Message?
-
codebreaker2001 — 22 years ago(September 12, 2003 09:21 PM)
Well, I agree on this. However, if Chantal DID do it (even if it was in Henry's mind), it is still possible that she could have done it without the struggle. Remember what Freeman's character said during the flashback of the murder after Detective Owens asked Chantal to enter her husband's dark room, "We don't have any evidence of a struggle. So, it had to be somebody very good with children, or someone she knew." From what Chantal said, that she and Henry were fond of Camille, which means that she must have had a good relationship with her, even though she doesn't see her much, prior to catching Herny with her. This could be suggesting that Chantal is very good with children. Besides, Chantal isn't a killer type (I've seen enough movies to tell the difference between a normal woman with major issues and a cold, manipulative killer. Chantal isn't a killer).
Actually, Henry DID give them a couple of new details about the first murder that were different from what he was fed. If you listen, he said that he met her at a doorstep (which he pictures in his head), where the police said that she met the killer SOMEWHERE in the area. Also, Henry said that he strangled her and then moved her. Henry states that he strangled and raped her in an alleyway. Freeman also said that she may have been chased or lured down to the beach, where as Henry said he dragged the body down to the beach. -
universe_ — 22 years ago(January 13, 2004 12:26 PM)
I re-considered for quite some time, but I still can't understand why someone who watched the movie would think Henry's false confessions were in any way related to him thinking Chantal being the murderer. He didn't think that at all, not even for a millisecond. Smartass-Dumbass (second posting in this thread) explained the situation very clearly and precisely.
Sure, in theory it would be possible that Chantal killed the two kids after she found their pictures in Henry's darkroom, and Henry considering Chantal to be the murderer since she was so jealous. But in practice, this theory is out of this world. Chantal was neither mad or full of rage after Henry was "flirting" with her niece. Actually, she was simply shocked and disappointed and even more importantly, she was very hurt. She stayed very passive all the way, that's not the attitude of a person who kills out of jealousy. Not to mention that Chantal's character itself was the sheer opposite of a killer, regardless of the conditions she could have murdered under.
Regards
Markus -
JHowell37 — 22 years ago(March 08, 2004 09:55 PM)
The first time I saw the movie, it came on Bravo, and it was halfway through when I started to watch it. Initially I thought that Freeman was torn between who done it, Hackman or Belucci. I then picked up a copy because it was in the cheap DVD pile at the store and I was interested in seeing the whole thing. I never once thought even the first time I saw it that it was Belucci. My feelings were reaffirmed when I watch all of the movie. The whole movie was about jealousy and getting old. Chantal was almost insanely jealous of her husband. He was very insecure about himself. He felt that people disliked him. He felt old and ugly. He felt that he deserved nothing he had. He was somewhat jealous of Chantal, thinking that she wanted to be with someone like her sister's husband, but that was due to his insecurity. He was with the street hookers because he felt like that was all he was worth. Two years of the wife confirming all of his worst fears (rejecting him) destroyed his self-esteem. I think he still loved her but at the same time he, when all of his actions came out and he had to face them, he began to hate her. Because at that time, it had become apparent what she turned him into. He confessed because he felt that even though he didn't do it, he had finally lost, he could hurt her in the process, and of course it would give him the freedom he so desired. I think she always loved him. By the end though he hated her. I imagine divorce came shortky after that.
-
microdisney — 22 years ago(March 29, 2004 04:57 PM)
Having just watched movie on C4 am suitably impressed if a little confused. I can see where everybody is coming from on the previous posts and think the intentional ambiguity of the movie allows in some way for most of the opinions raised. However, I think one thing is being overlooked (and I could be reading too much into this), but at one point during the confession (maybe two) Hackman's charcter quite clearly says "WE" ie "we moved the body" or something along those lines which may suggest that there is more than one person involved. Again this only deepens the ambiguity - Hackman + 1 other , Belucci +1 other, Hackman trying to implicate his wife or just simply 'brain washed' by the pressure and becoming confused. Personally, for what its worth, I think Hackman's character is guilty of something - I'm just not sure what!!?
-
cpheonix — 22 years ago(March 30, 2004 02:07 AM)
I'm positive Hackman said 'WE' aswell - giving the impression maybe it was him and someone else (the actual killer). Possible reasons why Victor didnt pick it up was because he was too in shock with the other news of the real killer and Owens because he was too focused that he got his man.
Having said that though, it doesnt make sense if Hackman had an accomplice unless it was any of the main characters. That's why I thought the ending was well played by the director, becuase the focus of the film no longer was about the murders, but Hackmans character and his relationship with his wife and what Hackman has degenerated into. -
sjl004 — 22 years ago(March 30, 2004 12:11 PM)
Yeah, I heard "We".
I dunno what Stephen Hopkins was talking about, cos it sounds like Gene had a friend doing this crimes as well, I reckon he raped and killed her, but someone else raped her as well.
Also explains why photos are their (coincidence if killer had taken photos as well).
I understand criminal and forensic psychology (I've read some amazing essays on how to influence someones mind), but to make someone confess seemed a little far, he wasn't in THAT much of an emotional state. He managed to wisecrack about Freemans marriage.
Owens going into the house suggested maybe he did it, as he might have set up Hackman by having a fling with Chantel (I know a Chantal shes fit), and they worked together. Or that Owens was going to rape Chantel?
Good camerawork though.
"this is it" "chew some gum your breath smells like my grandmothers feet" THE CHASE -
teshaw — 21 years ago(June 05, 2004 07:46 AM)
In the ambiguities (intentional?) in the story, one possible explanation is that Gene thinks that Chantal had set him up using someone else to commit the crimes. (Evidence of this is in the apparent close relationship between Owens and her, her allegedly giving the photos to owens, her guilty look when it is disclosed that the killer had been caught, the "we" was a recognition by Gene that she had done this and therefore he needed to create a confession that would account for evidence that there were two killers (haven't fully developed this idea yet)). Remember all of this is brought to Gene in pieces and never fully rationalized. He hears only what Freeman is willing to tell him. None of it is probably true (the pictures themselves could have been a set-up). He continually looks to rationalize the story toward innocence, but as he gets farther and farther in and gets more isolated bits of data he falls farther away from rationality. The final blow is Chantal's betrayal. His crimes were, in the end, justifiable, but not to Chantal and his ego. Rationale for Genes "confession": His ego required that he justify his actions (thus the lies), when he realized (wrongly perhaps) how much his love (chantal) hated him, he had lost all and therefore he was guilty in the end of failing her, his image etc. and therefore might as well immolate himself.
-
Lorraine_Mae — 15 years ago(July 10, 2010 06:41 PM)
My thoughts:
Henry confessed for probably two reasons, the interrogation techniques had broken him down, he didn't care about anything at that point, and because he was crushed that his wife actually thought he was guilty. For example, when the photos were brought in, he was so broken down that he did not defend himself and state (as before) that he was documenting Island life.
The movie took place from the time Henry was initially suspected by the police, to his breakdown and confession, which I think took place over one afternoon and into the evening. Less than a day. Most of the story line was introduced over that time period by the use of flashbacks, recollections, and so on. I think the effect was that time seemed less compressed than it actually was.
I think he loved his wife and was very hurt by her rejection, although the movie did not look much at the history of how/why that happened. I think he was willing to live with it, hoping that someday she would perhaps start loving him again.
I think the wife was insecure, possibly jealous, and misconstrued events, unwilling to give Henry any chance to explain any situation she did not understand, such as the niece at Christmas. The camera very carefully told two different versions of that event, first through her eyes, which saw evil happening, second through his eyes, which showed an innocent sharing of the niece's feelings about her gifts with him. During his recall, notice how the niece shrugs her shoulders and laughs off what she sees, which is her Aunt's disgust/misperception (in just a glance) of their conversation.
Henry at least visited prostitutes, so he could feel some sexuality. She apparently just locked herself in her room suppressing her feelings. Her refusal to even try to communicate with Henry was problematic; it's hard being completely shut out. I think she was portrayed as having grown into a woman that could not handle her sexuality.
He pushed her away in the final scene because after the very open police accusations, he acknowledged (to himself) that his wife's under-the-table snubbing was just as hurtful as the police had been and he was disgusted with it all.
Note, I did not read the book, so I don't know what it said, or how closely the movie followed it.