I also was befuddled! I didn't come up with scenario 1 though and that would be the best ending I think although the fil
-
dgris33 — 20 years ago(October 07, 2005 07:13 PM)
(hmm i donno how to create my own post, so i guess ill just reply to this one)
i thought it was an awesome movie, and i thought sidnee analyzed it wonderfully.
a new perspective on it that has been hinted at in this thread but not exactly mentioned is simply that Henry is as good as guilty if his wife believes he's guilty.
It's obvious he didn't commit the murders nor did his wife. But Henry is obsessed with his wife..her love and affectionespecially coming from such a young, beautiful womanand when she believes he's guilty, he's lost all hope. There is nothing else to hope for. His wife has emotionally betrayed him. In his mind, if she thinks he's a murderer, he might as well be. So he confesses.
It was also, like many other mentioned, a commentary on officials' ability to force false confessions. -
brownslytx — 20 years ago(October 27, 2005 09:37 PM)
I haven't read all of the posts but I have read several which seem to have similar theories of "who done it". I believe that this is the scenario:
- Henry believed that his wife committed the murders out of jealousy and confessed at the end to save her.
- When he made the statement "I didn't think she would go this far", he believed that she had killed the girls AND set him up as the murderer, all out of jealousy It was the "If I can't have you, nobody will!" syndrome.
- Consider the wife's account of when she caught him in the bedroom with her niece. As innocent as it was, she knew that that was how he used to talk to her when she was a young girl and it infuriated her. Not only that but her niece responded just as she did as a young girl so she knew that he could draw her niece in just as he drew her in years ago. Remember her comment? "He had no right making her laugh/smile like that." Something to that effect. She felt that those kind of reactions belonged to her and only her. Her jealousy was out of control from that point on.
- After Henry was held so long at the police station, the wife began to believe that he was guilty. This would only validate her jealousy all along. When the pictures of the girls were found at the house, she was sure of his guilt.
- In the end, both were wrong. Neither was the murderer and both were shocked to find that the other was innocent.
- The wife didn't realize how much her husband loved her until she realized he was confessing to save her. At the end when they were outside and sat away from each other (note: she ran up to him in a physical attempt at forgiveness and reconcilliation but he turned away from her), it was because they both realized (him more than her) how damaged their relationship had become and that it couldn't be resurrected. More importantly, she realized that it was all her fault. Of course she knew all along that he had an attraction to young girls. How could she not know considering how old she was when they got together? Yet, he truly loved her but her jealousy ruined what could have been a happy, fulfilling life with children. This is why it is implied at the end that she was going to jump of the cliff and kill herself, as in the original film. She was tormented with guilt.
It is important to note that she COULD have children. When she was being questioned at the police station, the caption said " but when you couldn't have children?" she replied "Of course I can.". This goes back to the husband's earlier slip of "she won't can't have children.". She could have children and her husband knew it. He lied because he knew that the reason she wouldn't have children was also out of her jealousy. She didn't want him to adore a child, even if it was their child, the way that he had once adored her as a child and, potentially, more than he adored her. There may have also been the concern of becoming unattractive to her husband after childbirth, which many woman experience. Remember his comment during questioning, "sometimes a woman's beauty is her only talent.". Again, I may be paraphrasing.
Sadly, I believe this movie is very true to form. There are many women who don't trust men or believe "all men are dogs". They may have a good man but their jealousy and unwarranted distrust is the ultimate cause of the relationship failing.
Sorry this was so lengthy but that's my story and I'm sticking with it!
-
AddyBaddy87 — 19 years ago(June 22, 2006 04:33 PM)
Well
What Can I Say A Really Intresting Film
I've just seen it 4 the first time today on one of the 3 dvd's you get in the paper, i remembered it caught my eye because it had Morgan Freeman in it and the person who at the time i only knew as "the busty french woman from the matrix" who i now know is Monica Belluci who is Italian - not forgetting Gene Hackman of course
Anyway the film, well it was a very intresting film, i had to pause and play back when the woman goes "the killer's downstairs" i just couldn't believe it.what a wierd and untimed twist!
I have to agree with what most other ppl have sed about the ending
I thought that Henry was the killer all along but thought that perhaps some1 had done the murders wiv him, some1 that we'd maybe see during the later stages of the film.
I thought that Chantel cud've been the killer especially when she was going on about Camile especially when she said "he shudn't have made her smile/look like that", and i alike at least 2 posts on here was thinking she's jealous of her niece because thats what she was like when she was younger wiv Henry ogling after her.
I thought Tom Jane cud've been the killer but only when we see Henry talking and there's clips of one of the mudered girls holding a male hand, but that was only briefly.
Now 2 The Evidencehow did it get there? Im not even going to comment on this because im still bloody confused.
I guess the whole film shows that if you have been reptitvly told something over and over again that eventually you will beleive it and thats what happened to Henry.
I give Under Suspicion an 8/10a good film..shame about the somewhat confusing ending -
dubida-1 — 19 years ago(July 30, 2006 08:45 PM)
This movie has a very simple structure in my opinion. You just need to take the flashbacks and think about them for a moment.
There's something more to the presence of M. Freeman "inside" G. Hackman's memories. Besides the smooth touch to the editing in the movie, which in my opinion works very well, creating a space where everybody can see what happened and not just us and G. Hackman; it also works as a metaphor for the mind games that are happening throught the dialoges. I believe that these parts didn't only have a simple aesthetical point, otherwise, in terms of direction/concept it wouldn't make any sense to have a memory in which M. Freeman can enter without discription.
It's a way to show us a mind being manipulated. And as the movie comes to an end, we realize that G. Hackman's mind had already been manipulated by the cruel obcession of his wife, that's why he gives up on trying to overcome the whole problem, using the exact discription given by both detectives without adding anything else because there was nothing else in his mind to tell.
I liked the movie, but i don't consider it a "very good" movie, because in my opinion there are some problems with the direction. There is an excessive use of spatial context for a movie that runs inside a mind, taking us to a place that becomes too relevant. Just an opinion though.
6/10 -
cozinefam — 19 years ago(November 14, 2006 09:35 AM)
I have been wondering about the question 'why Puerto Rico?' too. Today I read an interesting connection, that Puerto Rico's age of consent is 14, which would make his conduct with his wife before they married legal.
If you have questions about the film's plot and haven't read the entire thread, I recommend that you locate Sidnee's entry. Illuminating and well written. -
trking8 — 19 years ago(March 25, 2007 04:26 PM)
the ending was just plain clumsy and inartful. all of the other elements were great (the acting, dialogue, etc.), but the plot was an absolute dud. it was like the monty python skits where a barbell just comes out of the sky and ends it all. terrible.
t -
detlev-hackenberg — 18 years ago(May 08, 2007 03:03 PM)
Read Sidnee's and brownslytx' entries and you will have two logical and comprehensive explanations of the movie and maybe understand what you didn't understand after watching the movie.
brownslytx differs in his interpretation of the movie in that he believes that Henry confesses because he thinks Chantall killed the two girls. I'm not so sure about this. How would Henry explain to himself the raping of the two girls? Obviously Chantall couldn't have done that. For the rest brownslytx' review is among the best in this thread. -
mowbie — 17 years ago(May 10, 2008 12:18 PM)
I was extremely disappointed in this film.
I have not seen the French movie, Garde vue(1980 I think), that Under Suspicion is based on so I can't say the flaws in this "remake" were in the original. But it's hard to believe that Hackmans character is a lawyer. Even a tax lawyer wouldn't be so ignorant not to have representation. There was not one word about DNA evidence until they were well into the grilling. That alone would have been point one for someone innocent. The whole dog/no dog nonsence is never explained. The budget for this movie was $25MM!!?!?! What was the money spent on? Gene and Morgans salaries? -
skay_baltimore — 17 years ago(December 12, 2008 08:13 AM)
My thoughts:
- No one in this movie is actually "innocent". Hackman' character, while not having committed the rapes/murders, certainly has questionable pedophile tendencies. His wife is obsessively jealous. Freeman's character has had 2 failed marriages. And Detective Opie is ethically challenged (and clearly not the brightest bulb in the pack).
- I think that as a result of Hackman's character's guilty conscience over his other "crimes" (even though he didn't commit the rapes/murders of the 2 girls) he wants to be punished, and that's part of what motivates him to make the false confession, along with an odd, almost ritualistic love/obsession for/with his wife.
- I think the photos in the dark room were definitely taken by Hackman's character, his wife saw them, and knew that their existence would implicate her husband, after which she built the plot to set him up from there because of her out of control jealousy.
- I think that the wife set up the husband by conspiring with the actual rapist/murderer. There's also an outside possibility (very slim, though) that the wife did the murders, simulated the rapes somehow, and then set up whoever it was that was charged at the end. But as someone else pointed out, the rape part would be problematic, although not impossible. Interestingly, there are some peculiar elements in the movie with regard to the rapes. First of all, Freeman's character seems perturbed that Detective Opie mentions the rapes when he does. It's as if Freeman's character did not want that aspect of the crimes revealed at that time. Second, it's stated specifically that no semen was ever found in the victims; only some chemical lubricants associated with condoms. So technically, it would have been possible for the wife to use something (i.e. a dildo) with a condom attached to simulate a rape. She could have then seduced/set up the "fall guy" (whoever that person is we are not told, he is simply introduced at the very end of the movie via the CD case with the photos) to then be accused of the rapes/murders, although that's admittedly far fetched.
- I think Hackman's character thought his wife was somehow connected to the murders, and he was attempting to save her (and punish himself for other so-called crimes) by sacrificing himself, hence the false confessions.
- I like movies that leave you thinking/guessing at the end.
Sorry for the somewhat incoherent rambling nature of this post.
-
badcommand — 17 years ago(December 23, 2008 03:22 PM)
@skay_baltimore: That's just way too complicated - let's stick with the simpler explanation that's been offered in previous posts!
Hearst didn't kill anyone. His wife didn't kill anyone, it was just someone else, doesn't matter who. But, like it happens so often in real life, some innocent person fits the profile. Hearst liked young women, was stuck in a loveless relationship, visited prostitutes and took photographs. Without any hard evidence to the contrary, that's pretty damning. And as others have said, by the end of the night, Hearst, voluntarily or otherwise, took the easy option and confessed.
Luckily, the real killer was caught, but by that time, the damage was done: Hearst had been forced to confront everything he hated about his life and it left him a broken man. -
customer_inquiry_hotline — 17 years ago(January 18, 2009 01:24 AM)
While watching the movie, I was hoping for scenario #3. It would have made for a very interesting story. But, in the end, I'm pretty sure it was simply scenario #2. He was confessing because he felt dejected in a way - his woman didn't love him, he was seeing prostitutes, all of the evidence was adding up against him (that can get to even the most innocent of people), and it seemed like there was nothing left for him. Why play hard ball when you know in the end they have "proof"?
In order to be successful, one must project an image of success at all times. -
waltermagic — 17 years ago(March 19, 2009 12:44 AM)
I beleive that his wife's jealousy is the central concept at play hereIt seems that the title indicates that Hearst is an implicated man and , given the apparent theme of misdirection the movie conveys, the suspicion that is most important is that of his wife's. Her misunderstanding of the relationship with him and her neice was evidence of her skewed view of his actions with young girls because she too had developed such a close relationship with him at such a young age, she misunderstood that his role to these other girls would develop into something similar, and she would lose him. Her extreme jealousy tainted her perception of his innocent relationships (even hi-bye or simply pictures, which they turned out to be, of course). These misdrawn conclusions cut off the sex for TWO YEARS, and remember, he IS ENTIRELY INNOCENTso he was given a life sentence of mistreatment by his wife, and rightfully he felt dejected frustrated, sad, etcHis life had become the sum total of the torture of the "sixty feet of hallway"probably not an existence he was overly attached to. He knew she was listening and watching and even told her to come face him, she refused. Hearst was given his final rejection by her and he became despondant, because he thought she knew he was telling the truth. She spit when he confessed, because she knew it was the ultimate apology to her for her false accusations of infidelity, and his confession infuriated and hurt her. Guilt/anger kind of response. Well, once the killer had been caught, her eyes were opened to the truth of her insane jealousy and looked to reconcilebut the damage was done. Both, by his confessions, and her selling him out with the pictures. That was the jealousy being "taken this far". She was trying to prove her suspicions correct,and it, well, didn't. He knew his relationship could never be salvaged, now from his perspective, as it was from her perspective before.
His confession was his version of throwing up his hands and saying i can't do this anymore. Fighting. Seperation. Divorce. Infidelity. His confession tone was monotonous, very unlike his previous animated, and obviously true, self. Kinda the tone a child gets when forced to apologize to his child rival/enemy.
Sorry. I talk alot. But once you change the focus from a suspicion of murder to one of EXTREME jealously, it helps. I encourage discussion. -
garyd9 — 17 years ago(April 04, 2009 10:48 AM)
When the movie ended, I thought that his wife had either done the murders or hired someone else to do them (someone in another post said she couldn't have raped the girls - but the police said there only evidence of spermicidal lubricant like from a condom - so she could have used an object with a condum on it). The reason I thought she did the murders (or had them done) was his remark about "I can't believe she would go to such lengths" which I thought meant "such lengths [to frame him, to prove he had done something with her niece]". I thought he confessed because he thought she was guilty and he decided to take the rap to save herbecause despite everything he still loved her (or possibly he confessed to spite herkind of like turning the tables on her - now he is in charge calling the shots by confessing). At any rate, I really think they should have done something at the end to clarify what actually DID happen. It's clear that he was innocent and that they caught the guy who actually was guiltybut everything else is not clear at all!
Edit:
Okay - I just re-watched the ending, and now it IS clear to me that when he said "I can't believe she would go to such lengths", he meant he couldn't believe she would go so far as to dig out the photographs and give them to the police (which as we know isn't exactly what happened). He confessed because he was so devastated by the realization that his wife actually thought he was guilty, that life didn't matter anymorewhy not confess, what's the difference (and then he proceeded to just give the police the same details back that they had given him). They definitely caught the actual murderer as they found photos of the first 2 girls bodies in the murderer's car, and they caught him in the act of killing the 3rd girl. He was definitely NOT hired by the wife - she spit on the mirror when he confessed because she thought he was guiltyso, I guess everything actually WAS clear afterall - you just have to dig it out a bit.
Recap of all facts:- Gene Hackman not guilty of murders
- His wife did not do them nor hire someone else to do them
- The police did arrest the real, actual murderer
- Gene Hackman confessed because of the utter despair he felt over realizing that his wife actually and totally thought him capable and guilty of raping and killing young girls
2nd edit:
One more thingunless this is the first mystery movie they've ever seen - everyone who watched this movie HAD to know from the beginning that Gene Hackman was NOT guilty. Who would watch a movie where the character is made to look guilty from the very beginning of the movie until the end - if it then turned that out that he WAS guilty? How would that be an interesting storywhat studio would finance and shoot THAT movie? It appears that several people in this forum never saw the possibility that his wife could have been guilty - when I think most people had to be thinking it was the wife or someone else from the beginning. (When the wife went to their house with the detective - for a moment I thought it was going to turn out that the two of them were having an affair, and were framing the husband to get rid of him.)
-
malexlantz — 16 years ago(April 15, 2009 11:09 PM)
Watch the commentary on the movie. He felt so bad that his wife didn't love him anymore, so he didn't want to live anymore, so he gave a false confession so he could go to prison for the rest of his life. By acting like he was guilty, he got all the information he needed to make himself look guilty.
-
hagerp — 16 years ago(May 20, 2009 11:03 AM)
It's 2.
The only quibble I have with the movie is that an attorney - someone well versed in the law - would not have lawyered up. However, the fact is that false confessions are surprisingly common. All of the elements for a false confession were present, except that the confessor is upper class, which is a bit anomalous. The first big hint that the eventual confession was false was the reaction to the statement that the victims were raped and murdered. The surprise was genuine - and nicely performed by Hackman. Other details of the murders were revealed to the lawyer in the course of the back-and-forth mind games, and the lawyer later supplied them during his "confession". This is all typical with false confessions.
Here are some links:
http://www.llrx.com/features/falseconfessions.htm
http://www.criminaljustice.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/4a6e9aa597092057052573ed0056ffa3?OpenDocument
I think this is a good movie for a class in both criminal justice and psychology.