Peter
Is there any significance to the fact that Peter doesn't look like he is the biological son of either parent?
One of many unanswered questions of the film.
I think the conversation (argument) between Peter and Annie where she told him that she didn't want to keep him when she was pregnant (which turned out to be a dream anyway) implied that Peter was not fathered by Steve, maybe even the result of her cheating or being raped. To go through such lengths to get rid of a child and for no really explained reason, leaves the audience to infer why. That's what I came to. I don't think Peter is Steve's biological son. But the way Steve protects him and cares for him, I think it may have been by means that was out of his or her control (rape).
shareI interpreted that late night conversation differently.
Annie always knew there was something wrong (evil) with her mother and family.
Remember her at the grief meeting saying her father starved himself to death and her brother hung himself?,
not too mention her bizarre estranged relationship with her mother.
When she was pregnant with Peter, the failed miscarriage(s) were self inflicted for her unborn sons own good.
Not to be raised in a dangerous and evil family.
I'm with danton90 here. That conversation seems to be a hint about Peter's background (and why he doesn't look like Steve at all -I thought at first that he was adopted-). If Annie had always known that there was something evil with her mother she wouldn't have had another baby (Charlie) after going through such lengths to "save" (kill) Peter before he was even born.
share