Not everything in *12 Monkeys* is entirely clear, but I had the feeling the audience was meant to make certain inferences. My only feeling that they're "correct" inferences comes from discussing them with other people who saw the film and read the same clues I did in the same way I did. I believe the "feint" about Jeffrey Goines is not made *in* the film but rather *by* the film. That is: the entire idea that Goines was involved is a red herring. This would be more disruptive if the image of animals above ground which appears to be Goines' actual scheme was not assiduously prepared by the first 10 minutes of the film. The entire idea that Willis' character came from the future and inadvertantly "contaminated" the past with his knowledge, on this view, is also a ruse. The film makes no connections between Goines and the red-haired scientist: they don't ever seem to meet. Rather, we see the scientist's interest in the psychologist's book, which we can take as a reflection of his *own* interests and preoccupations. I think it's supposed to be clear to viewers that the scientist from the future is indeed sitting next to the red-haired scientist at the film's close. The stated goal of the scientists in the future--it's said at least three times--is to get a pure sample of the virus before it mutates (shades of HIV's adaptive powers) in order to find a cure. There seems to be no idea of *preventing* the virus's release from occurring. If that were the goal, then Willis' character would have failed as soon as the red-haired scientist opens one of the vials in the airport. At that point, the game would, in a sense, be over. I thought the film's use of the idea of time travel was odd, until someone pointed out to me that the film's understanding of time is that the same events repeat endlessly without any control by history's participants--like the unrolling of a film as something programmed in advance. In a sense, the film simplifies the concept of time travel to make it less confusing: the Willis character's cellmate shows up in the airport a few minutes *after* Willis leaves the phone message, rather than before, which would be perfectly plausible. But the future's scientists don't seem to be too precise at aiming their human projectiles into time. (Witness Willis and his cellmate's appearance in the trenches of World War I.) The release of the virus in the airport (for the pesky X-ray security guard) and the goal of getting hold of the virus only *after* the fact make the end of the film difficult to interpret in standard Hollywood terms. I heard numerous people leaving the theater say, "Well, it wasn't really a happy ending, was it?" Inasmuch as it seems like the film has a tragic or anyways fateful conception of time, as opposed to a voluntarist idea of changing the past, the whole "happy ending" question, vulgar as it may be, is nevertheless thrown into an interesting light. Edward R. O'Neill UCLA ---- To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]