what the heck was that all about?? Explain someone please!
-
kos71ant — 21 years ago(May 26, 2004 01:41 AM)
Great summary of the film Sidnee, and some very interesting points highlighted. Could you please find the time to give your interpretation of the final scene of the film, outside the police station? What is happening there between the two of them? What is the puprose of Morgan Freeman's presence?
Thanx
The more I learn, the less I understand -
kevin27 — 21 years ago(June 11, 2004 07:08 AM)
Nicely done Sidnee.
I'm sure you're right. I watched the film recently, looking for that normal dramatic tension "Did he or didn't he?". I thought that the possibility that he didn't was receding all the way through the film, robbing us of the usual pleasure of surprise/questioning. Then "bang" there came the "We've got someone else & he's confessed". My jaw dropped.
Seen as a psychological study, it's marvellous. However, I feel that they pushed the "evidence against" so far that the ending became ridiculous. Why did he tell the terrible lies about the dog at the beginning? And how on earth had he ended up with photographs of the two little girls? Girls from different towns? Was that really all one big coincidence? -
beavis_el_bunghole — 21 years ago(January 30, 2005 08:43 PM)
No, it is just much less interesting and telling. It is, in fact, the quintessential drab French ending. But we know she is to blame for his false confession. We know she is consumed by jealousy. We know she has murdered their marriage. We know she finally realizes this. There is no need to have her kill herselfit is exponentially redundant. This ending is far more relevant to these characters and this story. And though I have not completely solidified my thoughts and emotions on this ending, reople shouldn't be so quick to debase 'American Audiences' all the time, or all of their directors.
B -
Jonathan-May — 21 years ago(December 01, 2004 05:31 PM)
Regarding your last two questions:
Why did he lie? Perhaps he really did just remember the facts incorectly the first time. People do make mistakes, and if he jogs all the time, usually with the dog from the beinning, perhaps he just forgot about this occasion when he caught up with the dog later than normal.
Why did he have photographs of the girls? Well, remember his hobby was compiling a photographic history of the island, so it's natural that he would have had photographs, not just of those two girls, but also of a LOT of other people as well.
This was a really good movie, IMHO. I found myself asking the usual did he/didn't he all the way through. Briefly, my suspicion turned to the other Cop who may have been in cahoots with the Wife, but there was no real reson for this, other than the fact that there's usually a twist in these sorts of movies.
I never suspected for a moment that as he was confessing, the real killer would be caught. It took me completely by surprise, and put a beautiful spin on everything that I had just seen that kept me wondering what the character's real motivation was for a good time after the movie finished.
Great stuff! -
twentythird — 21 years ago(July 18, 2004 06:16 AM)
Too bad we don't see much of sidnee posting, i would just follow your every move and movies start making sense
Sometimes i think to myselfGosh! i already understand these movies, i think it's the people who wants it explained and this confuses my own conclusion of the film itself
Though, sometimes i don't mind their own twisted theories on things. -
aangen — 21 years ago(September 19, 2004 01:23 AM)
I just saw the film and agree with Sidnee 100%.
The final scene to me is the payoff for three characters who all believed they were justified for their actions (a very good finish IMHO).
Henry had just gone through the wringer; he saw how his life had turned. All the questionable things he'd done, and the results of his shortcomings. He understood it all loud and clear and the result is a broken man.
Chantal also now fully realized that her jealousy and lack of faith, and the actions she took drove a possibly good man to become, or worse not become but admit to becoming a monster. She realized that she may have been wrong to assume what she assumed about Henry's relationship with Camille, and that her actions were not only unjustified, but also senselessly cruel. When she sees Henry she tries to reach out to him, but when he attempted to accept the guilt for the murders, her chances were OVER.
And Victor, why was Victor in the scene? I believe he was in the final scene so that he could fully see the results of his mistaken belief that Henry was the killer, and his misguided belief that he was perfectly right to drag Henry down the path that he did. After all, just as Chantal had convinced herself that Henry was guilty of an improper relationship with Camille and then felt justified to punish him for it, Victor did very much the same thing.
So Henry, a less than innocent victim of circumstance, ends up demonstrating on a park bench just how badly two people who should have known better have treated him. A nice ending I believe. Too bad he's destroyed in the process.
When I think back to the scene where he confesses that yes, he is attracted to young women and young girls, that was the most truthful thing he said during the entire film. It was a telling moment and the clue that maybe this guy really was what he said, a mediocre man who became rich, "acquired" a young and very beautiful wife, and that people tend to want such men to be taken down.
I just finished watching this film and was glad to see this thread. As a fan of so many movies the thought that maybe Chantal did it and Henry was covering for her entered my mind for a second. I'm sad that it did as it indicates to me I have seen way to many lame movies.:) This movie stayed true to the story in a better way than most movies. Henry pretty much stated in the first 10 minutes in his chat with Victor many reasons why people would be out to get him. Then it tested the movie audience to see what they believed. A nice touch. I was glad he wasn't guilty as I can almost relate to the character. (Don't ask
-
enigmatikmike — 19 years ago(March 19, 2007 03:55 AM)
Well done Sidney and aangen. I have to agree 101%
In my opinion the final scene shows the way in which this investigation has destroyed the three main characters.
Henry: from successful lawyer on top of the world to a dishevelled old man; broken; his dirty secrets exposed to all and he himself loved by none. Chantal: she realised how her oer-the-top jealousy destroyed her marriage; she realised what pain she must have put Henry through. A pain that led him into the arms of cheap prostitutes. Victor: his (mistaken) conviction that Henry was guilty led him to use mind games and play husband against wife and wife against husband; and as he saw the sad state Victor and Chantal ended up in he realised that the only thing he had done was destroying two completely innocent people. And, as an honourable man, this must have destroyed Victor too.
This is a wonderful film in my opinion, and we shouldn't try to tackle it in the way we tackle the usual (maybe inferior) cop films which are tackled in a less psychological way. -
Kharnaxe — 21 years ago(December 01, 2004 04:03 AM)
Some very good summaries here. I just watched the movie on the TV (it finished not five minutes ago) and another possible interpretation occurs to me.
When Henry becomes fully aware that Chantel is convinced he is guilty, he confesses to ratify her conviction - something like a final, pyrrhic gesture of love.
At least, that seems consistent to me, particularly in light of Victor's line to the effect of "you love someone who doesn't love you back." -
beavis_el_bunghole — 21 years ago(January 30, 2005 08:49 PM)
No. Those pictures were found in an unknown person's car. Henr was utterly innocent. That is why the woman looks odd as she is hearing his onfession and showing Victor the cd wallet. It is the wallet of another man whom we never see.
B -
sockscats-1 — 18 years ago(April 18, 2007 08:05 PM)
Sidnee i agree completely. Normally a guy like henry hearst isn't a sympathetic character in movies but here he is the ultimate victim. This was a fine film but everyone wants to make an issue out of who did the crime when the movie explains that clearly to the viewer at the end..
-
biwat — 18 years ago(June 21, 2007 01:30 PM)
Very good analysis by Sidnee. Thanks.
At the ending after Victor tells Herry he can "go home now",
and states we found the killer or words to that effect,there
appears a "pause". By turning the volume WAY UP one can barely
make out amoung the ambient noise the following words by Victor
"It was Hector". This was Henrys wifes sisters husband. The
clincher incriminating the killer was the photos found in Hectors
car shown to Victor when the woman informed Victor the killer had
been caught in the act. It appears the photos were copied by
Hector and planted in Henrys stack of photos at his house.
I only watched the movie once, but I believe this box of photos
was hand-labeled, whereas others in the stack had printed
labels. Assuming the above correct, then Chantel (Henrys wife)
could gave been having an affair with Hector (as Henry suspected
Hector wanted to do) and Chantel and Hector set Henry
up by planting copies of the photos in Henrys dark-room. I'd be
interested in opinions of the above. -
Steve_Y2K — 18 years ago(September 29, 2007 02:21 AM)
She wasn't jealous of any of the girls, (her niece, or the photo girls) she was just really creeped out by the attention her husband gave them. So much so that she became frigid and distant, which becomes suspicion of more than just perverted inclinations once Morgan Freeman contacts her.
-
bhaubeyy — 17 years ago(October 05, 2008 09:28 AM)
People call this an analysis, when its a recap with an opinion. Sidnee, you missed the entire point. Henry did not confess out of love, or regret, or any crap like that HE ACTUALLY BELIEVED HE WAS GUILTY.
Understand, Henry just spent HOURS in the station having the "evidence" that he was a rapist, a pedophile, and a murderer POUNDED into his head.
Freeman's chatacter DESTROYS a man. just by following the evidence, and using a damned effective method of interrogation. So effective, that by the end of the movie, after he has an old friend calling him a monster, drilling the evidence home, being forced to review his life and his marriage, which has become a joke (due to his wife's uncontrollable jealousy), Hackman's character falls victim to a proven psychological phenomenon:
"IF YOU ARE TOLD SOMETHING ENOUGH TIMES, NO MATTER HOW LUDICROUS, IF IT IS PRESENTED IN A CLEAR LOGICAL FASHION, WITH "FACTS", IF YOU ARE TOLD SOMETHING ENOUGH TIMES, YOU WILL EVENTUALLY BELIEVE IT."
Need more proof? the name of the book this movie is based on is "BRAINWASH"
"God, I hate temporal mechanics." - Chief O'Brien, DS9 -
p-vangelder — 21 years ago(October 03, 2004 12:31 PM)
A movie which keeps you puzzled.
I was quite puzzled by the words of the main character "I didn't know that she could go this far". As if his wife wanted to set him up for these murders. Then he continues pleading guilty. It seems in order to protect his wife.
A beautiful role for the main character's wife: Monica Bellucci. I think we'll see much more from her in the future. -
Expresso79 — 21 years ago(October 16, 2004 01:56 PM)
The most important quote by Gene Hackman is when he says "she really thinks i did it ?" and then he starts to confess the crimes even though he didn't commit them.
His wife always accused him about his "relationship" with her cousin and she was always extreme jealous of him.
She didn't trust him and that was very painfull for him.
But i really don't understand how some people came up to the idea that his wife killed those girls that's too excessive!! She had no motive and no reason to do it.