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
-
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. -
blushift4 — 9 years ago(December 29, 2016 12:49 PM)
jambawala:
I won't argue with you over plot conditions that can be said to be 'LITERALLY an unbelievable coincidence', but I will take issue with your apparent dismissal of this movie as unworthy of watching. Conditions (or coincidences) like the ones in this movie occur
all the time
in most Hollywood movies, even the really good ones. Most people accept this as part of 'movie reality', and acknowledge that while these are
incredibly
unlikely, they serve to fulfill conditions for the story being told. Name any movie you like, and you will find events that take place in it which would be ridiculous or unbelievably coincidental in the real world.
You talk about 3 million people living in PR, but the story doesn't concern itself with the entire population of PR, just those living in San Juan and Perla. Mainly, it's concerned with 11-12 year old girls (who would be considered beautiful) in the general area of where Hearst lives. Since he has a proclivity to photo attractive young girls (out of an undercurrent of sexual desire) it is not such a coincidence that he may have photographed the two victims before they were killed. It
is
perhaps too coincidental that he happened to find the 2nd victim's body, but, again, Hollywood movie reality. The story is designed to make the viewers align their opinion with that of the detectives (from early in the film) that this guy is a slimy child murderer, so the circumstantial evidence is laid on thick by the screenwriter.
As for his lies in testimony about finding the body, and his activities with young girls, he is (intentionally) evasive, since he does find these girls attractive sexually, and subconsciously abhors this part of his nature, feels guilty about it, and doesn't want it to become public. So in many ways, he's guilty from the first scene of the movie, he's just not guilty of murder.
Finally, Hank is a shortened form of Henry (the lead character's name is Henry Hearst). Near the end, the Captain mentions that he had pulled records from the Hearst's ISP, and found he used the chatroom name 'HardbodyHank' - another degrading and implicating fact the investigation reveals about Hearst's hidden nature. -
jambawala — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 03:13 AM)
Hi blushift,
I am not sure I explicitly stated that the film is unworthy of watching. Sometimes an enjoyable ride justifies a poor ending. However, I am not sure the ride is all that enjoyable. I do believe the ending and major plot elements are unworthy of a powerful premise and powerful casting.
You seem to feel there is a shared 'movie reality' for all movies and this doesn't make sense to me. I judge if a film makes sense based on the reality each film paints. For instance, The Matrix is far-fetched compared to our current understanding of the real world but within its own narrative universe, I take no issue with any of the plot elements.
If you notice carefully in the dark room scene, there are recordings and photos of many descriptions. Not all the photos are of pre-pubescent girls. And where is the indication that he has a specific proclivity to photograph 11-12 year-old girls? Where is the indication that he was just taking photos within San Juan and Perla? And even if that were the case,
that's two whole cities worth of photos
(including the capital). The fact that photos of both the murdered girls were found in the Hearst home remains a totally inexplicable and unbelievable coincidence. And, on top of that, he finds the second victim's body?! The movie might as well have had Henry's DNA all over the murder victims to have the 'viewers align with their story' and then say, "Just kidding!". That would be just as believable.
You state that Henry is into pre-pubescent girls as if it is fact - but I am not sure that is the case. The incident with his sister-in-law's daughter seems to point the needle regarding his inclinations squarely in the opposite direction. He was shown to have been having innocuous fun with the girl and his wife's reaction was unwarranted. In fact, her belief in his culpability forms the crux of her guilt in the final scene. In that context, Henry's evasiveness and clumsiness make little sense.
I appreciate the factoid about the Henry/Hank connection. Odd having a four-lettered short-form of a five-letter name. -
blushift4 — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 12:28 PM)
OK, a lot of people don't really pay attention to the numerous holes in most movie plots, because the cinematography, acting, and general storytelling taking place in any 'good' movie will distract us from perceiving the holes. I often don't notice them myself.
But, since you mentioned The Matrix (a movie I enjoyed myself), take it for an example. What kind of reality does it paint? One where holes like these
http://www.movieplotholes.com/the-matrix-plot-holes.html
make sense?
The first one listed: Trinity tells an agent to 'Dodge this', while pressing a gun to the Agent's head. Since the reality painted by the movie is that Agents can dodge bullets, and bullets in this reality apparently move with the same speed as they do in real life, how is the Agent powerless to dodge this bullet, especially after Trinity pauses long enough to say her line before pulling the trigger? The answer is simple, because they wanted to make the scene 'cool' and have Trinity say something bada$$ before shooting him. Reality in any movie really doesn't have any relation to anything that can be called 'real'. Even the reality set up by movies themselves are constantly manipulated in ways that don't make sense and are never explained, it's the nature of imagination and storytelling.
Your view of movie reality seems a little skewed. I don't say this as an insult, mine is, too (along with everyone else). But, when you demand a certain sense of reality from one particular movie, while giving many others a pass on this same requirement, I wonder how you are selecting movies that you feel 'make sense based on the reality each film paints'. I will agree that there are some movies that simply push the 'willing suspension of disbelief' too far for me to really enjoy them, but Under Suspicion is not one of those.
Movies are all BS in numerous ways, the only thing that makes a movie worthwhile is the story itself, how entertaining it is, and (for me personally) whether it makes you think about it after the credits roll. Under Suspicion certainly does that. -
jambawala — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 11:26 PM)
blushift - I agree with your first point. 'Good' films (apostrophes because this is subjective) often dazzle us enough with high-quality story-telling such that plot holes cease to be.
I checked out the movie plot holes link you posted for The Matrix. ALL of the 'plot holes' feel like desperate reaches to me. In the very example that you describe, i.e. the "Dodge this" moment, Trinity has her gun pressed right against the Agent's temple. The whole point of her posturing with that catchphrase was to demonstrate there was little the Agent could do from that distance. The reality demonstrated by the movie up to that point is that Agents can dodge bullets given the right circumstances, not a blanket, 'All Agents can dodge bullets all the time'.
Even the major and super plot holes listed in your link are overly presumptuous at best. One plot hole totally ignores the intense emotions that a character is experiencing in a life-or-death moment and another plot hole assumes too high a level of scientific knowledge of the dystopic universe that The Matrix is set in.
If a film doesn't make sense while you're watching it, there's one of two reasons, in my opinion. Either you 'didn't get it' or the film is 'not good'. Again, the apostrophes signal the subjectivity at play here because in a way, both sentiments may be the same to the individual viewer. Keeping that in mind, I can say with no hesitation that at no point while watching The Matrix did I say, "Wait - this doesn't make sense." Or, to use this thread's title, "What the heck was that all about??". You can bet I said that a few times after I finished watching Under Suspicion.
After I watched Under Suspicion, the fact that certain plot contrivances made no sense to me compelled me, and others, to write about them on IMDB. For The Matrix, you had to google "The Matrix plot holes" to find any plot holes. Just between us, this point alone indicates a differential between the two films.
Bringing it back full circle to your first point, I get the feeling that you genuinely consider Under Suspicion to be a 'good' movie, which (paraphrasing your thoughts) may have allowed you to overlook certain gaps that others found noticeable. Like I mentioned earlier, this is a film with a powerful premise and a powerful cast and I felt shortchanged by the plot contrivances. I'd love to know why you think this is a good movie and bridge the gap between me and this film so I may possibly appreciate it more. -
blushift4 — 9 years ago(December 31, 2016 12:38 PM)
Oh, as to Henry's fondness for young girls, he admits to this himself in a scene where he is questioned near the end of the film and is backed into a corner over the huge number of photos of young girls they found in his collection.
He says something to the effect of, "So what if I find young girls attractive, a lot of men do, I just have the guts to admit it."
I remember this specifically because I just saw the movie yesterday, which is what drove me here to the discussion board for the film (never saw it before).