MovieChat Forums > Brokedown Palace (1999) Discussion > Why both of them are/were innocent

Why both of them are/were innocent

posted 17 years ago by intx
29 replies | jump to latest

There has been plenty of discussion with opposing ideas spread across various different threads, but I believe there is more speculative evidence indicating both of them were innocent.

Here are the ideas regarding their innocence combined into one thread.

You should still come to your own interpretation of what really happened. These ideas aren't exactly mine, even if some are, someone else here probably noticed it first.

--- It is likely they were selected as the scapegoat for the operation. They were intentionally caught so the other mules could get through. Here's why:
a. It is very likely someone like Skip Con would've considered the below:

Alice didn't strike me as naive enough to fall for some scam to carry pounds of heroin. Darlene also was way to goody goody to help some guy smuggle smack.

-cottoncandyvomit-1

b. Hank's assistant found out other girls were on the plane with the same stolen credit card. One of them were later interview/interrogated, who Skip did inform about the scheme. She was semi-successful, and Skip didn't need to tell Darlene/Alice because they were the scapegoat.

--- Alice shows innocence based on what she says, how she responds, and what she thinks.
a. Hank: "Yeah, but, you didn't do it. We both know it."

when Yankee Hank says that he knows she didn't do it; she's smiling and crying tears of joy because all of her life, the worst has been thought of her.

-OutForAWalkB-tch

b. When she talks to her dad, she asks, nearly crying, "Do you think I did it Daddy? Did you think I did it to Darlene?" Alice's dad responds, "Geez Darlene, don't beat yourself up about it, nobody is perfect." -- She then proceeds to hang up, seemingly disappointed/upset that her own dad doesn't believe she's innocent. Why? Because she IS guilty?

c. The way she gets so angry after the court trial verdict. It doesn't help her case, and she knows Hank no longer cares, why get angry if she was really guilty?

d. When Hank accuses Darlene about being a willing mule, Darlene gets angry and starts accusing Alice of knowing. Alice is absolutely clueless and shows it in her face and responses. Alice goes, "what are you talking about?" And continues with total confusion in her face. There was not a single indication she was 'on the spot.'

e. When 'confessing' to the Crown, she goes "I know this because.... ... because I did it." A long pause, like she has to make something up. "I did it because I was foolish, and because I was jealous. I was afraid she was going to drift away, I was afraid I was going to lose her." -- except this makes no sense. Why would smuggling drugs prevent her from drifting away? Why does it have anything to do with jealousy? If there was one possible flaw in the movie, it was her illogical confession and the Crown believing it. Then again, maybe the Crown didn't. he only respected her character and decided to grant her wish because of it.

f. At the very end, Darlene goes, "Alice, you didn't do it." -- Alice does again, the smile of joy, of relief that someone believes her.

g. Her reaction in the visitors scene:

I don't think Alice did it. When she yelled "I DIDNT DO IT" to Darlene's dad... she does it so fierce and emotionally where you kinda know that she didnt do it.

-TruE_stAr19

I think that the purpose of this scene was to show the consequences of lying. The way Darlene's father put it, Alice got caught lying so many times that by then he has labeled her as a compulsive liar, did not trust her any longer and did not believe a word that she said. The whole irony here is that this time Alice was telling the truth, but because of how she was viewed by Darlene's father, he did not believe her.

-Pirate515

h. Alice: "If I say it was the truth, you'll hate me." "And if I say I lied, and when you go home, and all the time you're there with your family, then all the time, you won't be able to just be happy." --- if Alice was truly guilty, she'd probably just tell the truth here. How likely is she to see Darlene? Why not be truly free of guilt by confessing it to her friend?

i. At the end, Alice has a narrative "I know a lot of people won't understand why I said I did it..." -- there's nothing to not understand, if she was guilty.

--- Charlene shows innocence based on what she says:
a. As mentioned above, she got very angry at Alice after talking to Hank, and ignored her for days for ruining her life. If she was really responsible, why bother? What good would it do?

As for the theory that since Darlene didn't do the same thing for Alice, that makes Alice guilty, it's situational. If you could be a multi-billionaire software company founder (like Bill Gates), why aren't you? Because you hate money? (For those who actually wouldn't want to be a multi-billionaire, the above doesn't apply because you probably don't believe Alice is guilty.)

Anyone is encouraged to oppose these beliefs. This thread was created in hopes for better interpretation. For easier reading, if you wish to add several points as to why one or both of them were guilty (instead of reasons against one of these points), please create a separate thread.

If you have more points to add, or wish not to be quoted (my apologies), post a reply and I'll edit the original thread.

[–] powersmp 17 years ago

first of all, awesome post. love how thorough it was. well laid out, great points.

I wanted to add (even though it's hard at this point with so many points) but I'll chime in about the scene in the airport. When all the police start showing up, both girls look very confused as to what is going on. The mule behind them sees the police approaching and walks away, while both the girls just stand there wondering who the police are coming for. When they finally point the guns at them they both act very surprised as they cower with their hands up.

again, great post. strengthened my suspicion that both girls were innocent.

[–] JC_Aliss 17 years ago

Watch the scene again if you can. The mule behind them didn't walk away. They stopped in line watching the police, and she looked annoyed and walked around them ahead of them in line.

That always made me wonder about who it REALLY was who was supposed to be caught as the distraction. That change of order in line may have had something to do with it.

I believe Darlene was innocent but not Alice. And either way, of course they looked confused, who EXPECTS to get caught after being told there's no way they'd get caught (which was what I believe Alice believed.)

[–] powersmp 17 years ago

yup, i'm wrong. I mixed her up with the two little kids that ran somewhere when they saw the popo coming.

[–] juxtapose70 17 years ago

I agree with you and intx. In fact, I never even concidered that either girl was guilty of this crime.

It's all in the way you see a film, I guess.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] djellswo 17 years ago

great post intx. i just wanted to add my thoughts to one part of your post:

"e. When 'confessing' to the Crown, she goes "I know this because.... ... because I did it." A long pause, like she has to make something up. "I did it because I was foolish, and because I was jealous. I was afraid she was going to drift away, I was afraid I was going to lose her." -- except this makes no sense. Why would smuggling drugs prevent her from drifting away? Why does it have anything to do with jealousy? If there was one possible flaw in the movie, it was her illogical confession and the Crown believing it. Then again, maybe the Crown didn't. he only respected her character and decided to grant her wish because of it. :

I think you're missing the point of what she is actually confessing. I agree that she is innocent and is lying to the Crown. But to herself, she is right now confessing that she was not a good friend to Darlene, in many respects. The fact that she was so jealous, the fact that she had lied to her (not about drugs, but about other things). I think in Alice's head she knows she made alot of mistakes in her life and lied about alot of things. To her, this is what she is confessing. The Crown takes "I did it" as the drug smuggling, but Alice is setting herself free emotionally (and her friend physically free), but admitting to "doing it". Thats why "I was afraid I was going to lose her" makes no sense to the Crown, but to Alice it is everything. This is why she is smiling at the very end. She found her freedom...

The way I look at it that is an extremely powerful scene and in no way a flaw in the movie.

[–] Pirate515 12 years ago

I think the Crown was simply blown away by what Alice said. Not sure how often he has to hear these confessions, but I'm pretty sure that he has heard lots of excuses/explanations for all kinds of crimes, but never anything like he did from Alice. He even developed instant respect for Alice in light of her action, regardless of whether he thought if she did it or not. Remember what he told her? "If you are lying to me to save your friend, then you are of a strong enough character to earn what you want. If you are telling the truth, then your friend is pardoned and should go free."

[–] avid_bonker 13 years ago

great post, and thank you, I too believe they were both innocent.

[–] harkness78 12 years ago

There is nothing to believe, the film lays it out plainly (altho only by the very end) that neither of them knew about the drugs.

"i. At the end, Alice has a narrative "I know a lot of people won't understand why I said I did it..." -- there's nothing to not understand, if she was guilty."

That cements it, Alice is talking directly to the audience, saying "I am not guilty, but I said what I said because it was the right thing to do."

Darlene 1000% couldn't have been involved because she would have completely broke down when visiting Alice for the last time, leaving her friend in jail for life for somthing she did. It would go completely against everything presented in the film and they would have brought it up at the end if that was the case.

"Nobody knows anybody, not that well..." - Miller's Crossing

[–] Rick-34 12 years ago

I think it's pretty clear that the film refuses to make it definitive either way that Alice is innocent. And it's pretty definitive that Darlene is, in fact, innocent.

There's a lot in the film that suggests that Alice was up to something:

1) she stays out a long time alone with the guy, Nick, enough time to discuss the smuggling;

2) she spends extra time in the room alone with the bag, and is the last one alone with it;

3) when the police show up and start searching the bag, she has a guilty look on her face while Darlene has a baffled look on her face;

4) if Alice didn't put the drugs in the bag, who did?

5) Alice's reasons for letting her friend believe her innocence without confirming either way are self-serving, and don't really make sense if she were actually innocent.

He statement about "why I did what I did" is intentionally vague. It's far from a clear statement of innocence. It's an explanation of why she doubled her own prison sentence for a friend. Given who she is, that's a bit out of character. She starts out as a person who is selfish enough to let her friend get dragged into prison with her, and then realizes along the way how selfish she is. Hence the statement.

I'm not saying that this is definitively the only interpretation. But I think it's at least as well-supported as the claim that Alice was innocent, but just confessed to save her friend.

The fact that this question is unresolved is a point in favor of the film.

[–] willoiam 12 years ago

I completely agree. I'm not sure why so many people here are treating this film like a "whodunit" mystery when the message is pretty clear.

[–] Rick-34 12 years ago

The fact that Alice proclaims her innocence to Darlene's dad is supposed to represent something?

I guess you've never seen the kind of act a guilty person can put up to try to pretend innocence. At that point, she's really insulted that Darlene's dad is calling her a worthless person who's always been a liar. Even if Alice is actually guilty, I can see her getting angry there.

There's a reason defense lawyers don't typically put their clients on the stand. It's really not all that strong to have a defendant proclaim her innocence.

a. Alice's reaction to Hank was a bit odd for an innocent person. When Hank says "We both know you're innocent" her expression is like "oh, well that's unexpected." It's more like a person surprised than a person comforted.

b. Alice is angry at her father for not believing in him. The fact that she's actually guilty doesn't enter into it. The father doesn't know for a fact that she's guilty. But she refuses to take her word that she's innocent! Yes, this logic is a bit deranged, but it's the kind of thing that guilty people can think.

c. She's angry after the trial verdict because the judge broke a deal. She and Darlene had made a deal to "agree" that Nick was fictitious in return for a pardon. So they made the "confession" that they had lied about Nick and the judge screwed the over. Guilty or not, they're going to be angry at that point.

d. Alice was pretending innocence.

e. The pause is supposed to be meaningful? The pause means that Alice is making a big decision. She's decided to take all of the crap on her own head. Whether she's guilty or innocent, that's a big decision, a big step.

f. Alice could have easily simply just said "No, I didn't do it" to Darlene. But she didn't. Why not? Because she wanted Darlene to continue to have doubt in her mind? How does that make sense if Alice is innocent?

To argue that Alice is innocent, you have to admit that she's a liar, at least when she claims to be guilty. If you think she's guilty, then she's a liar when she feigns guilt. Either way she tells lies. Convincingly.

I'm just not seeing how any of these arguments say definitively that Alice is innocent.

[–] Pirate515 12 years ago

The fact that Alice proclaims her innocence to Darlene's dad is supposed to represent something?

Actually, yes. Darlene's dad brought up a number of incidents from the past when Alice did bad things and then tried to avoid taking responsibility by lying; although eventually the truth came out anyway. These incidents seemed petty compared to the mess that Alice and Darlene are in now; however, they were enough to label her as troublemaker and more importantly, a liar. The sad thing is that this time Alice really was innocent and was in fact telling the truth, but since her reputation was working against her, Darlene's dad's mind was already set on not believing her. Which is why she yelled "I didn't do it!" back at him in such an angry manner.

Alice's reaction to Hank was a bit odd for an innocent person. When Hank says "We both know you're innocent" her expression is like "Oh, well that's unexpected." It's more like a person surprised than a person comforted.

Actually, the way I remember that scene is that Alice almost cried tears of joy when Hank said that. All throughout the movie, no one has believed Alice. The cops didn't believe her. Darlene's dad didn't believe her. Even Darlene at one point thought the worst of her. Finally, when Hank originally took on the girls' case, he also didn't believe them; his only concern was money. However, as he dug deeper, he became more vested at getting to the bottom of the plot, and when he finally did and told the girls about it, Alice was overjoyed that someone other than herself also knows the truth and is on her side.

Alice could have easily simply just said "No, I didn't do it" to Darlene. But she didn't. Why not? Because she wanted Darlene to continue to have doubt in her mind? How does that make sense if Alice is innocent?

Alice didn't say that to make Darlene feel better about leaving her behind. Darlene felt pretty bad knowing how much Alice has sacrificed for her freedom, even up to the point that Darlene did not want to leave Alice alone in prison. But Alice has reaffirmed that she made the right decision, having one of them set free is better than none, no matter what it took. And when Darlene told Alice "You didn't do it. I know you didn't do it," it meant a lot to Alice coming from her best friend.

To argue that Alice is innocent, you have to admit that she's a liar, at least when she claims to be guilty. If you think she's guilty, then she's a liar when she feigns guilt. Either way she tells lies. Convincingly.

I guess one of the things that this movie illustrates is that lying is not always a bad thing. Sure, lying for selfish reasons or to hurt someone is bad; but in this case Alice has lied for a good cause. Another way of looking at it is that lying is Alice's "skill" or "talent", and while in the past she has used it for bad things, this time around she put it to good use.

Another thing that I would like to add is that Alice feels responsible for what happened to both Darlene and her. She may not be guilty of drug smuggling per se, but her actions may have in an indirect way led to their arrest. She does admit it to Darlene in one point in the film: "What if we went to Hawaii as we have originally planned? What if I let you pay for those drinks at the pool? Then we would've never met Nick, we would not be going to Hong Kong and would not be here in prison".

[–] ketone_of_sexiness 11 years ago

I think the movie is full or little incidents that show how the dynamic always has been for these two girls.

I think Darlene knows how to play innocent and she is used to people treating her like a princess. She has grown up in a much more ''well to do'' family, and apparently has never had to answer for her actions that much. She can hide safely behind her parents and upper middle class status.

Look at the scene with the fruit. Darlene and Alice are both equally guilty of thinking they could get fruit. When they both get in trouble, they both protest at first, but Darlene just jumps and does whatever she thinks she needs to do to avoid looking bad, but Alice is headstrong and outspoken and stands there and keeps challenging the guard.

I think it has always been that way. At the beginning her narrative said ''people thought I was the bad one and Darlene was the good one, but WE knew how we are''. The way that was stated, I took it there was a flip flop dynamic there that hinted that either Darlene was just as mischievous, if not more, than Alice was,or that Alice was not the apparent ''bad girl'' that people treated her as.

Alice confessed to guilty because she felt that her headstrong, rash way of doing things( and her teenage pranks, like sneaking into a 5 star hotel) was the reason they were in Thailand in the first place.All those things she confessed to at the crown, she really did feel-about convincing Darlene to go to Thailand, and talking her into sneaking into the hotel.

Darlene's talk with Hank sounded more like a little kid tantrum plea ''I didn't do it.'' To me it was more like ''I didn't MEAN to do it''. I think Darlene didn't necessarily know it was drugs, but I think she was aware that the trip to China entailed something... and she agreed to it. Remember what the American girl in Hong Kong said: ''By the time he asks the real question, you haven't said no in so long, you don't even know it is happening''.

He may have had her drunk, he might have been putting the good sex on her and she was under the spell.

Alice was going to college, and she had little to look forward to in terms of life plans. Darlene had all these plans, and Alice felt guilty for getting her into some mess. Since everyone always treated Alice like she was guilty, the guilt was overwhelming her, and she felt like she could be at peace if Darlene was to go home, and for once in her life she would no longer have to hear the blame game a she always did. With Darlene gone, and Yankee Hank on her side, and no one comparing her as the ''troublemaker'' compared to Darlene, in prison she got her first taste of emotional freedom. Clearly in the movie, people treating her as guilty was the biggest source of grief for Alice.

My two cents on why Alice is not guilty, and Darlene may be less innocent.

[–] TheCaliforniaOp (78) 2 years ago

You just expressed perfectly the murky theory in my mind regarding the two girls.

Thank You!

[–] daughterofolaf 12 years ago

Haha, so the OP took gawd knows how long to type up that entire thing to argue something that is already obvious to anyone with a brain. Time well spent!

"It's Minnie Pearl's murder weapon."

[–] r-hart77 12 years ago

All this is really interesting and makes for good reading about a good movie but ....how about the real life case of Schapelle Corby (If you don't know who she is look her up on the net - guilty or innocent?)

[–] shinmusashi44 11 years ago

I always figured it was the guy that worked at the hotel they stayed at. He comes to the door to ask for their bags and also puts them in the taxi and you can see what he's doing. Also the camera does that zoom and he has a strange look on his face. I always thought he was paid to put it in their bags.

[–] [email protected] 11 years ago

The more often I see the film, the more I also suspect the boy working at the hotel. If I had been the girls' lawyer, I would have produced him in court, but that might have wrapped up the movie too easily!

[–] Nikon11 11 years ago

That's just what I thought too - seemed pretty obvious. They handed their bags over, and the guy had plenty of time to do it.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] georgegliddy 11 years ago

well sir wut r u takling on about wit ur disgusting wrds???? bcos ur talking of such ilegal as bestalties and u prolly even do such ilegal drug as BAD pots?????

well u shoud pls fix r msgs 2 ever 1 ok tk u.........

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]