MovieChat Forums > Gone Girl (2014) Discussion > The CCTV System and other issues. Did I ...

The CCTV System and other issues. Did I miss something?

posted 9 years ago by The-IIVII
21 replies | jump to latest

We know that Amy does not destroy the CCTV evidence as she intentionally stages the aftermath of an attack for the cameras. Doesn't the CCTV footage create more problems with her story than it helps? How does she explain only appearing on the footage a week after her disappearance? How does she explain away her evolution on camera into the character Desi Collings remembers her as? She's clearly lucid and certainly the cctv footage would show she wasn't being tied down according to her story. A system in a house like that would likely record audio as well as having backup storage. I don't recall seeing Amy doctoring the footage at any part, even if she did it wouldn't be done professionally.

Why doesn't Tommy ever come back into the story? You would at least expect him to be at the group meeting Nick has discussing what he can do to get out of the situation. The way they handled detective boney at the end felt really rushed and swept under the rug. At the hospital/examination scene its obvious Boney isn't buying her story and is looking for vindication as Amy's lies will likely tarnish her entire career. Rhonda was the only person on the force who didn't let her emotions lead her to a conclusion. She wanted the truth and proper justice. Even with FBI involvement it's against her character's nature to not at least offer suggestions like getting a private company involved to tap the house. Speaking of which...

In the shower confession scene Nick intentionally leaves the shower door open a crack, which gives the viewer the impression that he's secretly recording the conversation. Where's the payoff for that?

I really enjoyed the movie, but a lot of obvious issues throughout. Many things felt rushed and possibly important plot points were left on the cutting room floor, probably due to an already long movie.

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

As far as the CCTV goes, all we saw was outside video. Since we didn't see anything recorded on the inside, it would be safe to say it only recorded outside stuff.

The video of them showing up is the worst part since she wasn't fighting him or tied up. So, of she didn't delete that, then she has to sell it that she was drugged when they showed up. But, the police/FBI aren't looking for a maniacal killer. They are looking for a beaten and kidnapped woman.

I didn't catch the thing with the shower door, but that would make no difference. The sound of the water would drown out any audio recording. Leaving the door open would do an even better job because the water would sound louder.

[–] The-IIVII 9 years ago

We see cameras set up inside the house. Not only is her entrance into the house an issue it's also the timing. Again, she is brought into the house on the 7th day. I'm sure an investigation would show that this guy couldn't have possibly taken her and hidden her away somewhere secretly for 7 days as he was probably working or doing other things that would have him on security cameras.

In the shower scene you see Nick leaves the door open with a subtle movement of his hand. He also stands right next to the door in the shower. Depending on the bathroom it's highly plausible voices could be recorded in the shower, depending on proximity of the recording device, volume of speech and the amount of reverb in the shower stall.

[–] witchaphrodite 9 years ago

The cameras inside the house are recording the entrances/exits and windows. Amy is shown looking at the cameras on the screen, she knows where she will be seen.

It is unknown how long Desi's system is set to keep data. She was at his house 3 weeks, it is very possible that he didn't keep data that long. Since she tells the police to look for for the cameras, she seems confident there is nothing incriminating on them.

If Nick had been able to record something from that conversation in the shower, he would have mentioned it during the scene in the cafe with Go, Boney, and Tanner.

[–] The-IIVII 9 years ago

Yes she knows where she will be seen, but It's doubtful she could avoid all the possible spots. Especially those missed when prior to her knowledge. With that many cameras and that sort of system it would be extremely convenient storytelling if the actual house didn't have surveillance inside it covering the rooms.

Data storage is questionable but most companies recommend at bare minimum sixty days of storage. For such an expensive place as Desi's you would expect more. Her confidence in telling the police to look for the footage is just a lazy way the writer used to close the plot. It doesn't excuse how foolish it was.

Another thing is you can't just wrap wire tightly around you wrists for a few hours and suggest that's going to be consistent with being tied to a bed for 3 weeks.

Wasn't Amy kidnapped during the day anyway? If that's true what if Desi had a lock tight alibi on his location during that time? Maybe he was at work. Perhaps he was at the yacht club, or whatever rich people do during the day. None of that is explained at all, and it seems pretty critical in order for the FBI to just say "whelp, your story matches up, let her go home".

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

Wasn't there a scene where she saw the monitors for the video? If she saw where they were pointed, then there is no reason to go there.

Don't get me wrong; I think there are several plot holes in the movie.

But, the shower scene is not one of them. First off, she wants to shower so that she can see he isn't wearing a wire. And, she knows the sound of the water will drown out whatever is said. Nick would have had to have been expecting her to want to shower and therefore set up the recording device and have it pointed directly at the shower door which he left open.

That is too implausible to me. I'd much more believe he'd have something in the bedroom to catch her talking about it when they are lying in bed. However, I think this conversation is one she would only have with him once. If he kept pressing her, I think it would make her suspicious.

[–] The-IIVII 9 years ago

As mentioned previously, her walking into the home and walking freely about before seeing the monitors goes unexplained. Again, it's also unlikely she would be able to avoid all spots camera pick up spots even if she was fully aware of all locations without looking suspicious. They never should have introduced the camera system into the story. It creates more issues than it solves.

The shower scene isn't a plothole, never suggested it was. I just pointed it out because it seemed so strange the way the director made a point to show he leaves the door intentionally open. It appeared to be a setup for a following scene that never happened.

[–] witchaphrodite 9 years ago

Again, it's also unlikely she would be able to avoid all spots camera pick up spots even if she was fully aware of all locations without looking suspicious.

Not really.

They never should have introduced the camera system into the story.

I'm not sure why this change was made. The cameras are not in the book. In the book she could not leave until she killed Desi because there was a high wall surrounding the house and she could not open the gate.

It creates more issues than it solves.

Only if you are determined to look at the movie as a procedural, when it is not one.

[–] The-IIVII 9 years ago

Only if you are determined to look at the movie as a procedural, when it is not one.

Procedural, if by that you mean logical; then yes.

I never got anything from the shower scene. IMO, you are looking for something which isn't there.

The cameras only monitor the entrances and exits to the house, and the outdoor perimeter of the property

Both counter points I've already addressed from other posters.

She was there for 3 weeks.

Your point being?

The Feds wouldn't let Det. Honey pursue the case further because...

Why would that stop her from helping out on the side? Surely Rhonda has access to surveillance equipment to help incriminate Amy or if she didn't want to get linked in case something goes south she could use connections with PI's like I've already suggested. I didn't feel it was within her character nor everybody else's to just throw in the towel when they still had some obvious plays.

Why would Tommy be there?

there is no point for any continued involvement on his part.

Arguably Tommy has more reason to be at that meeting than anybody else. Don't you think he would want to clear his name so he could go on and live a normal life? Certainly this character would do anything for that to happen and teaming up with like-minded individuals with the same goal would probably be his best shot.

Nick, Margo, Rhonda and Tommy all have strong motivations to take action in secret in order to regain their reputation and lives, hence the purpose of the meeting afterwards. Reasoning for not pursing further action was either non-existent or weak, I felt.

[–] witchaphrodite 9 years ago

Procedural, if by that you mean logical; then yes.

No, by procedural I mean it is not a film about a crime, solving the crime, and then punishing the criminal. It is about satire and symbolism. Most of which you missed.

Also, you need to learn how to reply to separate people. The rest of your post is in response to someone else.

[–] The-IIVII 8 years ago

You are in a very small minority (only you) that see's this movie as a satire. I'm not going to bother with listing each name in response, you know who you are, stop feeling so self-important.

[–] witchaphrodite 8 years ago

You are in a very small minority (only you) that see's this movie as a satire. I'm not going to bother with listing each name in response, you know who you are, stop feeling so self-important.

Oh look at you being wrong again. Pretty much everyone knows this movie is satire including the people who made it.

Interview with Fincher talking about the satirical tone:

http://collider.com/gone-girl-movie-david-fincher-ben-affleck/

Ben Affleck describing it as satire:

http://www.designntrend.com/articles/20278/20140927/ben-affleck-says-new-movie-gone-girl-is-satire-modern-media.htm

Guardian review that mentions how it is satire:

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/05/gone-girl-review-two-different-readings-modern-marriage

A.V. Club review describing it as satire:

http://www.avclub.com/review/gone-girl-trick-only-david-fincher-could-pull-209886

And the list goes on and on.

[–] The-IIVII 8 years ago

I'm not sure if you are serious here or you are satirizing fanaticism yourself, but I'll humor you. Simply because a film has satirical elements or 'walks a satirical line' doesn't define the film as a whole - satire. Here's an example; A Nightmare on Elm Street series has plenty of scenes throughout it's catalog of films where at moments can feel like a parody of the genre itself. Would anyone consider any of the films as satire? No.

I realize you are a fanatic over this movie (and Dancing With the Stars, evidently) which is why you responded so quickly to a month old topic. But you need to understand that this movie has several shortcomings, which should also be addressed and discussed. Attempting to derail that discussion by delving into the classification of the film shows you are refusing to see the film for it's flaws.

[–] witchaphrodite 8 years ago

LMAO. Let's see the people who made the movie know it is satire, reviewers who understand film know it is satire, viewers who understood the film know it is satire. But some random angry dude on a message board, who clearly didn't get the movie, thinks otherwise.

[–] JaneThree 8 years ago

yeah, I didn't particularly believe that the two people from Amy's past would CONTINUE to be seen as unreliable after Amy's return. And Desi's mother has her own story - about Amy telling Desi his mother injured her. If three people who don't know each other report that Amy claimed they injured her, and she hurt herself to make it convincing, that is going to be taken under consideration by the police even if they aren't able to go forward with a case. She hurt herself to make it seem like Tommy raped her. Ditto Desi raping her. And hurt her head and her ribs to make it seem like her schoolmate and Desi's mom hurt her. These police were not stupid. After Amy's return, these histories acquire way more credibility.

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

These police were not stupid. After Amy's return, these histories acquire way more credibility.

I'm not disagreeing, but don't forget the FBI got involved. Once they took over, they dismissed all of the stuff the locals were going after. The Feds were convinced that the locals had screwed everything up and therefore were not going to believe anything they said.

As far as they were concerned, Amy was back safe with her family and her attacker was dead.

[–] JaneThree 8 years ago

It's just movie convenience to pretend the FBI would wipe away everything the police did and not look at it. They're not going to ignore every witness, particularly if the local police messed up. They'd go back.

1. So we have a woman who disappears from her home and evidence points to the husband committing foul play.

2. There are three people in the woman's past, none of whom know each other, who claim that Amy set them up to make it seem they'd attacked her physically, and was willing to hurt herself in the process. Including a guy who was falsely accused of rape. Amy hurt herself physically (ligature marks on her arms/hands) to make it appear he'd tied her down.

3. The police decide, without having done much other than judge personalities, that all three people who don't know each other are "unreliable" despite reporting the same type of behavior from Amy.

4. Amy shows up on her husband's doorstep with ligature marks on her, claiming to have been kidnapped/raped/harmed by a FOURTH person, and so when she had the opportunity, she butchered her kidnapper, right in the jugular, like a pro.

Setting aside there are a million ways Amy wouldn't get away with murdering Desi - the timeline, the evidence, the supposed opportunity, etc.. Fine, the police and the FBI are suspicious, but the police in particular seem intimidated by Amy's aggressive attitude pointing out how they'd botched the case against her husband, and the FBI goes along.

5. Amy is on record as being scornful of the police for suspecting her husband.

Ok, that's the scenario. NOW we are supposed to believe that after all this, Amy can take a jar of year-old stale vomit to the cops and go, "Hey, I saved this cause I think my husband tried to poison me with anti-freeze last year. I didn't want to believe it, but saved it just in case. But then my old boyfriend kidnapped me and raped me, and I was so glad to get back to my husband I was willing to say "bygones" about when HE tried to poison me. But now I think he should be investigated."

Ridiculous. Nick should have said, "Be my guest. You BRING that vomit to the cops, Amy."

[–] justanicknamed 8 years ago

It's just movie convenience to pretend the FBI would wipe away everything the police did and not look at it

Have you ever had dealings with the Feds? I and other friends have. Yeah, that IS pretty much how they are.

[–] justanicknamed 9 years ago

As mentioned previously, her walking into the home and walking freely about before seeing the monitors goes unexplained. Again, it's also unlikely she would be able to avoid all spots camera pick up spots even if she was fully aware of all locations without looking suspicious.

Wasn't she supposed to be tied up once he brought her home? If her DNA/fingerprints are found elsewhere (but out of camera shot) she can explain it that he brought her out to rape her or feed her from time to time.

I never got anything from the shower scene. IMO, you are looking for something which isn't there. I mean, it was a plot hole that the hospital let her go home still covered in Desi's blood. Nick would have had to figure she'd want to shower once she got home, and therefore have set up something in the bathroom.

[–] IheartCali5882 9 years ago

*The cameras only monitor the entrances and exits to the house, and the outdoor perimeter of the property. They don't monitor the interior rooms. Hence the reason why she had to stage that scene right by the front door. Had there been cameras everywhere she would have known she couldn't pull that off.

*She was there for 3 weeks.

* The Feds wouldn't let Det. Boney pursue the case further because, as Amy stated, they had totally botched the case from the beginning in not pursuing the Desi Collings aspect and so they were viewed as entirely incompetent. Add to that Amy was now America's #1 sweetheart, so there's no way they were going to let local law enforcement pursue an investigation into Amy being the possible culprit. The look the Federal agent gave Boney effectively silenced her. It held an unspoken threat that she was no longer welcome to take anymore action regarding the case. Not to mention, with the Feds being there, they had virtually taken over the case.

*Why would Tommy be there? Why would he need to be? To say he didn't do it? As I'm sure he proclaimed when he was initially charged? Wouldn't have made a difference and who's to say he wanted to get involved in all of that again?

[–] witchaphrodite 9 years ago

Not to mention Tommy told Nick that he took a plea deal in his case. So there is no point for any continued involvement on his part.

[–] tracyr88 8 years ago

I know this is late, but this is mostly explained in the book. In the book there is not CCTV at the lake house. She is there for several weeks and when she returns home she tells the police a story about how Desi took her to that motel first and kept her tied up there. (She does this in case the people who stole from her say they saw her there and they find her DNA there.) In the book she makes him get in the shower and then whispers in his ear in case he has the shower bugged too.

There's no real explanation about the FBI or Tommy though.