who is L


can anybody tell me who the 'L' character is in this movie. he mentions him several times in his journal but i never got who he was.
thanks for the help
often imitated, never duplicated-honey'b'fly

reply

I myself don't know, I think it's not directly mentioned there. Maybe one trace can be the man Morlar talks to "for several hours" on the bench after leaving his publisher. Otherwise I think it's a) left to our imagination, b)maybe it's described in the novel and slipped to the movie to show that Morlar had some friends after all.

reply

Yeah its that guy on the bench. He is identified by name in the novel, which I read years ago - I don't recall his name but it began with an "L". I don't think the people investigating Morlar realise that that is who he means.

reply

Loveless? The guy who was in court that Morlar supported. He was the tramp he talked to for hours outside his publishers office who got hit by a bus later...at least thats what i guessed.

reply

Loveless is not "L" Loveless is DEAD along with "ZED". L is indeed the guy on the bench and he remains L, all the book will say is that Loveless hanged himself before the meeting on the bench,i will check my copy of the book for a name and get back to you. ps Russell Crowe nice idea

reply

The book may make that clear - I don't know - but the film doesn't. All we know is that at some point in the past, as related by the publisher (Derek Jacobi), Morlar met "L" on a park bench, and at some other point - before or after - Loveless died.

I assumed that "L" was Loveless, because there's no one else with that initial in the film. I read the film as implying that Morlar associated with Loveless after the latter left jail, but then Morlar's power caused Loveless to die, without Morlar consiously willing it. Indeed, Morlar doesn't know that L is dead - he just notes that L didn't turn up for a scheduled meeting - "No sign of L".

I think it's a brilliant film, but it's full of unresolved plots like that. One of them is the state conspiracy (the "interested parties" that Brunel's British boss talks about) that prevents Morlars books being reviewed, and presumably watches him closely. Did the government know about Morlar's power?

reply

That "man" is Zonfeld. We are only ever told her surname, so L must clearly be her first name, just like the actress's (Lee). She is the only one that makes sense. We had been told that she also meets him out of the office, and she is the only one Morlar had any interest about, so I do not see any room for an other one.

Fanboy : a person who does not think while watching.

reply

In the book L is a character called Lorimar who is a petty criminal and an informer for the establishment.

Morlar defended him years before the action in the film.

He is clearly a very different character from both Zonfeld and Loveless.

reply

it might be the chief of police ... the coat seems to be somewhat similar whenever he meets lino ventura in the car and when he is sitting on the bench ...

reply

[deleted]

spot on dude

reply

But isn't there another diary entry 'No sign of L'?
'No sign of launch' doesn't make sense.
I always though it was Lovelass - someone look it up and put me out of my misery!
Great film though. Love it.

reply

[deleted]

I consider myself baffled. Cheers fella.

reply

Hi,

I don't know if you've noticed but later on in the film Brunel is reading through Morlar's diary and it says "L today". But, you never get to see what happened on that day.

It is a fantastic movie but this unresolved thread has always confused me!

Please someone help us!

reply

L is Lovelass. Morlar defended him in court, he went to prison and after he was released he was run over by a bus, according to Sgt Duff.

reply

Seems wierd that no one understands that L=Lucifer.It is the guy in a coat and hat,sitting on a bench,talking to Morlar.The whole scene is seen from a window(i don't remember when exactly).He simply visits Morlar to let him know of his plan,which of course is Morlar bringing destruction to the world.Absolutely no doubt about it:)

reply

very interesting... I had never thought of it that way & it would make sense given the facts that I have (since I haven't read the book, but would like to.) This would also make sense since the first "incident" occured with his nanny and he did in fact call on the devil saying, "Dear Lucifer, let her burn in hellfire as you're burning me!"
Thanks for another perspective, quite possibly the best one I've heard.

reply

It seems to me that the director made the movie in a way that can be interpreted in more than one ways by the viewer.He doesn't force just one conclusion.And although i believe that the L=Lucifer explanation is the most accurate(note that i haven't read the book and therefore could not know if there is just one answer),i also could not prove that Morlar wasn't no more than just a telekinetic person.Even if that judge's heart attack couldn't be the result of telekinetic's,it might a random accident or Morlar's stoning gaze(!) upset him.(i s**t my pants everytime i see that look...)

reply

But is Morlar really supposed to be the devil's henchman? The ending may suggest it, but Morlar seems to see himself in the opposite role, as the man who does "God's dirty work for him". He likes to pose as the moral conscience of mankind (note that his name comes close to an anagram of that word, a coincidence?), lamenting the evil ways of man in several lengthy monologues (how we discover the power of the atom and make bombs of it, how we send people to the moon but let millions starve to death, how we are obsessed with greed and power, yada, yada, yada...).

The devil would surely take pleasure in our state of moral decay, but Morlar despises it and uses his power to rid the world of this evil. Not quite in line with the devil's agenda, one might think...

reply

wow! everyone on THIS board is freakin' smart! I like a good discussion with people who actually think! :)
sincerely, I think you are both right... and I guess that's part of why I do like this movie- it allows the viewer to make decisions for themselves and draws no absolute conclusions.

It is true that it seems almost as if he is doing "God's dirty work" or in the words of AH-nold in True Lies when asked if he had killed anyone, "YEAH, BUT THEY WERE ALL BAD."
On the other hand, can you really say that God's work invloves innocent people in an Earthquake or the other "natural" disasters he takes credit for... or is this God's "population control"? The individuals he killed all seemed to have it coming, but on the other hand, the people in that plane didn't have it coming, they were just an experiment to show Zonfeld that he could do what he said.
I dunno... I have to think some more about all this. I just ordered a VHS copy because mine is very overplayed. I'm gonna dub it to a DVD for posterity sake since we can't get a real one here in the US.

Great movie... I've just got to read the book one of these days!

thanks to all of your for some seriously thought provoking discussion! :)

reply

[deleted]

Bravo mortu! Exactly mu thoughts. It seems so obvious who "L" is...

reply

Let me add some fuel to the "Lucifer" theory. Note scene with the published played by Derek Jacobi (at 27:37), where he states states: "They sat there for over THREE hours. There were still there when I left at SIX." 3 sixes = 666. As the mysterious stranger Burton sits with in the park is never positively identified in the film, and neither is the identity of "L", we are left wondering. When Burton looks down in the park he says "extraordinary" and goes down and talks to this person. How did he know the identity of this person, as he/she was sitting facing away from him and wearing a hat? And why did he say it was "extraordinary"?

reply

Damien in "The Omen" didn't know he was the antichrist until "The Omen 2".
Even if kid Morlar whispered "dear Lucifer please blah blah..." i'm sure he wasn't aware of the situation.Allthough you can't tell when did the detective visited that publisher,Moulton,my impression is that after the conversation with L took place,all the ethical monologues stopped,Morlar realized his purpose on earth,identified himself with the role that was given to him by L and unleashed his fury on mankind...
Supposedly,though,that the conversation with L took place between those monologues ,my assumption is that it wouldn't be hard at all for L to persuade Morlar to do his(L's) job by convincing him that he was doing "God's dirty work for him".It's satan's all time classic reasoning when he tries to manipulate a person to make him believe that he(the person) is not necessarily rejecting God.We've seen that in more than a few movies,Devil's advocate being one of them that comes right to my mind atm.Father Lankaster Merrin in "The Exorcist" said:"The devil will mix truth with lies to make his attack,and it will be a powerfull(psychological) one...".Wouldn't be hard for L to persuade the "ethical" Morlar that he is actually doing humanity a favor.Instead i'd say that he was the right person to choose,just because the ethical side was stronger than the average people.He was both intelligent and a philosopher(he was a lawyer once,one that was defending his beliefs very passionately).That combo made him the perfect weapon.
Seems like this debate could go on forever and that's not the point.The point is to watch and savour the movie(and every movie).I personally like to s**t my pants whenever i watch "The exorcist","The Omen","Poltergeist","The medusa touch","The entity" etc. and maybe that's why i want to believe that L=Lucifer.
As i said earlier,i'm pretty sure the director let's the viewer to make his own assumptions on purpose.Even if he didn't want to do that it's not possible to make this sort of movies and stop questions and contraditions from regenerating.It's like an MMORPG which needs patches forever and ever.It never gets perfect.And i know that if i watch the movie again i will come up with more contradictions.(that doesn't change the fact that i stand for my theory because i and only i am right and everyone else is not :P :P :P j/k)

reply

It's useless to confirm that L is the guy from the bench. It's obvious. But what really pisses me off is the fact that the character is totally useless in the film.

reply

Are you people crazy - L is Lovelass, the guy Morlar defended in court - the reason he's there as a character is to show why Morlar gave up the law practice.

Christ, read the book.

reply

Christ, read the book.


Well if you do read the book you'll find out that L isn't Loveless.

reply

"Morlar seems to see himself in the opposite role, as the man who does "God's dirty work for him".

The devil would surely take pleasure in our state of moral decay, but Morlar despises it and uses his power to rid the world of this evil. Not quite in line with the devil's agenda"


Right, but what if Morlar doesn't mean "Lucifer" but "Lord"?
Maybe L is really Lucifer but Morlar doesn't realize - most likely Lucifer wouldn't introduce himself like "Hi, I'm the devil, wanna work for me?"
What if he sold his ideas as "God's dirty work" to get Morlar into it? Remember, Lucifer is the master of temptation and lies

Something must have happened to change Morla's mind about the existence of the Lord and Lucifer and after all this "God's dirty work" palaver Morla didn't seem to think anymore that what his actions were really evil.
I might be wrong with that, but the L=Lucifer idea made me think of that possibility.

___________________________________________________
Suicide is the most sincere form of self-criticism.

reply

"L" was Linda Lovelace.She was really big in the 70ies.

reply