Is Clegg a serial killer? Possible spoilers - The Collector (1965) Discussion

[–] ballet_princess_cupcake 18 years ago

I think he's a sociopath. He's not necessarily intent on murder, but the thought of his victims (guests) dying in his care doesn't bother him in the least. He's perhaps more perverse than a serial killer, in that he slowly destroys his victims with no thought or care of the possibility of death. He is completely and utterly selfish in that sense. He never truly loves anyone. He is just obessed with what makes him feel good.

reply

[–] aeternus_proeliator 14 years ago

He wasn't a sociopath. He had empathy, he felt for her and had emotions that contradicted with his own, he cared for her.

A sociopath doesn't feel that. They can feel emotions, they can just not feel them for anyone else. Sociopaths can be made as well as born, however they are defined by their inability (either through belief or mental abnormality) to feel for someone else.

Clegg fit into society because he was a nice guy in it. All his mechanations about Miranda didn't come from NOT caring for her but because he was in a world of his own where he was convinced she would understand and care about him as much as her. His view was twisted, not his emotions.

It's like saying you don't actually care for someone if you hurt them to help them. You can and you can not be a sociopath because of it.

reply

[–] Child_OfThe_Moon 14 years ago

He wasn't a sociopath. He had empathy, he felt for her and had emotions that contradicted with his own, he cared for her.

I don't know about that. He had a superficial kind of empathy, which is to say that it bothered him to watch Miranda in pain. However, knowing that Miranda was experiencing immense psychological pain didn't bother him at all. He couldn't concede that taking away another person's liberties was wrong, most probably because he couldn't understand why in the first place. It's almost akin to someone who stabs people to death but can't stand the sight of blood.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] heatherb20 17 years ago

In the book and movie he's not a serial killer...yet. I could easily see him killing his next victim if she makes him as unhappy as his first (which she probably will) so he can move on to the next woman he becomes obsessed with and thinks will make him happy.

reply

[–] rodlaw 16 years ago

In a way the story is the birht of a serial killer, he doesn't see his activities as wrong in any way, collecting guests and will on the basis of the story develop the ability to allow himself to be driven to kill off ungrateful guests.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DC1977 15 years ago

marcchanois is clearly an idiot.

reply

[–] Child_OfThe_Moon 15 years ago

He is clearly a budding serial killer. He may not have the intention to murder, but death would almost always become an inevitable fate as he probably realises after Miranda dies. I also think his having a collection of dead animals symbolises this in some way.

reply

[–] Eumenides_0 14 years ago

I think he is. His actions inevitably lead him to constantly seek new victims, because sooner or later he'll find a reason to hate the one he currently owns. It's part of his pathology. You can also see that with each new victim, he's learning new skills, improving his methods. This is also common with serial killers.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

reply

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

He is a serial killer in my book, he doesn't and didn't love Miranda enough to let her go or respect her freedom. He refused to take her to a doctor one out of fear of losing her and two, being arrest and so on. In all essence, he is a serial killer, he may not have killed her but he could have damaged her if she went on living they way she had. No light everyday, no fresh air, being nound and gagged everytime he wants, even no freedom is a torture method. He stolen it all from her and he all the while, he wanted her to love him and stay with him but his approach doesn't qualify him to be loved or what.

reply

[–] Eumenides_0 14 years ago

Even if he didn't kill her, I believe that he would have killed her. Or the next victim. His victims will never meet his idealised version of them, and evidently he can't let them go. So the only alternative will be to kill them.

This world is a comedy to those that think, a tragedy to those that feel.

reply

[–] red_rackham_77 14 years ago

Then he is a serial killer and another one-Hell-of-a-good-one.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 11 years ago

"The movie implied that he was a necrophiliac".

Huh? What´s that all about?

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

[–] jaben12345 11 years ago

Kidnapping a woman and keeping her prisioner is inexcusable , this man would have kept kidnapping women until he was satisfied and that would have been unlikely to happen. It's also worth pointing out that two of the books biggest fans were serial killers Bob Berdella and Leonard Lake -two really sick minds.

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mater_Lacrimarum 11 years ago

I completely agree with platypuspuncher. The film is full of symbolism and innuendo. And didn't he even say in the end something like this: "I keep her body in the box I made under the big oak..."?! Why doesn't he say I buried her etc.?! Sounds like an implication of perhaps paying her body a visit every now and then...

Also his reasoning in the end clearly labels him a typical sociopath-turning-serial-killer - he puts all the blame of his wrongdoings on the victim (if she had behaved, I wouldn't have had to take those actions). "Was it my fault somehow? No. It was all her. She got everything that was coming to her." That is exactly how a sociopath thinks.

Another thing is he has no understanding of certain nuances that are crystal clear to normal individuals, as mentioned above in the older posts. A good example being the freedom of body and mind taken away; he can't comprehend anything being wrong in committing such an outrageous thing. He can only limit his thinking to his own immediate needs and desires and can easily convince himself he only did what he had to do or what she made him do.

He also thinks he can make someone fall in love with him forcibly, but falling in love is not a simple "task" like teaching a dog a few tricks, but how would he know, for he's never been able to truly love and never will, he can only obsess and possess, confusing that to love, because that's the only "love" he has ever known. That's the mind of a sociopath.

(Ironically, it has happened in some kidnapping cases, that the perpetrator has been able to influence the victim's mind and thinking by task-and-reward until such a state of confusion follows, that the victim is actually supporting the criminal's story and sympathizing with him, because he was "nice enough to spare his/her life". It's called "The Stockholm Syndrome".)

"Words create lies. Pain can be trusted."
~Audition~

reply

[–] mdonln 8 years ago

Mater_Lacrimarum says > Also his reasoning in the end clearly labels him a typical sociopath-turning-serial-killer - he puts all the blame of his wrongdoings on the victim (if she had behaved, I wouldn't have had to take those actions). "Was it my fault somehow? No. It was all her. She got everything that was coming to her." That is exactly how a sociopath thinks.

True, in fact, based on what he said to her, it's obvious in his mind it's her fault he 'had' to kidnap her. He said she never spoke to him; as if she was required to do that. Keep in mind he never spoke to her either. If there was some unwritten rule people had to speak to each other, he wasn't abiding by it either.

He talked about her privilege and wealth. He said she and her friends were well off; even the character in the book had advantages he said he never had. In his mind, that made them a certain kind of person; less-desirable type of person. Meanwhile, he had enough money to buy an estate with historical significance; a valued property, so the money he won was substantial. If their wealth; which was really their parents' wealth and prosperity, made them bad people; what about him? He used what he had to perpetrate a crime; that's much worse than anything he claims Miranda and her friends ever did to him yet to him they were bad people but he wasn't.

He talked about having such respect for her he would never force himself on her but the fact he kidnapped and held her captive was forcing her to act in a way she didn't want. Why would sex be different? If she ever submitted to him it would have been under duress; in other words, against her will. He knew that which is why he rejected her attempts at seducing him.

Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply