Father-Daughter Massacre
I didn't understand this. Did she or did she not do the murders with her father? She mentions twice that she was the victim and they made her seem like the killer but I was confused
shareI didn't understand this. Did she or did she not do the murders with her father? She mentions twice that she was the victim and they made her seem like the killer but I was confused
shareThe truth was revealed in the story she told Patrick: she did not murder anyone, her father forced her to burn evidence and that photo was snapped of her when the police arrived.
The public misconstrued the photo and assumed that she participated in the murders. Likely, the police did an investigation and probably didn't find enough evidence of her involvement in the actual murders but, the public's perception of her remained.
>The truth was revealed in the story she told Patrick
Obvious SPOILER ALERT ahead...
But since this is a movie by Paul Verhoeven, we all need to be on our toes here. Is she really telling the truth to Patrick? I've rarely seen a movie where there was more lying going on (by everybody!). Perhaps she is really just telling Patrick the story she told the police at the time. Note that there's a thread here claiming that the father is innocent and she was the one who did all the murders!
[deleted]
Exactly
Couldnt helå to love and hate her character at the same time
My feelings of her switched from scene to scene
Interesting. I think she may have been the one who killed the dogs and cats - she mentioned that all the press coverage "had missed that". When she rescues the bird from her cat and goes to great lengths to try to save it, is about the only time she shows emotion. It's like guilt had overcome her. She also appears to be very affectionate with her cat. She's a bit like a cat herself, very self-possessed and distant. OR the only killing her father carried out that affected her was the killing of the pets - she notes he spared a hamster.
It seemed like animals were the only thing which stirred her emotions. She certainly showed no affection to her son which is why he, in desperation, hooked up with a girl who was not only exploiting him, but clearly mentally unstable. She was cruel and heartless to her mother (who, not being present during the murders, would have been unaware if her daughter was in fact involved more than she admitted).
You're right - it's a very ambiguous film. Michele seems a very admirable character... until you put all the dots together and realize nothing about her makes sense.
Her father's suicide when he found out she was finally going to visit him is odd. Almost like he was afraid of her.
An interesting point about the cat. Oddly, I had exactly the opposite feeling about her relationship with her cat. Unless I missed something, we never see her pet the cat. Or feed it. Or give it any attention (the only place where she does is in the poster for the movie!). And we hear the sort of loud meowing which means (at least to this cat lover) "I want some attention and petting." But the poor kitty never gets it.
shareNah, I think she did love the cat. Cat slept on the bed with her. But she reacted to the cat like the cat did to her: with indifference, real or feigned. The cat also was a killer. The only scene where Michele really lost her cool was when Marti attacked the bird. Triggered memories? The cat did some great acting too! Reminded me of our Siamese who comes up to us and miaows loudly to tell us something. Never sure what it is, but he's very insistent we listen to it.
shareI also had a different reaction to that scene- I thought it was very telling that Michelle seemed just as concerned about the animals being killed as the children. Also, the fact that she tried to save the bird points to empathy, just perhaps she doesn't know how to really show it, or maybe directs it to the wrong person or thing. I agree she has PTSD and it has really affected her way of thinking.
One other thing about Michelle- she's very honest and accepting. I wasn't sure what to think when she told Anne the truth, at first I thought she was only trying to ruin her happiness. But then I thought, no, it was a good thing she told Anne the truth, he was a cheater and likely would have cheated again. And she hated Josie, but accepted her, was disappointed in Vincent but accepted him, wanted to end the affair but would have a accepted friendship and even accepted Patrick.
I too had the impression that Michèle was the one seeing through and always speaking the truth, maybe the only one in the movie. And that makes her appear incredible cruel and cold. She sees through the character of his son's girlfriend, she sees that it is not his son's baby and she says so in his son's face, whenever he seems most happy with his illusions. She knows that the police can't bring her justice after being raped, she wouldn't hide her experience either, she tells her friends at a fine dinner without even showing emotions. She sees through her mother's young "lover", who only is attracted to her because of the excitement of sleeping with the wife of a mass killer - and so she openly speaks against their alliance. Michelle has experinced the worst of the people closest to her that made her lose all faith in emotional affection, so whenever possible she breaks all the walls and barriers people build to protect their hopes, dreams and illusions, which cause their twisted reality and helps them to exist in it.
There is she (Michèle) and opposite her street, there is another woman (Rebecca). In-between there is a man with sadistic tendencies, both are attracted to. He changes sides - the nice guy and husbands on the one side, the sadistic anonymous rapist on the other. The only thing Michèle has is knowing and speaking the truth. The only thing her christian neighbour has is faith - this is how they manage to carry on, this is how they finally find peace (even with her parents in Michelle's case).
*** Spoilers ***
It never occurred to me that she might be complicit in the mass murders because of her age at the time (10 yo) but there are a few clues that she might not have been innocent. First, over 30 years later people still hated her, which seems odd. Normally people don't blame young children for the sins of the parents, even if the parents are monsters. Second, recall the shooting range scene. She seemed awfully good with a gun for someone who had supposedly never shot before. She hit a moving target every time. When the guy said that in a real situation the target would move faster, she replied "True" as though she was speaking from experience.
During the movie, these little incidents just struck me odd, but as I think about them and read others' comments, maybe they are actually clues to something more sinister.
In her recounting of the events, she states that her father had been door to door. Had she been a participant, she would have grown up in a asylum instead or regular life.
There is no indication in the film, or from her relationship with her mother, that beyond the crazy father there was any disturbance in the family.
Paul Verhoeven's thrill is to make females in situations of trauma and self-defence "appear" like evil monsters, AND "appear" sexy while being evil. I suspect he hated his own mother very much. It's all just a giant fetish for him.
A powerful woman "must" be an evil one... right ?
This is Paul Verhoeven's world.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
[deleted]
I quite likely have a hell of a lot more experience than you.
As for humour, no, I do not find misogyny humorous.
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
I quite likely have a hell of a lot more experience than you.
Makes me laugh when kids think I'm a dude!
***So I've seen 4 movies/wk in theatre for a 1/4 century, call me crazy?**
[deleted]
good points
shareIt didn't seem to hurt her socially or career wise.
share