MovieChat Forums > Lola rennt (1999) Discussion > Just saw it for the first time...wtf?

Just saw it for the first time...wtf?

posted 17 years ago by CyberVerm
19 replies | jump to latest

Great movie, great plot, great music, great acting. Lola was great.

having said all that...

wtf?

Are we supposed to somehow know why Lola is geting these do-overs? is there like a groundhog day thing going on? or is it something we're just not supposed to even ask about and just "Tag along" with this movie? Which I am perfetly happy to do.. I just feel like the movie ended and I dont know why Lola gets 3 chances at saving her boyfriend, why she has supersonic screams, why she has unrealistic luck at casinos, etc...

Are these things we're supposed to figure out? or are they just there..cos they are?

Face to foot style, how you like it? - Wimp Lo

[–] Strausszek 17 years ago

It's not supposed to be realistic, any more than The Fast and the Furious or Die Hard With A Vengeance are - but Lola deliberately breaks up "realistic storytelling" in pretty many places. It's meant to be a bit cartoonish and poetic, and if the viewer can't accept that, then you find something else. It's very plain on this board that some people accept the surrealist side of it and some just don't.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hawaiigopher 17 years ago

To add on to the cartoonish aspect, one cannot ignore Lola's general appearance; red hair, bright green pants and army boots.

[–] Strausszek 17 years ago

I agree, she's a bit like Pippi Longstocking, if you know her (famous kids book about an unruly and anarchist girl)

[–] thomsheryl 17 years ago

Its a game, it says so in the first minute and a half of the film.
"The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes, that is a fact. The rest is just theory"
its not supposed to necessarily take place in our realistic world, it is a world that in a moment of trouble or death you can start over and hope to high hell that this time it'll work out

[–] Zorro-3 17 years ago

It's post-structuralist, post-structuralism being the rejection of absolute truths or facts, presenting various possibilities rather than just The One Way That It Happened. Since it's fiction, not history, there is really no need for there to be just one narrative. There can be several.

It's three ways that the same thing might have happened. And a statement about what a difference a fraction of a second can make. (a/k/a The Butterfly Effect). Thus the slightly tongue-in-cheek song choice, "What a Difference a Day Makes." The three scenarios get their differences from the cartoon segment and Lola's encounter with the boy and his dog. What happens right there determines the rest of the scenario. Note also the fast photo snaps as she passes Doris, Mike, and Frau Jaeger; their lives are changed forever too.

I'm less clear about the screams and luck, but it could be like another poster around here somewhere said, that there is a supernatural element to Lola. Or perhaps it is merely the strength of her will.

[–] alexart-1 17 years ago

Here's how I see it: There was no real scenario. Yes, Manni does leave the money on the train and Lola must get it, but there is no reality after that. The film poses the different scenarios as a "what if" instead of one actually being real. As for the screams, I have no clue.

[–] puschit-1 16 years ago

About her luck at the casino:
In the scene before she enters the casino, she was running around aimlessly, eyes closed. She says "Bitte hilf mir! Nur dieses eine Mal!" WHich would be translated as "Please, help me! Just this one time". She then stops, almost getting killed by a truck (note that in the second version Manni was killed this way!), opened her eyes and the first thing she sees is the casino.

This could mean she prayed to god and god helped her out. If you see it like this, it was not luck.

And the screaming - I guess this was just an artistic element, a way to show the audience how strong she (her will) is. Besides, it's not entirely bull, if you have the "right" voice and are able to hit the right frequency, you *are* able to break glass by screaming.

[–] [email protected] 16 years ago

It's not meant to be a 'groundhog day' type of thing..nor is she getting a 'do over'. The story itself is only twenty minutes long. It's meant to show how by just an extra couple of seconds (more or less) the outcome of a situation can completely change. This is shown in three seperate segmants..in the first Manni is killed in the second Lola is killed and in the third it all turns out ok.

[–] hubcap18 16 years ago

Another note about her luck in the casino. It's been suggested that the sonic waves of her screams had an effect on the roulette ball. I know it's an unrealistic idea, but this movie isn't meant to be realistic; it's like a live-action video game.

--John

"So why don't you make like a tree and get out of here."

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] age_136 15 years ago

Yes her father dies, but from the last 2 episodes we see he's really not that great. Also the other man in the car, if you listen to him, isn't that great either. The man on the bike who dies is the man who stole her moped.

The screaming to get what she wants,I don't get but I can write that off for a bunch of reasons that I can accept.

What I found confusing is the technicality of her doing 3 times.
Before the second one (when her and Manni are talking) she says, "no, I don't want to leave" and then she is alive. Before the third one (again when they are talking) she says "Manni, you are not dead yet." and he is alive. Then you see her "help/fix" the man in the ambulance.
Having a hard time wrapping my head around that one.

[–] stormcloud847 15 years ago

it doesn't all turn out okay in the 3rd one! her dad dies! along with a bunch of other people, presumably.

MrSyntax- "If I was a funeral director, I'd be a necrophile for sure!"

[–] Finnish-man 14 years ago

How do you know he dies? The crash didn't look that bad.

[–] TitanStreak 15 years ago

i guess we're supposed to 'tag along'
and look at the 'butterfly effect' theme of the movie
weird but yea good movie

[–] UberNoodle 15 years ago

Well, what rationale did Sliding Doors give?

[–] andu-00 13 years ago

I have no idea why is this so hard to figure out. Yes Lola gets do-vers and yes it's all ambiguous enough not to have one clear meaning. Nothing even new or unseen before.

[–] hubcap18 13 years ago

Her dad didn't die in the movie. As we and Lola find out in the first segment, the bank president wasn't her biological father. From what we see in the movie, he wasn't a nice guy and was planning to leave Lola and her mother anyway, so it actually works out well for them, especially if he had a life insurance policy. Sadly, Lola may never find out that he's not her father because he didn't have the chance to tell her in that reality.

It's also the only story in which Manny and Lola both survive, and obtain the money legally.

There's no "I" in team, but there is an "m" and an "e."

[–] hubcap18 13 years ago

Sliding Doors didn't give a rationale, just a "here's what would have happened if..." alternate reality.

There's no "I" in team, but there is an "m" and an "e."