MovieChat Forums > Death and the Maiden (1995) Discussion > I beg to differ - plot and ending

I beg to differ - plot and ending


I see things in the movie different from most threads in here.

Firstly, some parts of the 'interrogation' - as much as I hated that - made me smile, even laugh. I think Polanski loved to show the absurdity of an approach to obtain a confession with a gun pointed at the accused. Like the good doctor peeing, and being helped with it.
The movie also shows how easily scenes can change rapidly, and are yet repeated: the oppressed - once in power - have learned their lessons well, and oppress in turn.

What strikes me most - and not often found in here, neither - is the total change of behaviour after the confession. She used to say that she'd forgive once she had a confession. She fiddled with the gun, and made herself a fool, a deathly fool. But once the good doctor confessed on the cliffs, she actually let go, just as announced.
To me this is a striking and relevant passage. She wants honesty; like she demanded how often her husband had had sex with that other girl while she was imprisoned. [That's actually something women tend to go for: no stories, while we men like to cook up stories ;-) ] Incidentally, the story starts with her questioning the truths in the flat tire story, too.

The ending, well, was it the Dr. Miranda or not? I guess, yes. But there is no proof. Everything is circumstantial evidence only. He might have made up his mind to actually confess, or just given in and playing along. There is nothing that he could not have 'added' from common knowledge or guesswork; like hands being tied with a cable, or him enjoying that there was light, contrary to what the blindfolded might assume. Though that's quite obvious that torture isn't done in a dark room ... .
What makes me think that he is the presumed torturer, is yet another turn of the story: He confesses to all, and yet convincingly points out that he did for the prisoners whatever he could, with respect to medicine, some food and drinks, and prides himself of not a single death during his turn as doctor in charge. While at the same time, his confession is about his obsession to be in power. Like the rapes, he explains how and why he raped. Not responsible for any death is a recurring theme, too, from the beginning: the commission is - for the time being - only in charge of cases ending in deaths.
I don't write this to exonerate Dr. Miranda's deeds, rather to give a face to why he did what he presumably did.

The story doesn't quite end where the movie ends. There is a subtle thread between the torturer and his victim. She looks at him, he looks at her. The husband looks straight. And the woman seems to stare at the son of the torturer. Let's not forget the scene when she spoke about adopting a beautiful son.
To me the movie is not one that starts, and ends, over. It rather shows us a sequence, a slot, of mostly three lives that have been bound together by the effects of a bloody dictatorship.

This film also ends without any hero. In the beginning it seems to be the lawyer. In the end, he could be seen as the weakest personality of all three.

reply