Pls don’t read if you haven’t seen the movie AND intend to see it in the future.
==
I saw the movie yesterday… it was on one of those movie channels (Cinemax proly). The movie is interesting to an extent… but I was unable to fully understand what is the ending. After he told the detective that he was molested as a child, the detective, “I understand now”. Then they show that one pic in the end (just before the credits roll) where Robin Williams is standing with the whole family. What did it mean?
Did he go to jail, after all, and the pic was his imagination?
Was he set free and he was embraced by the family?
I thought Robin Williams was talking about his own childhood and that he was abused as a child. I thought his only gripe with the 'father' was that he was cheating on his wife... could be wrong, though, cz I missed some parts of the movie in the middle.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
I thought Robin Williams was talking about his own childhood and that he was abused as a child. I thought his only gripe with the 'father' was that he was cheating on his wife... could be wrong, though, cz I missed some parts of the movie in the middle.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, he was talking about his childhood. But you see he was talking about what he experienced as a child, and that was his reasoning for "going after" the father, because he didnt want this other child to go through the same thing he experienced. That is why the cop said, "I understand now." Makes sense nah? grin
You have to keep in mind though, it is never made clear whether he actually experienced such a childhood. The movie I think makes the audience lean towards the fact that he made it up, due to his obsession with the woman and child, and to protect them after finding out about the other woman.
But you see he was talking about what he experienced as a child, and that was his reasoning for "going after" the father, because he didnt want this other child to go through the same thing he experienced.
[/QUOTE]
Munni, why would the child go through the same thing as himself? The father of this child was cheating on his wife, not molesting the kids.
He went after the father, coz he was obsessed with the idea of a picture perfect family. He thought of this particular family as a perfect one( unlike his own ), until he found out this one flaw.. husband cheating on his wife. He had a troubled childhood, and thus wasn't normal, thus this thing disturbed him thoroughly.
Munni, why would the child go through the same thing as himself? The father of this child was cheating on his wife, not molesting the kids.
[/QUOTE]
Thats exactly what I was thinking after reading Munni's post.
The change in the attitude of the detective, after listening to his childhood memory, and then showing that one portrait where Robin Williams is part of the family was quite a vague ending.
Since his only crime seemed to be stalking the father, its possible that if the father didn't press charges, the police could have let him go. Its all left to the imagination. Kinda like the ending of "Unfaithful". Make your own conclusion.
Munni, why would the child go through the same thing as himself? The father of this child was cheating on his wife, not molesting the kids.
[/QUOTE]
Chandi, as I have serious communication problems, I have managed to confuse everyone here of what I meant. hehe.
Yes indeed the father was not molesting the child, there was no hint of it. What I stated or meant to state was that Robin Williams I believe gave the impression to the COP that the reason Williams went after the father is because Williams suspected a case of potential molestation. He wanted the cop to get that idea in his head, eventhough Williams knew the father was not infact doing that. Its a story that would get Williams out of trouble, or off the hook, something he can argue in court if the father pressed charges, etc. I hope I am making sense now. I dont see any other reason why the cop would say "I understand now".
That is just my interpretation, as others have stated, its really left open to interpret. sigh hehe.
I didnt like the movie enuff to want to comment this much but well hey. Just wanted to clarify. grin
I thought it was a rather cleverly lit movie, with a great look and feel; Robin Williams was great, much better than in Insomnia.
The detective at the end simply got an answer, an answer to the strange behaviour, that Seth didn't actually do anything to the couple, other than pose them. Why take pictures like a child whilst doing all this? I suppose it was imagery he keeps with him since his abuse in childhood.
I thought more poignant than the family image which was obviously his imagination, his 'safe place' were the pictures he took within the hotel room, this was Seth. Not able to come to terms with the past he did what he thought was the right thing to do; he faced his own demons whilst using the father of the family as a proxy to avenge what he thought was ‘wrong’.
I especially liked the bit in his imagination where’s he’s sat on the toilet in the family’s house, pure innocence yet oddly chilling.
Yes indeed the father was not molesting the child, there was no hint of it. What I stated or meant to state was that Robin Williams I believe gave the impression to the COP that the reason Williams went after the father is because Williams suspected a case of potential molestation. He wanted the cop to get that idea in his head, eventhough Williams knew the father was not infact doing that. Its a story that would get Williams out of trouble, or off the hook, something he can argue in court if the father pressed charges, etc. I hope I am making sense now. I dont see any other reason why the cop would say "I understand now".
[/QUOTE]
Munni, but the thing is .. he wasn't pretending things to get off the hook. And even if he was, how would he expect the law to agree with him in saying that a cheating husband is a "potential" child molestor?
I couldn't explain the real reasons better than mr.Hong Kong Poohey here. He is right on target with his assessment of the movie.
Munni, but the thing is .. he wasn't pretending things to get off the hook. And even if he was, how would he expect the law to agree with him in saying that a cheating husband is a "potential" child molestor?
I couldn't explain the real reasons better than mr.Hong Kong Poohey here. He is right on target with his assessment of the movie.
[/QUOTE]
Thats me thinking too deep sometimes. Makes things more interesting, not to mention I often miss the most simple things. grin
But yes, HKP gave a good explanation indeed. The best one.
Thats the good thing about movies sometimes. Everyone gives their own spin to open-ended endings. I dont think there is always a right answer.