As it has been partly mentioned above, there are at least 2 major reasons / clues as to why your theory doesn't have a chance.
First of all and most of all...the break fluids. Moments before the accident we clearly see that something is wrong with the vehicle.
Furthermore, it is quite obvious that Julie had no idea of her late husband's affair. She is stunned when she first watches the photos on the tv, she asks her husband's friend (Olivier) if he knew something about the affair and later on while she tries to locate the girl it is also obvious that she knows nothing of her.
And finally, let's not forget the conversation she has with Olivier where she tells him how funny it is that if she had agreed to pick up her husbands things instead of giving them to him, she probably would have never found out about this, because she would probably burn all of his papers.

[–] kosk11348 16 years ago

I just wanted to say, this was one of the most unintentionally hilarious threads on IMDB I've read in a long time. I think it's honestly astounding that you misunderstood the movie you were watching so profoundly that you actually came to the exact opposite conclusion you were supposed to. Well done.

2. She seems to want to rid herself of any memory of her husband and daughter, including throwing away his music score for the unification of Europe. Thus the hint she wants to destroy any sense of "union" she has with her husband and daughter.

Right, but she only wants so desperately to destroy "everything" that reminds her of them because they are painful memories. The memory of their loss is killing her. Grief literally drove her to attempt suicide. It is only after her memory of her dead husband is "tarnished" by knowledge of his affair that she stops trying to erase all trace of him and decides to finish the composition.

Orgies are not too much fun if no one wants to do it with you.

[–] tigeri 16 years ago

I got a similar impression when I saw the film the first time. Not necessarily that she killed her husband and daughter, but that she was carrying guilt over it for some reason. Maybe they had a fight in the car that inadvertently caused the accident, or maybe she had wished him dead because he received the credit for her work. Maybe it's guilt in a Biblical context.

I think it's honestly astounding that you misunderstood the movie you were watching so profoundly that you actually came to the exact opposite conclusion you were supposed to. Well done.

Isn't art open to each person's interpretation? Way to contribute.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]