MovieChat Forums > Identity (2003) Discussion > Dr. Malick's strategy (spoilers)

Dr. Malick's strategy (spoilers)

posted 11 years ago by TreeHuggerKyle
6 replies | jump to latest

I'm curious about Dr. Malick's strategy in trying to execute the killer within Malcolm's mind. Or, as he says (in the extended version), "We must exterminate the rat, not the house."

Was Dr. Malick hoping to get Ed specifically to help find the killer within Malcolm's head? When Ed appears in Malcolm's body, Dr. Malick seems pleased. And as Ed started to drift back into Malcolm's subconscious (i.e., reappear at the hotel), Malick said to him, "Edward, I need your help, I need your help to finish this." So did Malick want Ed specifically? I can see how, if Malick had all of Malcolm's personalities well-documented, he would think that Ed would be the best one to help find the killer. (If so, you'd think he would've given Ed some more helpful information before Ed disappeared again. But I guess getting Ed just to understand the situation was quite a task.)

Further, did Malick think that Rhodes was the killer, and want Ed to kill Rhodes for him? Or did he not know who the killer was, and needed Ed to do some detective work? The last thing Malick said to Ed was "you have to understand, the killer cannot survive." And it seemed like when Ed got back to the hotel, he was on a mission to kill Rhodes, even if it meant dying himself, because he understood he didn't really exist (which would admittedly be kind of a drag). But Malick never told him the killer's identity (pun intended).

Basically: I know Malick's general strategy was to force all of the personalities together and make sure the evil one died. I'm just wondering what the specifics of his plan were.

[–] Blogem 11 years ago

You stumbled upon what appears to be a plot hole, which kinda ruined the movie for me. A lot of people feel the movie is ruined because of the "it's all in his head" twist, but I thought that one was pretty obvious. Right at the beginning you're made aware there is some stuff going on, as you're listening to a doctor interview a guy with multiple personalities (he asks "who am I talking to?", a dead give-away). From that point on it's just figuring out if the motel is a real place or just made up... which you find out is the latter because the convict can't get away (he mysteriously ends up at the diner when trying to run away). It could've been that not all characters were a personality, but it's not unexpected at all.

Anyway, to get to your question... The whole bit outside his mind is barely touched upon. But we see different handwriting and we understand he's given a confession (dictated), but can't always remember that. So his personalities really manifest as themselves when they're there (this is confirmed by the reaction of Ed to the mirror). So when they got the confession they knew it was the boy... even if it wasn't plain obvious from the way he would behave with that confession, it would be from his handwriting when he would sign the confession or something like that (maybe just ask him to write something).

So I guess the doctor knew who the killer personality was. If he didn't know at first, he definitely knew once they stumbled upon the old diary. So he could've helped Ed easily.

[–] Anorensic 11 years ago

The boy was a silent part of his split personalities, remember he doesn't speak throughout the film and there is a comment made by his stepfather that he hasn't spoken since his father left. Actually a lot of his personalities had killing tendencies and could have been capable of the murders in real life for which he was given the death sentence. The last twist of the film is basically revealing the silent boy personality as the killer. Dr Malick never knew of it and even Ed himself wasn't fully aware until the end, or should I say Malcolm/Paris, Ed actually dies thinking he finished off the last killer Rhodes, leaving only Paris.

[–] chaosroach 11 years ago

Actually, yes, the child is silent since his father left him, but at their deaths, Cusack's character hears Liotta's say "I didn't do it", to which Cusack says, "I know." The trivia section says the director removed this audio so the actors only mouth the words as actually hearing it was a too heavy-handed giveaway and spoiled the twist.

Comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable

[–] Stenian 9 years ago

Very interesting. Glad it was cut though.

[–] wesperkins 8 years ago

I read that part about Rhodes saying that, and at first, I was confused on why Ed was so dead set on killing him, if he knew he wasn't the murderer. Unless he thought Timothy had really already died and killed the others, wanting to only leave the girl left to grow oranges. He knew Rhodes couldn't have killed all of them, as he was with Rhodes when some of the murders happened. So I'm guessing Ed thought they were the only 3 left alive for real and he wanted the girl to live? Maybe he thought there was more than one murdrerer? But bottom line he thought only one person could live is my take. But I may be the only person who felt sorry for Rhodes getting the blame for and not understanding what was going on lol.

[–] armhammer 8 years ago

Just watched this again today and with the benefit of IMDb, I had better insight than previously.

However, I don't understand how systematically killing off each personality would create a healthier integration of said personalities in Malcolm's psyche. It seems like a paradox to me.

Also, I had a problem with the flashback scene of Rhodes killing the cop. Since when does a solitary LEO transport two convicted killers across the Nevada desert without any type of backup, not even a protective barrier between the back and front seats? Granted, this could be easily explained away because it was all a part of Malcolm's insanity but I still felt it was sloppy and careless considering the technical detail and accuracy displayed throughout the rest of the movie to keep one guessing.