what the heck was that all about?? Explain someone please!

I haven't read all of the posts but I have read several which seem to have similar theories of "who done it". I believe that this is the scenario:

1. Henry believed that his wife committed the murders out of jealousy and confessed at the end to save her.
2. When he made the statement "I didn't think she would go this far", he believed that she had killed the girls AND set him up as the murderer, all out of jealousy -- It was the "If I can't have you, nobody will!" syndrome.
3. Consider the wife's account of when she caught him in the bedroom with her niece. As innocent as it was, she knew that that was how he used to talk to her when she was a young girl and it infuriated her. Not only that but her niece responded just as she did as a young girl so she knew that he could draw her niece in just as he drew her in years ago. Remember her comment? "He had no right making her laugh/smile like that." Something to that effect. She felt that those kind of reactions belonged to her and only her. Her jealousy was out of control from that point on.
4. After Henry was held so long at the police station, the wife began to believe that he was guilty. This would only validate her jealousy all along. When the pictures of the girls were found at the house, she was sure of his guilt.
5. In the end, both were wrong. Neither was the murderer and both were shocked to find that the other was innocent.
6. The wife didn't realize how much her husband loved her until she realized he was confessing to save her. At the end when they were outside and sat away from each other (note: she ran up to him in a physical attempt at forgiveness and reconcilliation but he turned away from her), it was because they both realized (him more than her) how damaged their relationship had become and that it couldn't be resurrected. More importantly, she realized that it was all her fault. Of course she knew all along that he had an attraction to young girls. How could she not know considering how old she was when they got together? Yet, he truly loved her but her jealousy ruined what could have been a happy, fulfilling life... with children. This is why it is implied at the end that she was going to jump of the cliff and kill herself, as in the original film. She was tormented with guilt.

It is important to note that she COULD have children. When she was being questioned at the police station, the caption said "... but when you couldn't have children...?" she replied "Of course I can.". This goes back to the husband's earlier slip of "she won't... can't have children.". She could have children and her husband knew it. He lied because he knew that the reason she wouldn't have children was also out of her jealousy. She didn't want him to adore a child, even if it was their child, the way that he had once adored her as a child and, potentially, more than he adored her. There may have also been the concern of becoming unattractive to her husband after childbirth, which many woman experience. Remember his comment during questioning, "sometimes a woman's beauty is her only talent.". Again, I may be paraphrasing.

Sadly, I believe this movie is very true to form. There are many women who don't trust men or believe "all men are dogs". They may have a good man but their jealousy and unwarranted distrust is the ultimate cause of the relationship failing.

Sorry this was so lengthy but that's my story and I'm sticking with it! ;-)

I have been wondering about the question 'why Puerto Rico?' too. Today I read an interesting connection, that Puerto Rico's age of consent is 14, which would make his conduct with his wife before they married legal.

If you have questions about the film's plot and haven't read the entire thread, I recommend that you locate Sidnee's entry. Illuminating and well written.

the ending was just plain clumsy and inartful. all of the other elements were great (the acting, dialogue, etc.), but the plot was an absolute dud. it was like the monty python skits where a barbell just comes out of the sky and ends it all. terrible.

t

i don't mean to be an ass, but how could you not get the ending ???

OF COURSE it is your second guess...




"best/worst-movie-ever"-idiots don't deserve to watch movies at all ...

I was extremely disappointed in this film.
I have not seen the French movie, Garde à vue(1980 I think), that Under Suspicion is based on so I can't say the flaws in this "remake" were in the original. But it's hard to believe that Hackmans character is a lawyer. Even a tax lawyer wouldn't be so ignorant not to have representation. There was not one word about DNA evidence until they were well into the grilling. That alone would have been point one for someone innocent. The whole dog/no dog nonsence is never explained. The budget for this movie was $25MM!!?!?! What was the money spent on? Gene and Morgans salaries?

My thoughts:

1. No one in this movie is actually "innocent". Hackman' character, while not having committed the rapes/murders, certainly has questionable pedophile tendencies. His wife is obsessively jealous. Freeman's character has had 2 failed marriages. And Detective Opie is ethically challenged (and clearly not the brightest bulb in the pack).

2. I think that as a result of Hackman's character's guilty conscience over his other "crimes" (even though he didn't commit the rapes/murders of the 2 girls) he wants to be punished, and that's part of what motivates him to make the false confession, along with an odd, almost ritualistic love/obsession for/with his wife.

3. I think the photos in the dark room were definitely taken by Hackman's character, his wife saw them, and knew that their existence would implicate her husband, after which she built the plot to set him up from there because of her out of control jealousy.

4. I think that the wife set up the husband by conspiring with the actual rapist/murderer. There's also an outside possibility (very slim, though) that the wife did the murders, simulated the rapes somehow, and then set up whoever it was that was charged at the end. But as someone else pointed out, the rape part would be problematic, although not impossible. Interestingly, there are some peculiar elements in the movie with regard to the rapes. First of all, Freeman's character seems perturbed that Detective Opie mentions the rapes when he does. It's as if Freeman's character did not want that aspect of the crimes revealed at that time. Second, it's stated specifically that no semen was ever found in the victims; only some chemical lubricants associated with condoms. So technically, it would have been possible for the wife to use something (i.e. a dildo) with a condom attached to simulate a rape. She could have then seduced/set up the "fall guy" (whoever that person is -- we are not told, he is simply introduced at the very end of the movie via the CD case with the photos) to then be accused of the rapes/murders, although that's admittedly far fetched.

5. I think Hackman's character thought his wife was somehow connected to the murders, and he was attempting to save her (and punish himself for other so-called crimes) by sacrificing himself, hence the false confessions.

6. I like movies that leave you thinking/guessing at the end.

Sorry for the somewhat incoherent rambling nature of this post.

[deleted]

While watching the movie, I was hoping for scenario #3. It would have made for a very interesting story. But, in the end, I'm pretty sure it was simply scenario #2. He was confessing because he felt dejected in a way - his woman didn't love him, he was seeing prostitutes, all of the evidence was adding up against him (that can get to even the most innocent of people), and it seemed like there was nothing left for him. Why play hard ball when you know in the end they have "proof"?

In order to be successful, one must project an image of success at all times.