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
-
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. -
rugerbear15 — 16 years ago(May 27, 2009 12:32 AM)
I understand the whole point to the movie & everything. The only thing I don't understand is how did they get the pics of the murders from HIS dark room? Or were those the police pictures and they just told him they found them in his dark room!?
Close your mouth and let your eyes listen! -
CmdrCody — 16 years ago(May 27, 2009 08:48 PM)
ruggerb: Sorry. You're confused. Hearst did not have pictures of the girls' murdered bodies. He had earlier pictures of the girls when they were live, breathing and living in hope. It was one of a set of amazing coincidences that made Hearst look like a probable perv kiddie killer.
CmdrCody -
dannyvazmon1 — 16 years ago(October 04, 2009 04:49 PM)
I don't understand why there would be any confusion on the ending. It was basically spoon fed to the audience.
1.They clearly said they caught the killer "in the act" (can it be any more clear?) and also happened to find pictures of all three dead girls in the killer's car, directly tying him to the first two murders. Case closed. That simple.
2.The pictures that they found in Hank's dark room where of the girls while still alive. Considering his hobby was photography and literally had dozens of boxes filled with pictures that he took around the island, it is not unusual that he had pictures of the girls playing in the playground. La Perla is literally right next to Old San Juan where Hank lived, so Hank and the two girls were almost practically neighbors.
3. Hank's wife had nothing to do with the murders and she did not "frame" him. When Hank started "confessing", she gasped in surprise and felt so disgusted that she started to cry and spat into the glass of the room where Hank was. Then at the end when everything is over she trys to hug Hank. There was no indication that she tried to frame him for murder. -
jambawala — 9 years ago(December 17, 2016 09:16 PM)
You refer to a "Hank" in your points numbered 2 and 3. There is no one called Hank in the movie.
Of course there is confusion. The story had
MASSIVE
plot holes, the size of planets. The biggest one is your point number 2.
Firstly, it's
LITERALLY
an unbelievable coincidence that the Hearsts would have photos of the two girls who died. Unless they had the photos of
every
girl around that age in Puerto Rico,
that simply does not fly as 'just a conincidence'.
According to the Pew Research Center, there were over three million people living in Puerto Rico in the year 2000, when this film is presumably set (given its date of release). See the following link for proof:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/24/historic-population-losses-continue-across-puerto-rico/
Again, unless they had photos of all these three million people, it just does not fly that the one murder suspect the police have in custody conveniently has photos of both the murder victims in his home, but somehow, in the end, was not connected to their murders at all.
Secondly, not only do the Hearsts have the photos of the girls who died, but Henry freaking finds the dead body of the second murder victim. WTF?!
Thirdly, he's a big-shot lawyer, obviously successful and considered to be a top professional tax attorney in all of Puerto Rico. Somehow, his memory of this shocking murder find and the events that led up to it becomes suspiciously fuzzy and his manner of recounting the events becomes totally clumsy. Again, if one stops to think about this for a minute, it's not believable.
When the movie posits an ending that is so awfully fake and unbelievable, that you wonder if an entirely different script writer wrote the ending without reading what preceded it, then yes, there is plenty of cause for confusion on the ending.