MovieChat Forums > Under Suspicion (2000) Discussion > a new take on this?

a new take on this?

posted 21 years ago by luvyafreddie
8 replies | jump to latest

I have different ideas about what happened at the end. People might say that I am taking too much from what was shown, but it's the only logical explanation I can think of!

Here goes:
I thought that Paco killed the girls. Chantal loved Paco, and didn't know that he killed them...she actually thought it was Henry. Henry knew it was Paco,and thought Chantal knew and was trying to frame Henry, so confessed to the killings so that Chantal could be with the man she loved (Henry was devoted to his wife even though she couldn't show her love for him [as she thought he may have been abusing children]).

I thought that at the end we would have seen Victor confronting Paco in the station, and clips of Paco putting the pictures in Henry's dark room. But as this didn't happen, I'm confused! I probably made too much of it.

my 2 pence worth anyway.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] luvyafreddie 21 years ago

thanks for reply

I suppose I realised at the end that Paco had nothing to do with it, it's just what I had expected to happen. Can you tell me why you think Henry 'confessed'? Do you think it was because the police had either convinced him that he had in fact done it, or he saw it as a way of ending the trauma of being interrogated and thought pleading guilty might be the easiest thing to do?

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] luvyafreddie 21 years ago

Just out of interest...can you tell me why these replies to my post have been 'deleted by an administrator'?
Thanks!

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brandyhaze13 20 years ago

I think he was admitting to murders he didn't commit, because of Chantel...he felt she'd already accepted that he had done this, and it gave justification to her overreacting to him and their niece...he figured the one person he loved in the world already thought he was a monster, even if for her own vain reasons...Henry did it for Chantel...she could save some face in knowing she was right, what did it matter, she'd already tried and convicted him. To him, he had already lost everything the 2 years earlier when the 60ft hall separated him from everything he loved. He had nothing else to loose...

[–] TBJCSKCNRRQTreviews 21 years ago

OK, no offence, but why is it that so many people can't just accept that we don't *always* see the killer/person who's guilty? Is it so hard to understand that it wasn't important to the story? It wasn't about the case; it was about Henry's guilt or innocence(among other things, one of those other things being Henry and Chantal's relationship and what led to that). I mean, I don't mean to insult you, but is it that hard to just take the fact that the killer is never shown, or even mentioned by name, in the movie? Why does it have to be someone we know? Ok, done ranting.

This rant goes for all thought-provoking/intelligent films that people have made similar theories about.

Once again, it's not my intention to insult you, but I get annoyed when people have to dumb a movie down because they didn't like the ending or other parts of the movie. I knew a guy who would make up scenes that he thought should have been there(but weren't); he'd claim that the scene was there, and nothing could make him admit that he was wrong. I even showed him a scene that he claimed he had seen something that *clearly* wasn't there, and even then he wouldn't admit to thinking it up himself. Drove me nuts. So if you've taken any offence from this message, I apologise, but I just had to vent my personal frustration somehow. Thank you.

In retrospect, your theory isn't the worst I've read; that goes to the one about Chantal commiting the murders(and, following that logic, apparently also the rape).

If you're too open minded, your brains will fall out.
Visit http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?AGB

[–] Irongang 20 years ago

It seems to me that Chantal thought he did it and that's why she helped the police. At some point in the interrogation he thought she did it to get back at him - he said something along the line of "I didn't think she'd go this far" - and he was going to take the blame to protect her. I think that Victor came to think so too, which is why he ended the interrogation. Then they were all surpised to be told that the killer had just been caught in the act. Paco is the most obvious choice to be the killer, but it may not be him either.