<<< !!! SPOILER !!! >>> Throughout the movie, the rule of "one passport = one traveller" was clearly and repeatedly demonstrated. Yet at the end, mom shows up at the piano... Apparently, Ben 'went back' and rescued her. But how? He only had the one passport (Quish's), so it doesn't seem as though they BOTH could have come back from 'downwhen' with only one. Alternately, Ben could have gone back and made a change that prevented the accident at the bridge from ever happening in the first place. But that would have negated the need for him to go back in the first place, potentially could have prevented him from ending up as the owner of Wilson House at all! (Remember the lesson from H.G. Wells 'Time Machine'... "If she hadn't died, you wouldn't have *needed* time travel to save her".
Still, an excellent movie, one of my all time favourites. But just something that I wonder about every time I watch it.
there were 2 bens, right? it's been a while since i saw this... i was looking up david twohy! erm, so maybe one of the ben's went back in time, thus uncomplicating having two of them around. he then gives his wife the passport.
How many timelines did he really visit? To save his wife he must go to the past and prevent the mishap with the car and not running into that darn moose.
I have the same problem but every time I see the film I get one more piece of the puzzle. Besides, he has to be careful to avoid a paradox. Also he could have been rewarded for bravery by the 'future folks'
About that paradox: isn't it causing tremendous universal collapsing, when a time-traveler meets himself? It seems to me causing at least an implosion of it. Anyway, about mom showing up, I don't think that's the idea of the writer. You actually don't see mom, you just hear the piano playing Für Elise suggesting mom is there. Since it's the end-scene, it's to make your mind spin, just like the problem with meeting yourself. It's like those David Lynch endings, you go like "what on earth did he mean ..." Maybe dad finaly learned to play it! Somewhere in the middle of the film you see dad trying to play Für Elise, so maybe he just evolved.
*There are no facts, only interpretations.* Friedrich Nietzsche
supposition: There were two Bens. One went back to prevent his daughter from being killed and with the other Ben saved most of the town's people. Before he (bloody faced Ben) went back to the future with the time sentry(heavy guy dressed in white) he could have given the passport to the other Ben. The other Ben went back to prevent his wife from being killed in the accident. How did other ben get back to the future? Guess he could have found a rubber stamp. When the time sentry took bloody face Ben back to the future, where did he take him since the timeline was changed and there was no longer any need to go back? There would be two Bens in the future.
That's why the writer didn't get into how he got his wife back. Too complicated.
Several posters guess that Ben could have gone to history and prevent the accident.
This can't be a good explanation for several reasons.
If he had changed the history and made Carolyn escape her fate, his life would be completely different. He most likely wouldn't argue with his father-in-law, because whatever Caldwell accused Ben for was only a consequence of the accident. Having a better position in life and society, and with support of his wife, Ben would never had a need to build a hotel on such an isolated place. As a result of this, the time travelers wouldn't visit him and he would never get a chance to save the town (including his daughter), but also he wouldn't be given a passport which he needed to return to history and save Carolyn.
But, even if this paradox could be solved somehow, there is still a surprise on Hillary's face: if accident had been prevented, Carolyn would have stayed alive and would have been with her family all the time, so Hillary would have no reason to be surprised when she heard "Für Elise".
Another explanation mentioned by one poster that Ben was rewarded for what he has done is even less possible. The time travelers didn't seem so generous to reward anyone (except paying a lot for unfinished rooms). He even spoiled their pleasure by diminishing the intensity of tragedy. They were also very careful not to change history too much, especially the time of somebody's death, so returning Carolyn from dead is not very likely.
Also, it would require a lot of explanations if she had appeared alive so many years after she was buried.
And there is one more mistake when some posters say there were two Bens. It was always one and only Ben with only a one day difference; so whatever one does or happens to him, it happens to the "other" - as this is a same person.
Time paradox: some naive SF authors (or not naive, but making plots look more complicated to naive readers) supposed the space would collapse if a person traveling in time met him/herself. Why on Earth?! It is so extremely arrogant to think that one person has such an influence on the space! This space could well exist without whole human race, and why would such (maybe unpleasant for this particular human being) experience of one single person lead to end of universe!? In some cases this might change the destiny of this person, his actions might change the future of many people or humankind itself... but what has this to do with the Universe?!
Time paradox: some naive SF authors (or not naive, but making plots look more complicated to naive readers) supposed the space would collapse if a person traveling in time met him/herself. Why on Earth?!
I think it's all based on a misunderstanding of "two objects cannot exist in the same space at the same time."
All that really means is the space taken up by any given object cannot also be taken up by any other object.
In other words, when I place my coffee cup down on my desk I can't put it in the same spot that my stapler is sitting.
That's all it means.
So in time travel there can be two versions (or more) of a time traveler existing at the same time they just can't be in, literally, the same exact spot. But then no two objects of any kind -time travel or not- can exist in, literally, the same spot.
reply share
"In the same spot" - that is basic physics and obvious - unless we use a different kind of imagination and a different kind of SF.
However, some novels, including those written by most prominent SF names, like Asimov etc, suggest that most dangerous situation is when a person sees him/herself from another time (especially future). So time travelers in these novels avoid most carefully going to past in the place and time where they could be seen by themselves. Some novels find it risk for mental sanity, some other, as I've said, go that far that even the existence of universe becomes questionable (though I don't recall it was ever explained why).
Ben doesn't have to send her back, only prevent the accident.
However, unlike in the Time Machine, we have two Ben's to work with. One Ben goes back to save his wife, while the other one never needs to. Therefore, we resolve a timeline where his wife is saved while not requiring the other - now happy and content - Ben to go back.
As far as Wilson House, as far as I remember, we don't necessarily know how that came about. It could have been the dream of his wife to own a B&B and Ben just followed through on it for her.
There is also the possibility he sacrificed himself. He might have gone back in time, given his wife the passport and influenced her to use it, then stayed in the past. Doing so might doom him to loneliness but it insures his wife's survival and his daughter's upbringing.
I know this idea in unlikely, since for her to step into the future would have requited some explanation from her husband, and I doubt the first thing she would do upon arrival is play the piano. Then again, maybe she has some sort of fashion.
My take on it is that in a completely selfless act, Ben goes back before the accident and gives the mom the passport, sending her to the future and staying behind. You'll notice that you don't see Ben again after the piano starts playing and the daughter says, "mom?".
The two Ben theory doesn't work because, as I recall (it's been a while since I've watched it, but I have it on DVD) one of the Bens went with the white-haired guy from the future.
OOps, sorry Shane. I posted this before I read yours. :)
I don't think Mom did come back. Not really. Here's what I think happened (keep in mind that I JUST NOW watched the movie, so it's all fresh in my head):
Ben and the Time Tourism administrator chat. The Admin tells Ben that he can take Ben back to where he belongs. "Tomorrow."
At first Ben looks derisive but then he reconsiders and agrees.
Next scene, we see Ben (with no scars or wounds, so it could be the version of him that didn't experience the schoolhouse explosion) sitting in his house and he's looking at old letters from his wife.
His daughter Hillary, meanwhile, is taking reservations over the phone while she lays in front of the fireplace. When Hillary gets done, she goes into the room where Ben was last seen sitting but finds him gone. Suddenly, she hears "Fur Elise" being played on the piano in a nearby room and she says, "Mom?!"
But I don't think it was Mom. I think it was Ben. The version of Ben who'd gone to "tomorrow" with the Time Tourism Admin. I think the two Bens got merged somehow into the right timestream, both of them retaining memories of that whole set of events. Moved by the memories of his late wife and the near-loss of his daughter, he decided to play "Fur Elise" (which the two Bens had played on the church bells to get everyone's attention- remember?).
It's a nice story if you keep it simple and don't analyze it like Einstein. He stamps the passport, goes back in time, and saves his wife from dying. It's that simple; after all, time travel isn't possible in the first place, as far as we know.
As someone mentioned earlier, the "two Ben theory" falls apart because "one of the Bens went with the white-haired guy from the future." Even if, by some means, he passed the passport to the other Ben, and let's momentarily set aside the question of what happened to the alternate Ben, if the second Ben, who saved his wife and provided her the passport, sacrifices himself, how can the wife explain her prolonged absence? And if he prevents the accident, why should he sacrifice himself instead of continuing to live normally with his wife? After all, they're both alive, and yet there's still a surprised expression on Hillary's face, which shouldn't have occurred if her mother were alive.
All that's left is to follow the film's narrative. I didn't perceive elements of cynicism in the film, so I don't believe Ben ran away again as he did during the accident. The scene where Ben plays the piano can be interpreted in two ways:
1. His struggle to play "Für Elise" at his wife's level implies he can't be the one playing at the film's end. Ben may have brought back the mother but might be escaping his responsibilities again.
2. The ending could suggest Ben's growth as a father and husband compared to the starting point. This way, he's the one playing at the movie's conclusion, signifying his non-avoidance of responsibilities.
In my opinion, the second scenario is more likely.
Your second scenario is definitely the most elegant. Time had passed and he had gotten closure. He accepted his current life and current self. Earlier in the movie he was telling Oscar that he was “never any good. Carolyn tried to teach me, but…” Well, eventually, it seems that he learned on his own. The song, as well as dealing with life.
I didn’t referred this quote when I originally posted (at least didn't mention it here), but now I feel even more confident about my explanation, and it makes the movie even better. Good catch! The father has truly undergone a transformation since the beginning of the film—wonderful.
I believe the ending I suggested better aligns with the tone of the film, but of course, I can’t be certain of what happened in the actual ending. The only thing that might complicate my explanation is the occasional temptation directors face to end a film in an unusual way, without fully considering the overall narrative and tone of the movie.