what the heck was that all about?? Explain someone please!
-
msfitzga — 19 years ago(October 21, 2006 11:15 AM)
I believe this ineffectual flick meant to demonstrate that Gene Hackman's character was so repelled by the revelation of his own character, he confessed to someone else's crime as a penence for his own guilty thoughts.
That said, it just doesn't come off. Hackman blusters and threatens Freeman's police chief character as an expression of his arrogant belief of superiority in both intelligence and breeding. The movie works hard to prove that he believed in his innocence, no matter what he actually did.
But then they show he is one incredibly stupid guy. Why would an aging pervert be so blind to his own peril? He reports a hideous murder in a manner that MUST cast suspicion on himself given his background and repulsive interests without apparently ever having considered that he might need to think over the details in his statement.
The chief makes it clear that Hackman could not have discovered the body in the manner he reported; it was too far from the jogging path and covered by dense shrubbery. He couldn't have had a canine jogging companion as claimed; none of the neighbors noted a dog with him of the several who saw him running. He claimed not to know either victim despite having made several posed photographs of them; why? Did our clever lawyer believe no one would search his dark room?
Hackman's character is constantly backtracking to cover transparent lying without thinking that he shouldn't tell any more transparent lies. He's a smart, successful tax attorney but this native intelligence (lying to the IRS) does nothing to help him lie convincingly to the police? Criminal Court must allow for a margin of doubt that thousands of criminals exploit every day. The IRS is notorious for sinking even the most powerful.
Either he understood that his slumming pedophile behavior ran counter to his social standing or he believed that he had a right to pursue underage girls for his own perverted needs. If it was the former, he would have honed his skill at deceiving to a high art form and could easily have found a way to report a crime he didn't commit without placing himself at risk. If it was the latter, everyone in an island community would have known his proclivities and there wouldn't have been a need to dissemble.
The writer/director is supposed to keep the audience guessing about Hackman's guilt by misdirection. There should be clues by which the viewer can backtrack to see where they missed the surprise ending. "Sleuth", starring Michael Caine and Larence Olivier, is an oldie but goodie in this genre. Both characters are revealed as flawed and narcissistic; each one would have been capable of murdering the woman they fought over. And just as in "Under Suspicion", the bulk of the movie is dialogue between the two, a verbal joust with real wounds inflicted.
But the end of "Sleuth" was both shocking and logical while "Under Suspicion" is just shocking. The audience is left to wonder why Freeman's police chief swiftly releases a confessing suspect simply because a third murder has been committed during his confinement. Can you say, "Copy Cat"?
The wife, complicit in her husband's emotional destruction, is suddenly overwhelmed with guilt and shown attempting to reconcile outside the station. Why? He confessed to murdering a couple of little girls. Suddenly she sees that he is a good man? After finding out about his slum wanderings?
They could have saved the picture with a standard Morgan Freeman voice-over, explaining why anyone would believe that this clever and powerful tax attorney (ATTORNEY, for God's Sake!) could have been such a clumsy moron throughout the ordeal. And why the police chief would have anything at all to feel guilty about other than arresting a man too stupid to be left wandering the streets!
But we're supposed to understand the importance of masks (and thus the need to place this farce in the midst of a carnival where everyone wheres them) and why some are better left in place.
They would like to leave a mask of mystery over why anyone should believe this was a plausible storyline. -
eastcoastguyz — 17 years ago(March 07, 2009 08:12 PM)
"I believe this ineffectual flick meant to demonstrate that Gene Hackman's character was so repelled by the revelation of his own character, he confessed to someone else's crime as a penence for his own guilty thoughts. "
Exactly, right! Those that think he cracked under pressure weren't watching the movie that carefully. -
mitticus — 19 years ago(January 13, 2007 02:52 PM)
Did you watch the movie?
It is very clear that he did not kill the girls.
He flipped under the pressure and the assuredness of the detectives that he was guilty.
A few things he had done (his like for younger girls) made him appear guilty. But at the end of the day, there was no proof of anything extremely illegal except for the young prostitute - which there is considered normal "enough". His visits to "barely legal" made him look like a child molester whereas the reality was that he didnt fancy old women - he fancied younger models - hence the wife.
he was a bit of a pervert yes, but a murderer no.
That was made very clear at the end of the movie when they caught the real culprit. -
CmdrCody — 18 years ago(June 22, 2007 06:01 AM)
GuysGuysGuys.
No. Hearst did not kill the girls.
Yes. He is incredibly pissed at his wife, Chantalon almost every level.
The final straw for Hearst was when he was told (mistakenly) that SHE gave the photos from the darkroom to the police. You can see it in his face. The final betrayal. Hearst is now convinced that his wife thinks he's actually a child killer, not just a flirt with her niece and that she is helping the police to nail him.
So, what does he do? To get back at herto make her suffer..he starts to lie about killing the girlsmaking up a storyknowing she's watching behind the mirror. HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT GOING TO PRISON AT THAT CRAZY MOMENTHE JUST WANTS TO TEACH HER A LESSON ABOUT JEALOSY, DECEITE AND PAIN.
Since the real perp was a serial killer, with Hearst in custody, the killer would have struck again and the police would have realized they had the wrong guy. Hearst probably knows this.
Don't you see the irony in the last moments of the picture? It comes flying off the movie screen ! During the entire movie, Hearst has been surrounded by his friends and acquaintances (except for Detective "Opie", .Hearst knows where he stands with him). Yet, ALL eventually believe him to be a kiddie killer and rapist. No one comes forward and says, "Heythis is our friend Hearst..or..this is my HUSBAND: HE WOULD NEVER DO SUCH A THING !!!!"
Hearst comes to a realization about everyone around him. As he gets up from the park bench, walks away leaving his wife in the plaza and the screen fades to black, he is certain that he is as alone in his world as he feels. THAT'S THE POINT OF THE MOVIE.
I think the picture is brilliant. It covers a lot of ground. Not just murder and police procedure. But about relationships, self delusion, misplaced hatreds, and the price of jealousy. We see Gene Hackman and Morgan Freeman give, perhaps, the acting summit of their careers. THEY wanted to make this movie, together. It is an intense psychological thriller with much expressed in glances and eye contact.
You, in the audience, are asked simply to pay attention as they ply their craft. That's all.
CmdrCody -
djrachal — 17 years ago(December 01, 2008 11:21 PM)
Well said, This was EXACTLY my take on the movie. I just watched it for the first time and really enjoyed it. In fact, I have little to add to CmdrCody's post except: For those who didn't understand the ending (and therefore probably missed other crucial points) it is really worth the time to watch it again!
-
Guamley — 17 years ago(January 16, 2009 01:43 PM)
Excellent synopsis Cody.
How anyone could have watched this movie and not know Hackman WAS NOT the killer is hard to fathom.
There was nothing ambigious about it.
Hackman obviously felt so betrayed by his wife that he just didn't give a beep anymore. -
jbsweetheart456 — 16 years ago(October 03, 2009 02:57 PM)
PERFECT analysis! I just saw the movie with my uncle and it was AMAZINGLY done! Hackman and Freeman were brilliant and my uncle said the exact same thing when the credits rolled.
"I dont BE the Gold Standard, i AM the Gold Standard"
~Shelton Benjamin -
spuncky — 18 years ago(August 20, 2007 06:10 AM)
He flipped because wife believed that he did do it. The moment were he realizes the full extent of his wife's loathing, he realizes that nothing matters any more. If she thinks he's that bad, why not just accept it.
This scene in itself works quite well (despite what the rest of you think), and it is the sole reason that this is a good movie.
Solidum petit in profundis -
-
russthebus83 — 15 years ago(July 16, 2010 11:42 PM)
If 1 or 3 were the case, then freedman wouldn't have just let either of them go, so it has to be 2. I basically agree with the mind game theory, but I think it goes deeper than just what the police were doing. It goes back to years of his wife suspecting him of that behavior, and him knowing it. You can only hold your convictions in your head for so long, when people around you wear them down by opposing them. In this case, Hackman's conviction was that he was not a child molester, and it was eroded away by his wife with years of suspicion. Just because he was actually truthfully innocent, that doesn't mean his belief in his innocence is more than just a conviction in his head, as all truth is technically subjective anyway. And after those years of his wife eroding his mountain of a conviction down to a pebble, the police just smashed it with a hammer ( So to speak).
-
sidnee — 21 years ago(April 19, 2004 01:55 AM)
as someone else said in a post, the answers were all there.
Viewers just had to focus on Henry's view of it all, which you'll notice is pretty much 100% focused on his wife and her love (or lack of love) for him throughout the movie.
Here's my (lengthy) take on it:
His wife is so ridiculously jealous that it has driven them apart into separate bedrooms and he lives his whole life "under suspicion". But he still loves her and holds hope, but when he realizes that its more than jealousy .. that she is so suspicious of him that she believes him a child molester, he gives up on everything.
**
Early on Henry says "Chantel won't.. (stops himself) ..Chantel can't have children" later, in between the lies he uses to cover up the death of his marriage, he reveals the relationship truths..
Henry: "Upstairs - it gets instructive"
"The extra bedrooms were for the children, which were never used."
"The guest bedroom was redecorated- for my wife, our old room is now mine"
"In between - a hallway - 60 feet long"
"My lovely Chantel's affliction is the green-eyed monster"..jealousy.."Chantel can be -unbearable- I promise you."
"The only thing I ever wanted was to be happy with Chantel and have children, but the pitter-patter of little feet was not to be."
**
When the Detective is taunting Henry about how old his wife was when they married and how old he is, he blows up.
then has a flashback of Chantel's face when she saw his with her niece, Camille.
Henry turns to Victor: "I'm sorry. I'm really sorry this is all really rather unbearable for me.."
The detectives are trying to piece together what happened to the girls
Henry is piecing together what's happened to his life.
**
Next Henry is humiliated in front of his admirers and peers. But gives his speech
In his speech, he talks about the hurricane, and looks his wife dead in the eye as he says "There's no greater gift than a child's smile."
And his speech ends with "look into your hearts, realize what truly matters in life, and find the love to help our family."
His speech about the hurricane paralells his situation..
"perhaps catastrophe is the natural human environment. "
(looks at Victor) "..we find ourselves attacked by unforeseen forces come to harm us -even though we are innocent of any wrongdoing. But it is human nature to overcome if we work together. So please, help me to help the children."
He looks and his wife's seat is empty.
He returns to the police station and sees her talking to the detective.
When Chantel recounts the night Henry came home late, her flashback leads her walking into Henry's room and finds him standing looking at himself in the mirror he immediately puts the towel over his balding head, and closes the door on her. Henry's feeling old and lonely and unloved.
Henry is confronted by Victor about the hookers, and Henry desparately worries that Chantel might learn.
Yet Henry doesn't focus at all on the case.. he is taking a look at himself and his life. And Victor is forcing him to confront all the lonely, lowly things his life has now turned to since losing his wife's love.
**
Victor talks to Chantel and when he mentions Camille, she says "..He's out there, afraid Hoping for a Miracle: that one day things will turn out right."
She reveals that up until two years ago.. when she had her jealous episode.. they saw her sister and kids every xmas. This explains why Henry got drunk years later and took xmas presents to the sister's kids.. he had not only lost chance of having his own kids, he was taken out of the lives of her sister's kids as well.
Victor tells her she's messed up to become so extraordinarily jealous over her husband talking to her niece. Then Victor says "Dont you want to know you've been right about him?" And she gives her permission for the police to search their house.
**
Henry explains the separation of he and Chantel, and the symbolic hallway:
"I'm seperated from my wife by a hallway, a 60-ft hallway and at the very end there's a door, and when it's locked, you can knock all you want, but that door wont open."
**
Chantel comes back with the detective from the house search and is behind the two-way mirror. Victor realizes she too has joined the accusation and inquiry team, she is no longer there being questioned she's accusing.
He says to her "Youre good at hiding behind things."
(Just like she hides behind the bedroom door)
Henry looks into the glass where he knows she's watching from and says "Come in here and face me" turns to Victor, "She thinks that I did this."
He looks back at the glass sadly.
As Victor recants their judgment of Henry's guilt, and
When Henry says "I cant believe she would go to these lengths, ..to make this kind of point.."
I think he means her point is to show him just how convinced of his guilt she is (not just the murders)
He sees that the 'door is closed', so to speak, and it won't open.
I think he confesses to make the point back to her just how much he has given up on trying, they cant overcome -
gorgonos — 21 years ago(May 25, 2004 05:18 PM)
I think that Henry thought that his wife had done the murders and she tries to protect her because he loves her after all, that's why he confesses though he didn't do anything. I am not completely sure, but if you think about it, it seems like a possible explanation
-
angelalynn114 — 21 years ago(January 08, 2005 07:35 PM)
I agree that the wife killing the kids does not make sense, but there was one short cut of the wife in the flash back scenes that looked as if she was on the beach at night, with an odd look. Does anyone else remember this and have an explination for it?
-
sockscats — 16 years ago(April 17, 2009 02:29 PM)
- I think the first basic message of the film is that if you question and badger somebody enough they will say almost anything.
- Yes it has to do with the devastation of knowing his wife believes he would do something like this.
No I wouldn't call him a pervert that is dumb. He is a guy who goes to whore's to satisfy his sexual urges. The reason he doesn't have a more meaningful emotional affair is because he loves his wife. He does not want a real relationship. Also by going to low class whores he psychologically is getting back at his wife in some way.
Remember what he said that a whore is someone who gives you a lot for very little. He gets lots of sex for little money. Well his wife is the opposite a very expensive person who gives him no sex.
xxx