Most possibly,Erneso,or people hired by Ernesto.We know that he knows the couple's whereabouts,but it's interesting that we don't definately know that he did it after all .
shareRandom accident highlighting the fragile nature of life and love
Ernesto sent his son to film them, but that is all - his presence and filming of the accident was part of the plot to prove it was a random event
I think it was a random event. The car was not hired by Ernesto. He lover her too much to kill her. If anything he would have killed Mateo. His only aim was to spy on her and most likely, get her back.
shareAnd now take a look at the "ripped pictures (SPOILER)" post, cause there may be more questions to be solved.
shareSometimes one loves someone so much they kill them so they can't be with anyone else. Which means I do think Ernesto hired the driver or who knows may have been the driver himself. Remember now, he pushed her down the stairs when she was leaving the first time, and possibly meant to kill her then.
~ Check me on IMDb at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3072171/ - Carpe Diem - Janice Marie Foote ~
After that stream of confessions by Judit, I kept waiting and waiting for her to admit that she had somehow been responsible for the accident (I mean, she insisted so fiercely on keeping Ernesto Jr. away from Mateo/Harry). Alas, I was wrong, but I'm glad that the movie ended the way it did: with redemption.
shareI think the director is being clever here. At the end, the main characters explain it away as an accident and we see through Ernesto Junior's film that he is nothing to do with it. Indeed, he is frantic and rushes out to help.
But there are unanswered questions and I think the director has deliberately done this to keep us guessing. For example, no mention is made of the other driver. Ernesto Junior rushes out to help Harry and Lena, but in doing this, he must have seen the other damaged car and at least made some effort to check on the driver after he had first checked on the others, but nothing of the other driver is mentioned. If Ernesto did not check on him, why not? Did the other driver just drive off? If so, that in itself is highly illegal and very suspicious.
Also, look at the accident itself. The road was quiet. Harry carefully drove up to the junction and stopped, then they had their kiss. But after this Harry carefully looked round before pulling out - I think this was quite clear from Ernesto's film. Surely if the other car had been that close, Harry would have seen it? Could it be that the other driver was waiting for Harry with his lights off, and as soon as Harry pulled out he rammed him? Also, watch the other driver's behaviour. There appearred to be no attempt to brake at all. Surely, even just out of instinct, the brakes would have been rammed on at some point? Unless the whole thing was planned.
One other thing just to ponder. Say Ernesto Junior was in some way involved - perhaps he was in radio contact with the driver, for example. What would be the best way to cover himself and protect himself from any suspicion? How about by making sure that he was seen on film trying to help out and acting devastated at the scene of the accident?
This is just food for thought. I really don't know the answer and I believe that it is deliberately left mysterious by the director. Very clever. This is just another little nuance that adds to a brilliant film. Outstanding work.
Why did the woman running away from the scene look so much like Judit? (I was almost sure it was Judit.)
And when Mateo asked Diego what he was seeing at that moment, he only answered: "Something very interesting."
I don’t think Judit drove the car or caused the accident, but was Pedro telling us that she was there as well?
@objective-critic:
Wow, you have a complete mess on your head. That "woman" was Ernesto Junior, who was driving behind Lena's car, and recording the accident accidently. But the car who crashed against them was another one. Then, Ernesto Junior, with his girly hair, ran to the scene, and for a moment, he stepped back scared of what he was watching. But he was not fleeing from the scene, later we will know he even called for an ambulance.
Loveantinoo ... "complete mess on your head?" I hope this is due to your 'bad english', otherwise you are a latinoprick!
I am NOT talking about Ernesto Jnr. I recognized him, there was another woman running away from the car.
Anycase, I am not really interested. This movie was a dissapointment and I have already written it off as forgetable.
@objective-critic:
English is not my natural language, ok, I am from Spain.
And this part is not for you, just for the other users who may got confused with your post: there was not other woman in that scene running from the motorcrash!!
I hope that was due to his bad reading subtitles.
I too thought it was Judit, but when the scene is replayed I realized it was Ernesto's son (aka Ray X).
Information is withheld from the audience to draw us in so that we fear the worst. The entire screenplay is an example of that. But the first time we see the accident I thought the driver of the other car left the scene. While that's not addressed specifically, the resolution of the film makes it a moot point.
You'd better read the following only after seeing the films "Nine" and "Los abrazos rotos (Broken Embraces)".
I saw these films in two days in that order and was struck by the common elements in both.
In the first, the women are magnificent, riveting, radiating energy. Worth seeing the films just for them: Marion Cotillard; Penélope Cruz; Nicole Kidman; Dame Judi Dench; Kate Hudson. Testosterone pumping choreography. Boy, oh boy.
And the men! Oh my God! May the Saints pray for us all: sons of bitches, narcissists and mama's boys.
Both films show the elements of a film that, in the end, has yet to be made and which (supposedly) will be very good. Enjoyable to watch though disappointing.
"Nine" is supposed to be about Federico Fellini or 'Guido Contini' (played well by Day-Lewis), but the film itself is as significant as "8 1/2" is to "9". Imagine a drink with the main ingredient over-introduced by 1.0588235294117647058823529411765 (check the calculator). Not the same drink. In the meantime a wife suffers in the fragmented embraces left over from the sexual encounters of her comet-like husband.
"Los abrazos rotos" is about the same thing. Except it's Almodovar about Almodovar. He's still around, but seems to be losing steam.
Ambiguity is OK, but disjointedness is not. Both films metaphorically and concretely are bunches of ripped up pictures that are to be put together afterwards. Amazing similarity.
Look at the poor participants of the "boards". Was he blind? Who rammed into the car?. May be Judit? Looks possible. But does it matter?
I know you enjoyed the experiences. Not much of the ideas though.
Both seem to be good illustrations of manifestation of feminism, preponderance of human qualities: femininity a n d masculinity (anima and animus - Carl Jung). In women! They still need us, thank God. Although, soon enough, I think, they'll be able to get by without.
Hope not too soon.
As for the doctor's diagnosis - it all depends whether it was just "Post-traumatic t r a n s i e n t cortical blindness" http://www.springerlink.com/content/x20w85127j05278j/ or "Cortical blindness" http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/50318
Ambiguous again... Boy oh boy......
Oh! About the boys. Both films present a single mother with a son. A perfect set up to produce a narcissist. I should know.
drfy.com
dezombification.com