button purpose


what is the purpose of the button at the end?
wikipedia describe the ending as:
He remembers Lara saying a button popped off as she was leaving, and notices that it is raining just as it had been the night of the murder. He tosses a piece of paper in the current where the button would've fallen off, and finds it leads into a gutter. He searches the gutter but is unable to find the button. "You really thought you were gonna find it?" his assistant asks. But it turns out the button was there, buried under grime and dust, and the detectives miss it by seconds.
when the detective is not able to find the button so how that proves that she was innocent?
whats the button purpose?
whose button was that lARA or KILLER?
i didnt understand the button theory




at the mid of the movie john was reading something and thinks that lara picks fire extinguisher and hit in her boss head.
wat was that?

reply

It's actually very easy. If he DID find the button, then the who break out would have been somewhat useless. Because than they might have believed her theory and there could have been a new trial. But now the button wasn't found, her breaking out of prison seemed to be the best thing he could have done.

reply

thnx guy but
If he DID find the button, then the who break out would have been somewhat useless.
he didnt find the button but it was there so this proves that she was innocent and if they find the button than wat happend?



but 1 Q is left.
mid o fthe mvie lara husband was readind some papers and thinking that lara pick up fire extinguisher and killed her boss.wat was that?
and why she picks and touch fire extinguisher?


again thnx for helping and answring my question.

reply

thnx guy but
If he DID find the button, then the who break out would have been somewhat useless.i didnt understand this.
he didnt find the button but it was there so this proves that she was innocent and if they find the button than wat happend?



but 1 Q is left.
mid o fthe mvie lara husband was readind some papers and thinking that lara pick up fire extinguisher and killed her boss.wat was that?
and why she picks and touch fire extinguisher?


again thnx for helping and answring my question.

reply

[deleted]

at the end the detective goes to the crime place and remember wat lara said that she heared a button popping sound.
so how detective found the tunnel over there?
why he gone there to find the button?
if he manage to find the button then wat happend?
wats good in this that he didnt find the button?

plz reply to all question?
thnx

reply

when lara picks up fire extinguisher she couldnt see her boss lying there?

reply

The reason she could not see her boss is that the boss was lying on the ground on the right side of her car. She picked up the fire extinguisher from under the left front tire. The woman's body was not exposed to view until she pulled her car out of the spot.

But I think the director is leaving us with the possibility that the cop will find the button, and therefore, re-look at the case. Watch the end again closely, and you will see this: After they find nothing in the drain, the two cops drop the metal grate down and walk away. Just then, the button slips from where it was stuck, and falls into the bottom frame of the grate, the part onto which the grate is dropping. The grate then closes with a "clink" sound, and the detective stops, turns and looks back at the grate, leaving the viewer to wonder if he would try and re-open the grate after hearing the "clink."

Haggis is leaving us with a conundrum: Is it possible that the case might be re-opened, and that Lara would one day have her day again in court, now when John had put them in a position where they could never return to the USA?

reply

how the detectives found that there is a gutter and might button is underneath it.
they dont find the button wats the advantage of this?
and if the did find the button then wat happen?
actually i couldnt understand the end? And the button purpose wat the writer was trying to say?

reply

how the detectives found that there is a gutter and might button is underneath it.
they dont find the button wats the advantage of this?
and if the did find the button then wat happen?
actually i couldnt understand the end? And the button purpose wat the writer was trying to say?

reply

Lara originally told the police that a woman ran past her and ripped a button off of her jacket, that she heard the button pop off. If the police found the button it would bring truth to Lara's story that there had been a person running away from the scene.
Finding the button would make it likely for the police to believe that she was telling the truth, that she didn't kill her boss.
Since the didn't find the button they assumed that she made it up, and that there had never been another person near there.

reply

[deleted]

The button wouldn't prove very much, especially so long after the murder. It could have been anyone's button.

reply

ya I don't know what's wrong with people thinking the button would have "proved" anything you people need to get real lol.

reply

the writer created a good hook for people with the button if nothing else...
JACKET WOULD BE RETAINED AS EVIDENCE FROM CRIME SCENE HAVING BLOOD ON IT SO BUTTON WOULD MATCH JACKET WHEN FOUND IF VICTIM DID NOT RIP BUTTON EITHER SHE HERSELF DID OR AS SHE CLAIMED THE THIRD PERSON...

reply

the writer created a good hook for people with the button if nothing else...
JACKET WOULD BE RETAINED AS EVIDENCE FROM CRIME SCENE HAVING BLOOD ON IT SO BUTTON WOULD MATCH JACKET WHEN FOUND IF VICTIM DID NOT RIP BUTTON EITHER SHE HERSELF DID OR AS SHE CLAIMED THE THIRD PERSON...

reply

ya I don't know what's wrong with people thinking the button would have "proved" anything you people need to get real lol.

reply

The button was more proof for us. The police did not find it, she was still quilty and even if they found it, we couldn't know what would happen, the case was closed.
If there wasn't button, you would never know she is inocent. You get it?

reply

Earlier in the movie, they mention that no new evidence could be presented...

reply

[deleted]

She couldn't see her boss laying on the ground, because she was on the right side of her car. Her boss was on the left side of her car.

reply

The reason they showed the button was only to assure us that she was indeed innocent & was telling the truth. That's the simple fact of it.

reply

The detective tested the most likely theory of what happened to the button if it existed. Though he didn't find the actual button, his experiment produced enough credibility that he began to doubt his original perspective. He will likely re-examine existing evidence and testimony from a defensive angle to determine if Lara was truthfully a victim of happenstance.

reply

[deleted]

The button probably belonged to the killer, and if they found it they could eventually reopen the case and find the real
murderer. But the button falls into the gutter, so the purpose of this is only to show us that Lara was innocent after all.

reply

The button part was was seriously dumb...

How could finding the button make her innocent in anyway, or even raise doubts?
Finding it doesn't really mean anything.

Lara claims she lost her button by running into the murder. Then at the end of the movie the cop starts looking for the button. Finding it wouldn't mean that she didn't murder that woman.

For example the button could of been ripped off during a slight struggle between the murder (Lara) and the victim.

Or Lara could of been in the parking lot for a while waiting for the woman to go to her car. While she was waiting someone could of bumped into her knocking off her button..

Or the button could of gotten tore off by Lara running into someone after she murdered the woman. She could of bumped into a person as she was fleeing the crime.

The button really doesn't prove anything more than she was there. Finding it doesn't mean that she couldn't of killed that woman. It actually would work against her since it would only prove that she was in fact there at some point. Barely even that though, because she could of been there and lost that button days before the murder even took place...

It was poor writing..

reply

Yeah I have to agree. I think it would have been better for the detective to have found the button, and then say, "huh, I wonder..." and then for the smart black detective to tell him to forget about it and go get coffee. The button surely could not have proved anything in court, so I have to agree that it wasn't a strong way to end the movie. Can't fault the whole movie for that, though. Really, really, really minor.

reply

A lot of films leave the viewer at the end unsure of what really happened. Without the last scene at the end the viewer would have wondered if she really did kill the woman or not. If the writer wanted us the viewer to not be sure if she commited the murder or not then there would have been no button for us the audience to see at the end. Since the writer wanted us to have no doubt of her innocence he let us see the button. It had nothing to do with the plot of the movie it was just a nod to us what really happened. I hate movies that have to dumb down for some people that are just too stupid to get it and I'm glad this film wasn't one of them.If there are people who can't understand that then maybe you shouldn't have watched the film in the first place and just stick to the PG movies.

reply

"I hate movies that have to dumb down for some people that are just too stupid to get it and I'm glad this film wasn't one of them.If there are people who can't understand that then maybe you shouldn't have watched the film in the first place and just stick to the PG movies."




Maybe snotty people with superiority complexes and attitude problems shouldn't comment on message boards and just stick to watching Jerry Springer to help them feel better about their angry, ignorant, hate filled, pitiful little existences.













Though I Wander I Am Not Lost...

reply

I think the earlier comment was right: it was the real murderer's button. But try tracing someone based on a button.

And I think the earlier comment that it's legal to break out of jail if you're innocent is false. If you're convicted in a fair trial that all that matters. Not even an appeal judge can free you purely on the basis of innocence.

reply

button tracing tech has come a long way.

but actually the button would just give a very reasonable doubt. you wouldn't catch the murderer from the button directly but you'd know there was another person at the scene of the crime.

reply

Let me just repeat that brilliant phrase right there that pretty much sums "The button" scene up: REASONABLE DOUBT.

Thank you Caleb.

Not above cutting a b*tch, since 1988

reply

...or just that someone lost a button in that spot at some point in the three years that followed

reply

that's possible but unlikely that it was the intention of the director to put in an unrelated event that happens to match up with a major plot twist. that's now how good movies are made. every scene has a purpose.

reply

Not even an appeal judge can free you purely on the basis of innocence.
WHAT ??

reply

"How could finding the button make her innocent in anyway, or even raise doubts?
Finding it doesn't really mean anything.

Lara claims she lost her button by running into the murder. Then at the end of the movie the cop starts looking for the button. Finding it wouldn't mean that she didn't murder that woman.

For example the button could of been ripped off during a slight struggle between the murder (Lara) and the victim.

Or Lara could of been in the parking lot for a while waiting for the woman to go to her car. While she was waiting someone could of bumped into her knocking off her button..

Or the button could of gotten tore off by Lara running into someone after she murdered the woman. She could of bumped into a person as she was fleeing the crime.

The button really doesn't prove anything more than she was there. Finding it doesn't mean that she couldn't of killed that woman. It actually would work against her since it would only prove that she was in fact there at some point. Barely even that though, because she could of been there and lost that button days before the murder even took place... "

Actually, the button COULD have been used as strong evidence that Lara DID NOT commit the murder.


1."For example the button could of been ripped off during a slight struggle between the murder (Lara) and the victim."

False.
A). The victim was hit on the head with a fire extinguisher.
B).There was no other evidence on either Lara or the victim of a struggle.
C). The victim was on the side of her car INSIDE the parking structure.
D). A button ripped off at the spot where the victim was found would not have found its way into the gutter, as it would have had to traveled across the dry floor of a covered parking lot, out into the driving, by the edge of sidewalk, and into the gutter.


2."Or Lara could of been in the parking lot for a while waiting for the woman to go to her car. While she was waiting someone could of bumped into her knocking off her button.."

False.
A). Buttons, much less those fastened onto someone's back, do not pop off with an audible "pop" from someone bumping into you while you're waiting.

3. "Or the button could of gotten tore off by Lara running into someone after she murdered the woman. She could of bumped into a person as she was fleeing the crime."

False.
A). It was shown, numerous times, that Lara did not leave the crime scene on foot - she DROVE off.
B). Lara's coworker witnessed that he saw her DRIVING out of the parking structure, moments before he saw the murder victim.

4."It actually would work against her since it would only prove that she was in fact there at some point. "

False.
A). No one - not even Lara herself - is disputing that she was at the crime scene at some point.


The button could

A). Be matched with the brand, style, make, and year of the jacket she was wearing. If the jacket in question could still be procured, one could check to see that is missing one button on the back.

B). A button popping off with an audible "pop" indicates to force beyond mere bump. It indicates an altercation with someone - which would prove that there was at least one other person at the crime scene. The altercation would have needed to have involved heightened enough force - applied abruptly and in concisely enough - so as to create enough sudden tension in the several short threads of string between the jacket and the button so as to cause the threads to break. This heightened force does not occur by two people merely bumping. There would have had to have been either A) physical struggle, or B) the two people had to have been coming at each other from opposite directions, and at least one person had to have been running and not paying close attention.

C). The button would have had to have been at a distance where, after being severed from the jacket, it could have fallen into the gutter.

Argument B in and of itself would prove there was at least one other person at the scene, thereby changing the the perspective of the case IMMENSELY. The button alone could have proved her innocence, as often we have to look at what is PLAUSIBLE.

reply

[deleted]

I think it's very clever. Up until we see the button, we just can't be sure if Lara is innocent. The flashback could be what the detective recounts from what Lara testified, not necessary the "fact". Showing the button proves her innocence to us, the audience.
The button also gives us hope. Even the detective doesn't find it, it shows that he has doubt and may start to re-investigate it, and finally clear her name.
Either way, there is little chance they will be back to U.S. shortly. John would get locked up for a long time for what he did, or worse get killed by the retaliating gangs.

reply

Right, the button shows that her account of the events were likely true- meaning she didn't commit the murder.
However, it is not enough evidence to re-investigate and overturn her conviction.
Also, since she participated in a prison break and broke many laws in the process she can't come back anyway, and certainly her husband can't return- he's in worse trouble than she is.

reply

Some of the key points of The Next Three Days are control, choice and coincidence. In how much of our lives are we really in control? That is what John says in an expository scene.

There are several moments throughout the film where John is forced to make a massive choice which either way would have massive consequences. For example, he considers robbing a bank; he considers driving away without his son; or his wife attempts to jump out of the car and kill herself and not have to face life anymore.

When we finally see what happened that fateful night in the end of the movie - assuming what we see is as it happened - the outcome of the trial hinged on these ideas too. What was a fire extinguisher doing in the middle of a carpark? the wife was ultimately careless, and absent-minded, perhaps due to the confrontation with the boss earlier. The chain of events leading to that point has led her to a cusp in her life in which another moment of carelessness, acting without thinking or planning, she moves a fire extinguisher and suddenly her fingerprints are on a fire extinguisher used in a murder. A moment of thought or awareness could have saved her, and potentially the boss. So part of the message i get from The Next Three Days is the connectedness of life, we are part of a chain of events, and in each moment we can choose to act carefully, or thoughtlessly.

Now I may be placing too much on Lara's hastiness, but I think this concept fits in well with how the husband operates - largely in the opposite way - he plans everything, he is meticulous, and the escape is largely about studying, analysing, controlling the variables. Her haste seems to be to sit in sharp contrast with the rigourous planning her husband employed to break her out.

So in the film's conclusion with the button, again, fate hinges on the finest of margins. A piece of dirt. The smallest of things. How much of our lives do we really control?

reply

yes the whole button thing was a very dumb part of the movie. To the movie goers yes it kinda shows us that she was not guilty but in reality a button is absolutely no way enough evidence to make or break a case

reply

I don't see how the button really creates reasonable doubt. Do we let all convicted murderers free because someone else's button is found on the scene??? OK, it fits with her story that she heard a button fall, but I'm sure people lose buttons everywhere. And the button was a fair way from where it originally fell and found a long time later.

reply

Lara didn't see the murder so the flashback couldn't have been part of her testimony.

I guess everyone has their own interpretations and mine was that the flashback proved she didn't do it (though I was certain of her innocence from earlier when she lied and said she did do it). The button scene was superfluous but apparently the director decided he needed to make it absolutely clear to the audience in case they still had any doubt.

Had they found the button in the first place it would not have proven her innocence but it may have provided the reasonable doubt that some jurors may have looked at to find her not guilty. I doubt finding it at the end would have done anything to influence her case since no new evidence was being allowed and it was still a very small part of the evidence (it would just prove that she was not making up the story about someone else being there and that is only if the button was not from her clothing), certainly not enough to warrant a new trial even if they did consider it. All it would have done was sew further seeds of doubt of her guilt in the detectives mind that were already there or he would not have gone back to the site in the first place.

As it stands the audience knows she was innocent. It doesn't matter when you figured it out the fact is she was innocent and that is all that mattered.

reply

Guys, the button wasn't from Lara's coat. It was from the killer's.

http://s4.zetaboards.com/The_Rendezvous/index/
The Rendezvous

reply

Why did so many people not understand certain elements of this movie? You have people who asked HOW the Father knew they went to Venezuela, what the button meant, why he had duct tape on his shirt, how a deaf man can ride a motorcycle, why there was a photo of Haiti, etc. It actually frustrates me to see so many ignorant questions on the board. I mean, were they not paying attention? What is up with this? Sorry, just curious.

reply

Ignore the button scene. As viewer, no need to be so clever to know that Lara is innocent.
If she killed the woman, she wouldn't have been in the restaurant and still has time to make out with his husband in the car.
And the next day still woke up doing her daily life as usual.
Taking pictures? Conversation about his in law's birthday?

If she killed the woman, she would have did something to hide the evidences. Leaving finger prints on the fire tub? Come on!

The button scene is an art, as a good movies always did at the end of the movie.
Only dumb people would ask why why why..

Yes your question hurts my brain too!

reply

One of the things that popped my mind when we saw the button while the police officer didn't, was a thing that I think John said to Luke. I'm sure these weren't the exact words but it went something like this: 'it doesn't matter what other people think about the innocence or guilt of your mother, it matters what you think!' So in a way, you could interpret this whole button-scene as: it doesn't matter if the world will believe / know that Lara was innocent, as long as you, the viewer, believes she is.

Any thoughts / comments on this?

reply

lol! John's mom said that to him! The button part at the end was to show the audience that she was innocent. Yes, I agree with your idea.

reply

Definitely, it was to show she was innocent. The lawyer said earlier on in the film that 'no new evidence could be used' so if they HAD found the button, it would only prove to those who found it that she wasn't guilty. It couldn't be sued any further...

reply

There are no statute of limitations on murder. Where does it say in the constitution you have the right to take the law into your own hands?
I agree in the name of justice that she shouldn't be tried for breaking out of jail if she was proven to be innocent of murder, but he has alot of splannin to do.

reply