Well, i didn't see that coming *spoilers* - Presumed Innocent (1990) Discussion

[–] TheManWhoSoldTheWorld 19 years ago

It's a good twist. What's even better is that when rewatching the film you can really see how great Bonnie Bedelia's acting is, and the way she reacts to the way events unfold.

There's one thing I wonder about. I understand her motive for the killing, but why did she go so far to implicate her husband with the glass and semen samples? I think I missed something.

reply

[–] ultrachronic 19 years ago

I thought it was Brian Denehy though because he was lying to Ford and his lawyer about assigning him to the case and stuff (i can't remember the character names and can't be bothered to go and look =P), so was that to implicate Ford or just plainly cover his own ass for assigning Ford to the case in the first place?

reply

[–] nodttiurp 19 years ago

Typically, the book does a better job of tieing up loose ends, clarifying details or offering alternative causation. Read the book to get insight into the implication of the husband (hate, bad luck, ignorance or alibi?) and the complexity of a boss under stress from every direction. The criticism is valid for the movie and a debatable weakness in the book.

reply

[–] macknife30 19 years ago

She implicated Harrison Ford so that while he was investigating the crime he would figure out that she did it, but she knew he would cover it up to keep her out of jail. She was as surprised as anyone though when she found out that he had been removed from the case and that he was being charged with the crime. Thats the way I see it anyways. Hope this helps.

reply

[–] Eumenides_0 19 years ago

You didn't see it coming because there wasn't a thing called foreshadowing: there were no clues, hints, no focus on her character, no reason to even suspect in one's wildest dreams... when the surprise comes, you bet it's a surprise! It just came out of the blue without any build up.

When you watch Se7en, The Usual Suspects, Fight Club, The Sixth Sense, you may be fooled the first time, but when you watch it a second time, you start seeing the hints and clues. Now try doing the same for Presumed Innocent and get ready for another round of bad writing, because that's what it is when the director/screenwriter doesn't play fair with the viewer...

... not giving the viewer the chance is a bastard thing to do! And getting praised by the viewers for it is just the cherry on the top.

That's my opinion.

reply

[–] SlowRain 19 years ago

You know what, I don't think the twist is important. This isn't a movie about who did it, it is about what it is like to be part of the business (and it is a business) of prosecuting and then suddenly to have the tables turned on you; you are now on the other side of the courtroom. What would it feel like now that it's you fighting for your freedom, going from accusor to accused?

I've read the book and seen the movie. When I watched the movie, I was completely mesmorized by the acting. When I read the book, I was completely mesmorized by the magnificant writing. You are never given a clue in either the book or movie as to who did it until the end. It keeps you from spending too much time on something that isn't the main purpose of the book/movie. I say it was a job well done.

I don't think this is anything like any of those movies mentioned above, or others not mentioned, where, if you take away the twist, the movie is really about nothing else. Those that rely too much on a twist tend to be unsatisfying if you don't buy into the twist. They also don't stand up as well to repeated viewings.

"The only second chance you get is to make the same mistake twice." - David Mamet

reply

[–] Robert R Jackson 19 years ago

That's not completely true. There are a few moments with the wife when something's wrong, but you don't know exactly what and assume it's her dealing with her husband being implicated in an affair/murder. The most blatant one is when Harrison Ford asks her why she hasn't asked him if he's innocent and she has this miserable look on her face. On a second viewing you know it's because she knows he didn't do it, but the first time around you just think she's hurt and confused.

-Rob

reply

[–] KDinCT 19 years ago

WHAT?!?!? So the director "owes" you enough clues to figure out the outcome??? (And then when they do, you are probably the first one to crow about how you saw it coming and how it's a weak script). The fact that it is a believable outcome that you COULDN'T see coming is what makes it so well done. That's how life works...you don't always get a bushel full of clues to figure out the answers!

reply

[–] bbgun5310 19 years ago

As far as the cops not finding the murder weapon, this is cleared up by Rusty. When they are executing the search, he tells his wife that they are not searching for the murder weapon. If they search and don't find it, they have to admit that fact at the trial as the previous poster pointed out. And Rusty also says they know he is not stupid enough to bring the murder weapon back home. If they only knew...

reply

[–] Topher88 19 years ago

The issue of the sperm sample is misleading in today's modern world. At the time of the making of the film and writing of the book sperm samples were treated much differently today. If this case was tried today it would have been open and shut: DNA evidence would have confirmed that the sperm could only have come from Rusty. However, back in those days sperm samples were used to verify blood type. The semen evidence against Rusty wasn't as strong in those days as it is now. All it proofed was that the last person to have had sex with Carolyn (and presumably her killer) had the same blood type as Rusty. As for the carpet samples, they may in fact have matched the carpet in Rusty's homes but carpet companies make carpet for more than one home. In the days when the film was made the semen evidence and carpet samples would have been considered circumstancial evidence (very strong evidence when combined with the finger print on the glass).

reply

[–] marxist_princess 16 years ago

One thing that could have been a clue, in hindsight, is the way his wife acts when having to continually face the unpleasant fact of Rusty's affair with Carolyn throughout the trial. It didn't make sense the way they continued to live like a couple and his wife continued to be so loving and supportive. The fact that she commited the murder out of jealousy though, wanting to cling onto him at all costs (she said he was the 'only man she'd ever loved') offers an explanation for this delusional, unrealistic behavior, which even Rusty questions when he asks why she continues to stand by him.

"ART IS USELESS, GO HOME" (painting by Ben Vautier)

reply

[–] locoowl 19 years ago

Now try doing the same for Presumed Innocent and get ready for another round of bad writing, because that's what it is when the director/screenwriter doesn't play fair with the viewer..

My wife and I just watched this film and we figured it out about the time when Stern and Rusty go to interview Horgan and Horgan tells them how he is going to testify. We discussed the possibility of Horgan being the killer, but dismissed that as too obvious. Then we discussed his wife being the killer.

There were hints if you were paying attention early on. She refers to his obsession on occassion and it is obvious she really was devastated by the affair. What we couldn't figure was her planting the glass and the semen. That was a bit too twisted for us to figure out.

So no. Not bad writing. You just weren't being attentive. True the clues were not blatant, and there were plenty of red herrings, but the clues were there.

Loco

reply

[–] MuchToBeGratefulFor 16 years ago

You didn't see it coming because there wasn't a thing called foreshadowing: there were no clues, hints, no focus on her character, no reason to even suspect in one's wildest dreams... when the surprise comes, you bet it's a surprise! It just came out of the blue without any build up.

. . .the director/screenwriter doesn't play fair with the viewer...... not giving the viewer the chance is a bastard thing to do!

Disagree. Firt of all, this movie was not supposed to be a whodunit as much as a "did HE do it or not?" and its purpose was to keep you guessing on that.

And, as others have said, they have provided several clues about Barbara in the movie. You see a lot of insecurity, such as about not working outside the home, a sense of emotional instability, many comments she makes that show how devastated she was by the affair, and so on. She laughed while watching the news report of Carolyn's murder -- at the time you think it is just the bitterness of a betrayed wife. During the search, SHE is the one who asks if they are looking for the murder weapon, and Rusty explains why they are not. The first time, I thought having her ask that was just a plot device to explain it to the audience, but on subsequent viewing you know why Barbara would ask that.

I find the movie to be just as good on multiple viewings. Knowing the outcome, I was even more impressed by Bonnie Bedelia's acting. What initially seems to be a fairly one-dimensional role, the hurt but still supportive wife, turned out to be something much more complex, and darker.

You must be the change you seek in the world. -- Gandhi

reply

[–] MyDarkStar 19 years ago

Oh my god, you didn't see that coming ?!?!?!?!

I totally guessed it was the wife about 25 minutes into the movie ! It's obviously not going to be Harrison Ford's character. So, who would be the most likely to want her dead ? THE WIFE !

Horrible twist ! I saw it coming waaaaaaay ahead of time ! Don't you dare compare this twist to The Usual Suspects, Fight Club, or such !

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nation22563 8 years ago

Spoiler. Actually Ford was the bad guy/murderer in another film. " What lies beneath ".

reply

[–] Lolyeah (56) 8 days ago

No, you didn't.

reply

[–] bgpujanauski 19 years ago

Is it just me, or is it kind of stupid that the hatchet wasn't found during any of the searching of his house? It seems like after the coroner declares that the murder weapon to be some "hatchet-like" tool, the first place you would look in a suspect's home is the toolbox. Oh well.

reply

[–] ariakos 19 years ago

But the police didn't even look for the murder weapon. Ford's character Rusty explained it briefly to his wife while the police was doing their house search. If the police officers search for a murder weapon and can't find it, they'd have to admit in the court exactly that: Searched for the murder weapon in the premises of accused, but did not find it. Instead they decided just to take fiber samples and examine Rusty's clothes.

Now, everyone knows that not finding a murder weapon from the house of the accused doesn't prove anything. But it's probably just that the DA didn't want to give any kind of ledge for the defense in this matter: "But they searched mr. Sabich's house and no murder weapon was found!" Mere words but a very small detail victory for the defense.

Yeah, it's a little bit dumb I guess. But DA obviously presumed (just like Rusty said), that Sabich wouldn't be so stupid to bring the murder weapon back to his house. By the way, watch for a subtle clue of wife's nervousness on this scene. "They're not looking for a murder weapon?" (Bonnie Bedelia performed extremely well in her role).

reply

[–] krystlemhm 19 years ago

Um...I just read the book w/o even knowing that there was a movie...the copy that I have is about 425 pgs long and I figured it out in the first 125...
The plot twist really isn't that hard to see if you are really paying attn...as far as the user who said that there is no foreshadowing -- you're totally wrong...Barbara is totally dark and has these crazy angry moods (in the book @ least), she ignores her husband and is obviously beyond surprised that he is assigned to the case...when he confesses (in the book, again) he is holding a glass that he says reminds him of the one in Carolyn's house...whenever he makes calls to carolyn from his house he's "sure" that his wife can't hear him...it's there and i didn't think it took much to find...
As far as motive goes, the wife killed b/c 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned' ... he hurt her by cheating and she wanted to hurt carolyn and also to take her away from her husband thereby killing her...
w/e i didn't really like the book since i figured it out so soon...but i think i'll rent the movie soon and see if its any better @ hiding the clues

reply

[–] Grandizer74 19 years ago

I haven't seen the movie totally all the way thru, but in the book there are two explanations given for why barbara tried to implicate her husband.
they're given during the scene where lipranzer shows rusty that he had the glass that was missing during the trial. rusty tells lip that barbara did it, and he thinks she framed him first so that he would figure out during the investigation that she had done it but all the clues were pointing to him as the murderer. then he was supposed to cover it up, to help her get away with it.
but I think lipranzer's estimate of why she did it is the true version. he basically says he thinks she wanted carolyn dead and rusty in jail, as revenge. then rusty says that could be true but he thinks after she saw what the trial was doing to him she was sorry for having done it. I for one don't buy it. I think barbara was completely remorseless, and proof of that is the fact that in the book she leaves rusty at the end.

reply

[–] knightm7 19 years ago

. . .when David Foley was playing the night club act of Satan or Satan's son or something like that and he is always doing evil things up on stage and one of the things he said was "I'm so evil, ha ha ha, in Presumed Innocent. . . the wife did it! Ha ha ha, that was so evil!"

Nothing, tra-la-la!

reply

[–] moviebuf-11 19 years ago

I agree with you, grandizer. I read the book years ago, but came away with the idea that Barbara killed Carolyn and tried to frame Rusty for the murder, pure and simple. The movie tried to make her a bit more needy and clingy, giving the impression that she was telling the truth that she didn't actually want him to go to jail, but my memory of the book is that she was out to get them both.

By the way, I also remember being completely blown away by the revelation in the book. From what I recall, she was a very marginal character at most and never entered my mind as being pivotal enough to the story to have been the culprit. My reaction was "Wow, I didn't see THAT coming." If I had seen the movie first, I may have included her in my list of suspects only because Bonnie Bedelia had much more screen time than her character had in the book.

reply

[–] Grandizer74 19 years ago

there were a few clues scattered throughout the book. near the beginning when rusty is describing how smart barbara is, he talks about some of the books she'd been reading. two of them were about artificial insemination and cryogenics. then when he talked about how he broke down and confessed to barbara, he was crying because the glass of beer he had was in the same kind of glass that carolyn had.
the reason even beyond that I'd figured it was barbara is because she was the only person in the book who had a motive to kill carolyn. I was assuming rusty didn't do it, because no one wants to read about a book where the hero is a murderer. what shocked the hell out of me is when in the book turow makes him give what's a seeming confession, when he talks about how the crowbar thing was used to kill carolyn. I literally jumped up when I read that, because I was sure turow wasn't going to switch things up and make rusty the killer. the book is worth reading even for just that moment by itself.

reply

[–] InfoBabe 19 years ago

Why did she do it? Easy. Because she wanted to hurt him bad.

reply

[–] ducky124 19 years ago

actually they did give a very subtle hint that it might be the wife. When towards the beginning of the movie they describe how smart and analytical she was, by explaining she was the smartest one in her class and the second smartest one was teaching at MIT. There really was no other point (relating to the story line) to mention this. just my humble opinion.

reply

[–] z4ckm0rris 19 years ago

I just caught this movie on HBO, and I think the lack of an apparent guilty party during the courtroom scenes gave the film an excellent feel. The way the legal system works, with defense attorneys not presuming to determine guilt or innocence, was translated perfectly. I felt like there was a great nervous ambivalence going on; realistic in a way court scenes never are.

reply

[–] malcolm_mccallum 19 years ago

Her being the culprit was the only logical choice if you assume that Harrison Ford's character was innocent.

If he was innocent, where did the sperm sample come from? Where did the fingerprints on the glass come from? Where did the carpet fibers come from?

If he was honestly believing that it was a set-up, he would have asked himself where the evidence came from and that pointed right at his wife. I think he had thought about that possibility which was why his reaction to seeing the bloody hammer was more of resignation to proof than shock.

reply

[–] zanmorrow 19 years ago

But didn't Barbara screw up with the sperm sample (excuse the pun). The sperm had spermicide mixed with it which presumably came from Barbara. But she couldn't have known that Carolyn was infertile so she wouldn't have known that would prove that evidence has been manufactured. If Carolyn hadn't had her tubes tied, then the evidence would have stood and Rusty would have been guilty. So presumably Barbara wanted him to go to prison.

I'll let you be in my dreams, if I can be in yours.

reply

[–] wolfhunt_2000 19 years ago

Oh, the irony, the irony. Even if today's DNA tests were used, the presence of the spermicide causes acquittal. What a great actor Raul Julia was!!!! But what carries this movie is Rusty who totally understands why he is a suspect. He is a jilted lover, and he is honest enough with himself to realize that he is a boarderline stalker. If he didn't know for certain that he was not guilty, he might by his training suspect himself. But why shouldn't he suspect himself? Maybe there was an unaccounted for episode in his psyche where he does not know what he did. Maybe he fears that he could have killed her and cannot admit it because of his psychic mechanisms supress all relevant memory.

The cheaper the crook,
The gaudier the patter.
-- Sam Spade

reply

[–] Topher88 18 years ago

Why would the presence of spermicide cause an acquittal? I'm not sure how that works in today's DNA used as evidence world. Does the presence of any outside chemical immediately eliminate the sample from being used as evidence because there's no possible way to know for sure that the chemical was added afterwards? It's interesting to note, that in the film it was the presence of the spermicide that eventually led to Rusty's case being dismissed by the judge. Since the deceased had a tubal ligation, there was no reason for her to have been using any form of birth control. The presence of the spermicide in the sample led the judge to rule (in consideration of the other evidence and the lack of proof that Rusty had a relationship with Carolyn) there was a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the sample was actually taken from Carolyn's body. Thus, he threw the case out.

reply

[–] Salgirl 18 years ago

Yes, even after it was shown about the diaphram, I thought that the medical examinar had simply mixed up the bodies. I thought Harrison Ford killed her until the wife confessed, I though the blood on the hammer was the one thing he had forgotten.

reply

[–] marxist_princess 16 years ago

One thing that could have been a clue, in hindsight, is the way his wife acts when having to continually face the unpleasant fact of Rusty's affair with Carolyn throughout the trial. It didn't make sense the way they continued to live like a couple and his wife continued to be so loving and supportive. The fact that she commited the murder out of jealousy though, wanting to cling onto him at all costs (she said he was the 'only man she'd ever loved') offers an explanation for this delusional, unrealistic behavior, which even Rusty questions when he asks why she continues to stand by him.

"ART IS USELESS, GO HOME" (painting by Ben Vautier)

reply

[–] tarhealer 15 years ago

The presence of the spermicide in the sample led the judge to rule (in consideration of the other evidence and the lack of proof that Rusty had a relationship with Carolyn) there was a reasonable doubt as to whether or not the sample was actually taken from Carolyn's body. Thus, he threw the case out.

Don't forget that the judge himself was eager for the trial to end in Rusty's favor because he knew Rusty's attorney had the "B" file and its attendant information implicating the judge in a bribery scheme, along with the murder victim.

What I never figured out was why Rusty's boss turned on him.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] silvercometred1 9 years ago

From about halfway through this film, i thought it was Brian Denehy (sp?) that killed the woman, but i was totally surprised when it was his wife that did it...

I thought it was going to be the judge . . . or Malto.

reply