MovieChat Forums > Under Suspicion (2000) Discussion > key scene as well as some things to thin...

key scene as well as some things to think about

posted 18 years ago by Gibski
3 replies | jump to latest

the way that thomas jane (detective felix owens) walks up to monica bellucci in the scene where they're searching the house....he does it in a way like they've got something going on between each other...something sexual...and he wasn't meant to go to search the house....but told the other cop he was going instead....because he knew where to look...and there are a few possibilities but one is that he helped with her in planting those photographs of i think one of the girls (gene hackman probably took a picture of the smiling girl because he had no children with monica and he's a photographer as a hobby...and he would have liked children...and it makes sense that he would simply take a picture of children....and if he isn't a pedophile and a normal man then why NOT take pictures of any children??? seeing as there's nothing sexual going on there and it's simply a child...it doesn't even enter a normal man's mind in that sort of way..it's just a kid for god's sake) OR the cop already knew who the real killer was and those pictures weren't taken by gene hackman but by the real killer and the cop planted em there or gave em to monica OR monica simply suspected her husband cos she saw pictures of children just as she suspected him when he was just sitting with her niece in a normal way talkin about whatever and in a normal way like any relation would do....as morgan freeman said something along the lines of "i don't know who's more *beep* up you or him...being jealous of your own neice" - and monica being a young girl who was attracted and interested in older men..and being with such an older man..that she is maybe the person who thinks MORE in that *beep* up way than someone like gene hackman...to even suspect gene hackman of thinking in that sort of way towards her neice"

the whole point of this movie is to show how easily characters in the movie and people in general in life and we the movie viewers are suspicious of someone like gene hackman..."take the easy way out"...."swallow the easy pill"....the movie tells us clearly that hackman is innocent...didn't rape/molest or kill the two girls...he's not the killer....it shows us at the end..that moment like morgan freeman gets...where u're meant to sit there and then think....hmmmm...."but i totally suspected him...and i was wrong...what does that mean then?" people get hit by a rollercoaster...it's a wakeupcall saying....what u saw at the end there...was that it's simply THE TRUTH that gene hackman wasn't the killer...so the movie concentrates on that part...it isn't gonna give us specific other answers such as show us the face of the real killer...cos it wants to give concentration on that point...

but going back to detective felix...also in the way he really loses his temper against gene hackman...it all ties together...that monica had in some way gotten him on side...monica was up to things..that's why hackman speaks in italian to monica through the glass...and we don't know what he says..in fact has anyone translated that? and why he says something like "god...the lengths she'd go to"....he doesn't at the end confess cos he actually believes he's guilty lol that's nonsense...he's just as a lawyer going...oh well...i'm all done here...i've given up...what's the point in anything....what's the point in me saying no anymore...i may as well just say yes i did it...whatever..do what u will....combined with him knowing that his wife has involvement...and he probably isn't sure just how much involvement...whether she paid some guy to kill the girls and kill one of the girls he took the pictures of...cos she was "jealous" like she was of her neice...cos she's still like a little girl...or whether she just knows about the pictures in his dark room and knew that he'd taken some pictures of a girl they knew in the neighbourhood simply because he's a photographer and he has no children and he's taking a picture of a child he wish he had...a daughter he wish he had...

and there's another issue...we look at monica belucci...."a beautiful woman"...we look at gene hackman...it's much easier to view gene hackman as a weirdo with a younger woman...or liking "younger girls"...easy pill to swallow...comfy zone..at the end morgan freeman is looking back n forwards from monica and gene...monica spits at the glass...monica makes the move towards gene as if to say sorry or asking for a hug...it's GENE HACKMAN WHO STEPS AWAY and sits away from her....was monica the weirdo in fact as a little girl who had this thing for such older men? was monica the weirdo who had some jealousy about her neice? was monica a weirdo who didn't want children for some weirdo reason? why can't monica have killed the two girls herself...done things to the girls using a condom to make it look like a man had raped her...or why couldn't she being a psycho...going into total psycho mode..acted like a man and raped em...use your imagination cos i don't even wanna type it...again to make it look like a man had done it....maybe she took the photos of the girl before she did what she did....so gene is sitting there...and maybe he's thinking...omg....she did this...or maybe she just killed the girls and the guy she paid or her accomplice or someone she knew...did the raping part....allsorts of different possibilities....monica first goes to jump off the roof....which shows GUILT....she's guilty of certain things..but she doesn't jump....

in the same way it's much easier for people when they think "pedophile" to think of a man...rather than a woman....when they think "child abuser" to think of an alcoholic man with a temper beating his kids...not the woman who hits her kids while shopping cos she's all stressed out and she has a hair appointment and this n this to do in her day and her kid is sayin "mommy mommy i want some sweets!" or she whacks her kid cos her husband hits her and she's takin it out on her kid...

but some people when they put on under suspicion...and even maybe from the opening scene....found monica belucci's character a lot more "suspicious"..than gene hackman's...i certainly did....and still do....and god knows...and i wouldn't actually wanna think....just how guilty..and just what things monica belucci's character did really get up to..and just what weird things have gone and go through her mind....

remember gene hackman says "there's no greater gift than a child's smile"...so as a photographer why in the hell would he NOT take a picture ofa child smiling? if he feels that way? its' a nice thing to say and to feel isn't it? isn't it true? he wishes he had a child of his own....he can't just get pregnant lol and have a child...he needs a woman to give birth...why are people more understanding of a woman's want and wish and need to have a child than a man? don't men have a natural paternal side to em just as women have a natural maternal one? when a man gets to a certain age would he not feel a bit empty just as a woman to not have children? to not be able to be a father? what if gene hackman had taken pictures of boys in the playground as well as pictures of trees and sunsets...would then people say oh look gene hackman's character is gay! he's taking pictures of young boys? so what if a woman photographer is taking pictures of little boys and little girls? why does no one "suapect" that woman...oh it's a woman..it's ok lol...oh it's a funny world...so did monica look through gene's pictures and find some pictures of a girl...say 3 or 4..smiling..on a swing...and was she "suspicious"...does that reflect more upon her than him? does that make her weird and disgusting that she would even THINK such a thing about her husband? is that judging someone by her own weird mind? being a young girl who thought that way about older men...at such a young age...being a young girl who tried to get old men to do things with her..being a young girl who ended up with a man over twice her age? was she as morgan put it...so *beep* up that when she saw those pictures the true weirdo emotions she had were jealousy...she was worried that gene noticed that little girl in a particular way....and she is sitll a bit of a little girl and thinks that way and feels a jealousy...wants to be the only "little girl" of his...the only "daddy's little girl"...seeing gene as her replacement father...hence why she didn't like seeing him talking to her niece..in a paternal type way....."u're MY daddy!"..

[–] BinaryStar909 18 years ago

Wow, you've made some excellent observations. That never really occured to me. It makes perfect sense that she was jealous of the girls though, and that was probably the reason that she didn't want children. If she saw herself in more of the child like role herself, with Henry as her father figure, even more so than as her husband, which it seems like she very well might have, it makes perfect sense that she would have been so jealous of her neice, or of the other little girls he photographed.

It seems that we're lead to believe that his attraction to these girls is sexual, which would explain her jealousy of them, but looking at Chantal and her relationship to Henry in this way, it would seem that even if his attraction to them is paternal, she would still be jealous because she wanted his paternal attention for herself. And it does make perfect sense that his attraction to young girls was of a paternal nature other than a sexual one. He says many times that he wants to have children but Chantal won't, keeping herself from having any competition for his attention, especially if she him as a father figure.

When I was watching Henry's conversation with his neice, it seemed to me that it was a perfectly normal interaction between an uncle and neice. I also seem to remember that her father was in the room with them I think? Not quite sure about that. But whatever the case may be, it didn't seem to me that there was anything sexual in that particular scene. There's also nothing inherently wrong with his photographing young children. As a photographer who seems to desperately want children of his own, it makes perfect sense that he would photograph children. It seems that the way the photographs are introduced in the film is meant to give us the impression that he photographs them out of perversion, but there is nothing sexual about the photographs themselves. But, I still wonder why he claims he didn't know the girl when they ask and why he didn't say that he had photographed her before. It might have seemed suspicious under the circumstances, but if he had admitted he knew her, it would have explained why he had the pictures and they wouldnt have made him look guilty, unless the pictures were planted.

I too thought that it seemed like something was going on between Chantal and Detective Opie. In the first scene where they are shown talking as his is sitting on the table, just the body language says a lot, and I thought that even then there might be somethign. And the when he walks up to her in the house, I thought the exact same thing. I was almost sure that they had something and had been conspiring together. It would also explain Owens intense dislike for Henry. I think it also says a lot about the power of Thomas Jane and Monica Belucci's performances that they are able to convey so much nuance through just their body language. I was almost entirely convinced that something was going on between them just based on it, and I usually don't infer too much based purely on body language and the like, but for some reason I was wholly convinced in this case. It would explain a lot if it were true as well.

I think you make an excellent point about the film playing on the audiences preconceptions about men and children. When watching the film, I thought that he was almost certainly a pedophile right up until the ending. I didn't realise how much I was ingoring his obvious desire to have children of his own and just how important that was to him until I read your post. It's all stated very clearly in the film, but I was too blinded by my own suspicion to notice it. Taking that into account, the film makes a lot more sense to me now. It's so true that people don't usually take a man's need to have children half as seriously as a woman's. It is perfectly natural that he would've wanted to have children of his own, and that explains his relationship with his neice and the other children around his home. He didn't have any children of his own, and he was having them sort of take on the role of surrogate children, as Chantal had him take on the role of her surrogate father.

I really enjoyed reading your post. Thank you sincerely for your insights. They have given me a new appreciation for this great film and revealed some of my own ignorance to me as well.

[–] Gibski 18 years ago

hey binary

thanks..it's cool to see that someone got somethin out of one of my spontaneous stream of consciousness style posts lol

glad you enjoyed the read and enjoyed the movie :)

[–] dmarquez34 18 years ago

Wow I also liked this analysis... Loose ends are sometimes not "loose ends" but leads meant to make the public think over the hidden possibilities. This movie is all about having everyone under suspicion... No one seems to go without a guilt here..

Sidnee´s post was also very interesting and it shows that sometimes we are too impatient with more complex movies...

Thank you all for the interesting thoughts!