MovieChat Forums > The Bedroom Window (1987) Discussion > Poor Movie - big plot hole.

Poor Movie - big plot hole.

posted 18 years ago by Altho73
23 replies | jump to latest

The scene with Terry giving evidence in court was unbelievable. When the defense lawyer pointed out that Terry wore contact lenses and could not identify a book from the other side of the court and therefore could not have worn his lenses in bed he could not have seen the crime why didn't Terry simply reply, 'Yes your honor, I wasn't wearing my contact lenses but when I heard the scream I put on my glasses before looking out of the window so my vision was normal.'

After all I don't know of anyone who wears contact lenses (particularly someone who is extremely short sighted) that does not also own a pair of glasses that they put on after they have taken out their lenses.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] NewHorizons37 17 years ago

The defense lawyer had just gotten him to testify that when he heard the scream, he got out of bed and went straight to the window to see what was going on. Remember this whole line of jokey-seeming questions like, "Didn't stop to get a drink of water?" etc. and Terry would chuckle and reply no, he did nothing but go straight to the window. So for him to later try to backtrack and say actually he stopped to put on his glasses would not seem credible, after he had stated more than once that he went directly to the window.

[–] Altho73 17 years ago

In that case Terry is a complete idiot! You don't hear a scream outside and then go to the window to see what is going on knowing full well that without your glasses you can't see a hand in front of your face.

A short sighted person would have automatically stated, 'I heard a scream outside, I put on my glasses and went to the window to see what was going on.'

Short sighted people leave their glasses on the bedside table when they retire to bed so they are within reach in case they have to get up in the night. Putting on your glasses when you get up becomes so familiar that it's a reflex action that after a time you don't realise you are doing it.

I can't believe that Terry would have been so stupid in court, it strains credibility.

[–] NewHorizons37 17 years ago

The point is, he didn't concoct his story based on what HE would have done.
His lover saw it, and the whole point of him lying was to get her story, the truth, to the police. So he told them what she would have said. Then he had to tell the same thing in court that he had told the police.

He wasn't thinking, "If I had been in that position, I would have done this or that" because he wasn't thinking along those lines. He was trying to stick as close to the truth as possible, by changing the story only to make it his story not hers. By doing this, he created a way for the defense attorney to expose his lie. Ironically, if he had lied more, adding that he put on his glasses before going to the window, his lies would not have been detected.

But that's the thing with lying -- it can be hard to think of all the ways you can get tripped up trying to maintain a lie. And especially this one, that he did on the spur of the moment -- partly to impress his lover, partly just to try to see justice done -- never thinking there would be consequences.

[–] stuffic 17 years ago

Both of you make good points.

As a short-sighted person, I can tell you I've gone to my bedroom window many times without putting my glasses on. If I heard screams, I'm sure I would jump up instinctually and looked out the window without thinking about my glasses.

However, I'm also sure that if I was on the witness stand lying, I would've thought to use the "I put my eyeglasses on" excuse. But then again, I've never committed perjury before; some people can't think quickly under pressure.

Either way, I wouldn't necessarily call it a plot hole. But it was a good observation, Altho73.

I always knew, but now I know.

[–] Altho73 17 years ago

Thank you stuffic.

Interesting statement. The only thing I can say is that you and I are very different. I wear contact lenses most of the time, but I always leave my eyeglasses on the bedside table near the clock. Anytime I get out of bed, whether it's getting up in the morning, or waking up in the night to go to the bathroom I instinctively reach out for my glasses and put them on, it's a reflex action, I don't realise that I am doing it.

Anyhow the world would be a very boring place if everyone was the same.

[–] BoSoxRule 11 years ago

NewHorizons, it is a huge plothole, just accept it.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

[–] morganseer 8 years ago

it is a huge plothole, just accept it.
--------------------
If we all take your advice, there will be no forum.

[–] vestdennis 12 years ago

I agree, the whole line of questioning in the court would never have been allowed for the jury to hear. It was based on nothing but a 4th grade 'science lab' experiment.

I don't wear contacts but I do wear glasses & I would never go to investigate a scream or noise outside w/o slipping them on.

For the court to just toss out any charges based on the fact that he didn't have in contacts was silly.

[–] JosephASpadaro 17 years ago

I disagree to this extent: not everyone who wears contact lenses also wears (or owns a pair of) glasses. This is particularly believable in this film for two reasons: (1) Steve Guttenberg is a pretty young guy and therefore more apt to be conscious of his looks and therefore avoid glasses and wear only contact lenses; and (2) his mistress stated, "I never knew you wore contact lenses", implying that she never knew that he was near-sighted and/or that he had glasses lying around the apartment.

[–] Altho73 17 years ago

I beg to differ - A person who is only slightly short sighted could get away without owning a pair of glasses because he/she would still be able to see well enough to do most things.

However someone like Terry who was extremely short sighted where a person standing a few yards in front of him was a blur would not be able to go without owning a pair of glasses. Hard contact lenses can only be tolerated in the eyes for a period of 10 to 12 hours at a time, they cannot be worn when you have a cold, eye infection etc.

So an extremely short sighted person living alone like Terry would be up the creek when unable to wear his contact lenses, he wouldn't be able to watch TV, drive a car, or even go out of his apartment, wouldn't be able to travel by bus cause he wouldn't be able to see the names on the front.

[–] not_richjenkins 14 years ago

I think another problem is this: Where the hell was the defense lawyer going to go with his argument if Terry had just said "I put on my glasses." His WHOLE CASE was the hope that he didn't grab his contact lenses or glasses.

[–] BoSoxRule 13 years ago

Terry was an idiot. He also could've simply said that he fell asleep with his lenses in.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

[–] Paul_Ke 13 years ago

The defense lawyer pointed out how painful it would have been to sleep with hard lens in his eyes. Terry saying he fell asleep with them in would not have been believable to the jury.

The OP is wrong. Terry testified he didn't stop to do anything before he went to the window. Therefore, he can't claim he stopped to put on glasses.

NewHorizons37 is correct. Terry is trying to fit his own explanation onto someone's else actions. This is problem with lying.

[–] BoSoxRule 11 years ago

"The defense lawyer pointed out how painful it would have been to sleep with hard lens in his eyes. Terry saying he fell asleep with them in would not have been believable to the jury."

Just because it would've been "painful" doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened. You don't think people ever fall asleep with their lenses in? Terry had even said that he was tired and went to bed early, so it shouldn't have been hard for the jury to believe that he neglected to remove them.

I'm happiest...in the saddle.

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 11 years ago

Just because it would've been "painful" doesn't mean that it couldn't have happened.

The person you were replying didn't say it couldn't have happened. He said that Terry saying he fell asleep with them in, would not have been believable to the jury. People give testimony all the time that could be true, the issue is whether the jury finds it believable.

It's not a plot hole that Terry didn't say things like "of course I stopped to put my glasses on" or "I fell asleep with my contacts in". When people are lying, they often don't know what to do when challenged other than keep with the story they have committed themselves to. Especially someone like Terry, who is not generally a liar and just expected to waltz in there, give his (false) story, and be done with it, with no complications.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 11 years ago

Where the hell was the defense lawyer going to go with his argument if Terry had just said "I put on my glasses." His WHOLE CASE was the hope that he didn't grab his contact lenses or glasses.

Interesting point. But, while it's been a while since I've seen it, didn't the attacker look up at the window and see the woman? Because she was trying to get the window open or something. So when the perp and his lawyer saw the witness list, the perp must have told his lawyer, it was a woman who saw me, not a man -- and they figured out that Terry was testifying on behalf of the woman. So they figured out how they could discredit his testimony. The lawyer found out that Terry is very nearsighted, yet told the police that he went straight to the window, so he tried that line of questioning. If Terry had tried to backtrack from what he had just said 5 minutes ago, that he went straight to the window, the lawyer could have pointed out that Terry had also told that to the police. That is a common way of discrediting a witness.

But if all that bombed, the lawyer could have found some way to introduce the fact that someone else was there with him, and cast doubt on Terry's claim that HE saw the attack.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

[–] JohnnyJohnson (314) 7 months ago

Excellent analysis. Good points.

[–] nixonwheat 13 years ago

I was always annoyed by this too. Yeah, he testified that he did nothing before going to the window, but he just as easily could have backtracked and said "Oh, well OF COURSE I put my glasses on by my bedside table. It is an immediate reflex when I get out of bed." But no I didn't go for a cup of tea, go to the bathroom before I went to the window. He was sooo stupid it was annoying. This movie could have been so much better.

[–] mistermojohoho 12 years ago

The thing most unbelievable is that his mistress would try coaching him in the court room and in front of the killer.

[–] Altho73 12 years ago

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OP is wrong. Terry testified he didn't stop to do anything before he went to the window. Therefore, he can't claim he stopped to put on glasses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For a person who is extremely short sighted putting on your glasses becomes a standard natural action, so natural that you don't even realise you are doing it.

He wouldn't need to stop to put on his glasses, he could have said that whenever he gets out of bed he automatically reaches for his glasses and puts them on as a matter of routine. It is so routine that it wouldn't even occur to him to mention it. That's the way it is with short sighted people.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JohnnyJohnson (314) 7 months ago

Exactly! I just came on here to post the same thing. There is NO ONE who only has a pair of contact lenses without having a pair of back-up glasses. You take the contacts out at night, get into bed, and have your glasses by the bedside table. Why he didn't just say that on the stand is baffling.