In the original version, Biehn's character, after viewing the results of the PET scan with the killer's attorney, states "I've convicted an innocent man", or words to that effect, according to the shooting script and the scene in the original novel. Then the killer's found dead in his cell of an overdose of his prescription meds, having left a note indicating his intent to kill himself:
{From the shooting script}
"Before Charles takes his medicine he will make his peace with God. He's sorry for what he's done... Very sorry... but Charles was put here as a disciple of Jesus, to carry out his will on earth... and he needed blood to do his work."
And then Biehn speaks with the killer's mom, who admits she's cried for the victims and had actually kicked her son out of the house just before he began his killing spree and wouldn't let him come home for Christmas, since she was worried what he'd do to her new puppy. She also isn't sure if she's been crying more for her son or his victims, and says she keeps "askin' the Lord, what was the purpose?".
Biehn then expresses regret over having secured a guilty verdict for the killer and says he'll have to live with it for the rest of his days. He makes this statement to a friend as his trial victory is being toasted by associates at a post-trial celebration being thrown in Biehn's honor. Biehn is saying, unequivocally, "I was wrong to want this insane man put to death".
In the 1992 version, Biehn's character says nothing when he sees the results of the PET scan. He seems more disappointed than anything else and ends the story a defeated man. The killer's life has been spared and Biehn has nothing to feel regret over.
The latter cut's a downer, and infuriating on some levels, but it seems to me to clearly be the work of a director attempting to influence his audience by negative example (i.e., See what happens when a killer like this skates away from the death penalty? He'll be out and back on the streets sooner than you think...and then what?).
The original ending was far more settled in its morality-- Death penalty = Bad, resulting in a truly insane person taking his own life when the system was about to set him free. The anti-death penalty crowd has its martyr, while the pro-death penalty crowd can reassure themselves that justice was served, albeit served to the killer by his own confused hand.
The later ending doesn't offer the same pat answers to the audience, doesn't necessarily tell them what to think (well, not in such an on-the-nose manner, anyway, unlike the first cut of the film).
My main gripe with the '92 cut is that it feels cut short. Going by what's contained in Friedkin's shooting script, the original 'Killer kills self' ending had more scenes that wound the story down at a more natural pace. The '92 version, edited around all those scenes, which no longer apply since the killer's alive at the end of this version...just sort of ends once the lawyers see the results of the PET scan.
I'd love to see a Special Edition DVD featuring both cuts of the film, plus an interview with Friedkin and the other principals involved. I don't feel the movie's perfect, by any means, but it's fascinating, nonetheless. Given the movie's lack of audience response over the years, though, I'm not getting my hopes too high for any such release in the near future.
Please Clean Up After Your Pet Peeves
reply
share
keith81
13 years ago
The version I just saw ends like this:
Reese takes the PET scan thinking of his mom lying to him when he was little, telling him she doesn't want his dad to see him for Christmas when in fact his dad was dead.
Biehn looks at the PET scan's results and admits only to himself that he was wrong in chasing the death penalty for Reese. Biehn blames the DA and the intensity of the crime scenes for causing this behaviour.
This is followed by the scene in which Reese's lawyer finds Reese dead in his cell. The guard tells the lawyer that Reese's mom visited him and was alone with him for an hour, insinuating it was her who gave him the pills he overdosed with. The lawyer questions why a man who butchered people to survive would kill himself.
The final scene is the one with the father and son (family of the victims) at the luna park.
reply
share
IceboxMovies
12 years ago
cheapthriller, thanks a bunch for that thorough comparison of the two versions.
Today I saw the version from '92, which is currently playing on Netflix Instant. It has the ending where Charles is sentenced to the mental institution and writes the disturbing letter to the husband/father of those two victims.
I particularly agree with you about this point:
The latter cut's a downer, and infuriating on some levels, but it seems to me to clearly be the work of a director attempting to influence his audience by negative example (i.e., See what happens when a killer like this skates away from the death penalty? He'll be out and back on the streets sooner than you think...and then what?).
The original ending was far more settled in its morality-- Death penalty = Bad, resulting in a truly insane person taking his own life when the system was about to set him free. The anti-death penalty crowd has its martyr, while the pro-death penalty crowd can reassure themselves that justice was served, albeit served to the killer by his own confused hand.
The later ending doesn't offer the same pat answers to the audience, doesn't necessarily tell them what to think (well, not in such an on-the-nose manner, anyway, unlike the first cut of the film).
This is what I like about the latter cut's ending, too. I'm anti-capital punishment, but I much prefer an ending that leaves Charles' fate open to our judgement rather than an ending that solves the problem for us. Even though Friedkin himself would have argued that this film is pro-capital punishment, what I do sort of like about the movie is that it's not as black & white as it seems.
reply
share