Hi,
Did any body else feel this movie lacked a bit of clarity in explaining that Gomez was the killer? It is not clearly shown/proven that Gomez actually killed Liliana.
The way he reacts when Irene provokes him could have been just because she insulted his manliness, and not necessarily because he had actually raped and killed Liliana.
Yes, I had the same thought when I saw that scene, it almost felt like Irene was determined to get a confession out of him regardless of whether he was the killer or not. (Which would've been ironic, considering that the first two suspects were forced to confess, and Benjamin was very strongly against this.) For a while, I expected there two be a plot twist that would've revealed Gomez was innocent. But by the end of the movie I gathered Gomez was indeed the killer; the revelation of his ultimate punishment would've made little thematic sense if he wasn't. Still, it's interesting that Gomez's guilt is never confirmed by anything else than that one interrogation scene.
shareStill, it's interesting that Gomez's guilt is never confirmed by anything else than that one interrogation scene.
There are ways to verbally assert one's manliness other than confessing to a rape and murder. I thought his confession, as well as subsequent events, made it clear that he did do it.
You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi
It seemed perfectly clear that he was the killer given the theme of eyes and how he is first spotted, in photos looking at the victim intently. IF he wasn't the killer then 'secrets in the eyes' becomes an empty symbol.
Why problem make? When you no problem have, you don't want to make ...share
Its mind boggling how many people are confused by this film "who killed her" " was that scene real or dreamt" "was Sandoval really killed". I thi k stupid people just enjoy being confused
huh? he SAID "wanna see how i *beep* her?" (or something similar)
isn't that proof enough`?