MovieChat Forums > Would You Rather (2019) Discussion > Did anyone else notice how Iris did a 18...

Did anyone else notice how Iris did a 180?

posted 11 years ago by Danimal_77
13 replies | jump to latest

In the first round she's paired off with the the black guy and we see that she chooses to electrocute herself rather than electrocute him, which showed us the audience that she was a woman with integrity and morals and preferred to suffer, rather than inflict pain on someone else. Now, fast forward to the last round, when she's paired off with the guy who just sliced his own eyeball. She's given the option to walk away and not hurt him, but she chooses instead to shoot him dead.

At 1 hour in when Cal kills Travis and he sits back down and says out to himself that it had to be done, Iris looks at Cal saying, NO, you didn't have to do it.

All of these actions from Iris went completely counter her final action. It's just hard to accept the fact that she completely changed as a person at the end of the night from this other person she had been all night. I suppose the director wanted us to be in shock at her decision, because he groomed us all through the movie in believing that Iris would not be capable of hurting another person, let alone kill them (and especially someone who had been caring with her all night).

Do you guys think that her transformation was realistic? Did her core belief system change that radically in the course of a night, where she can go from a caring, decent and moral woman, to a cold blooded murder?

[–] r0xyhulax1 11 years ago

I was very shocked as well. I didn't think she had it in her to kill him, especially after he helped her so much. Maybe she was just so desperate to help her brother and keep him alive that she decided to kill another human being for it.

[–] sneezer (166) 7 years ago

The actions of Iris mimic what Alison in Drag Me To Hell went through. Total selfishness. She sacrificed her kitten in order to remove the curse the old hag had put on her.

[–] hopeandgloryy 11 years ago

Well, imo, in the beginning she chose to electrocute herself because she didn't know that only one person would survive the game. By the end of it, she had seen the others die and she knew that only one person would walk out of there alive. I'm thinking that she either didn't trust the host when it came to both of them walking out alive, or she didn't think it was worth going through all of that and then end up empty handed. She was there for her brother, and she knew that their situation wouldn't have improved if she didn't get any money or a transplant for him.

[–] cmbh123 11 years ago

Yep

In reality there was no choice. Does anyone think the host would just let them both walk out of there, both witnesses to murder?

The person who lived would have blood on their hands and be guilty too.

If she had decided they would both walk out of there the guy would be given the same choice and if decided the same they would both be killed IMO

[–] venusboys3 11 years ago

I'm not so sure.
The host had been scrupulously honest in everything so far. He might not have given them all the necessary information up front but he does stick to the rules.
As it is the writers kind of put themselves into the corner where if both final contestants had chosen to end the game and walk away empty handed... well that's kind of a non-ending.
So she had to shoot him for dramatic purposes if nothing else... and yeah, I do think it kind fails to line up to her earlier actions.
Better if she had voted to end the game and the gun is then handed to the other guy... who then shoots her.
Now that's an ending I would have enjoyed!

[–] resera 10 years ago

The host had been scrupulously honest in everything so far? You seriously thought that?

What was it that Lambrick replied in the doctor's office when Iris asked what if she didn't win? He said "you just don't win, that's it". No honesty whatsoever there.

[–] venusboys3 9 years ago

Well, yeah... I suppose 'scrupulously honest' would include not leaving out important information. But I don't think he ever outright lied.
I'd have to watch it again to get the full context of the 'you just don't win, that's it' conversation... I can see how there might be several ways of interpreting that answer, not all of them dishonest.

[–] Redux006 11 years ago

Because in the beginning, it wasn't a choice between her brother's life and a relative-stranger's life. If she didn't shoot him, her brother would die from his illness. Think about the person you love most in the world, would you rather see them wither away and die from an excruciating condition, or would you rather put a bullet in some person you met an hour ago?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] speedy1383 11 years ago

I can't fault her. She's smart. Like others have said in this thread, there is no way in hell the host would have let the two go free. I am sorry, but I don't see that happening. So it was either both of them dying or the guy dying. Easy choice if you ask me. You cannot trust that host. If the guy who slashed his eye was set free, I definitely think he would have gone to the cops.

[–] L_Ron_HubbaHubba 11 years ago

She was a sell-out from the very beginning.

She ate the meat.

[–] nickmar68 11 years ago

The guys story was going on and on. I would've shot him just to shut him up.

[–] bing-57 11 years ago

> Do you guys think that her transformation was realistic? Did her core belief system change that radically in the course of a night, where she can go from a caring, decent and moral woman, to a cold blooded murder?

She did it for her brother. It was either get nothing or save her brother.

In the previous rounds, she was never asked to seriously hurt anyone and she was never faced with elimination. Once she knew that this was the last chance, she took it.

--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?