MovieChat Forums > Death and the Maiden (1995) Discussion > Interesting confession! Meaning of film?...

Interesting confession! Meaning of film? (spoilers)

posted 13 years ago by Zoomorph
7 replies | jump to latest

She says that all she wants is the truth. He admits to raping her and says he wishes it never ended. He explains how it started. This almost sounds like excuses, but it's not. He makes it clear that he is not "sorry" beyond the fact that she caught up with him. He acted selfishly then, and is acting selfishly now. She acted selfishly then, and is acting selfishly now, though she might not realize it. Everyone acts selfishly towards their own ends in their own circumstances. The film seems to be demonstrating this point.

What I'm still trying to wrap my head around is how did that confession really satisfy her? Does a torture victim really get satisfied by exerting a little bit of torture back on their abuser? Is Polanski making a joke with this film at this ridiculous womanly idea of revenge?

She wanted to make him uncomfortable, to fear for his life, etc, but it's obvious to us that this won't, and didn't, make him regret his past. It will make him a little stronger is all, one more experience added to his repertoire, and it was over with in less than a day. The doctor will get over this the next day because he's a hardened and intelligent man. She on the other hand took many years to get over it; she was a naive and fragile woman (as most of them are) that was nearly destroyed over something relatively minor (the loss of her chastity). It's lucky for her that he showed up or she might never have gotten over it.

So I think this film must be poking fun at the idea that taking such revenge actually accomplishes something in terms of changing the abuser. It also must be telling us something about the dynamics of such a relationship, how one party is so broken and naive that they don't even really understand what they're doing, but at least she managed to get over it. Victims are really a dime a dozen, is Polanski poking fun at this?

I really love Polanski films. They always demonstrate some intelligent point that the majority of people immediately disagree with (at least in movies). This is demonstrated by the sheer number of people that are on every film of his complaining about the ending, or suggesting a different one.

Thoughtful ideas about this film are welcome here. I only just watched it for the first time.

~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] modestyblaise65 12 years ago

I suppose, she only wanted to be sure that he is THE ONE. As he confessed and she was proved right, she realized that revenge would only ruin her future life. She needed certainty and she got it. Also, with her husband on the important position in the Government, they could probably find means to prove the doctor's guilt anyway...so she chose to leave with clean conscience.

[–] bpollen 10 years ago

She didn't need to make sure he was the one. She knew. She knew, as surely as any victim recognizes the voice and body movements of the victim's torturer.

She wanted some accountability, some....something. She wasn't sure what she wanted, exactly. But an acknowledgement from her torturer was the start she insisted on, from the start.

She also wanted him to know that someone out there in the public knew what he had done.

[–] Steffi_P 12 years ago

It's called closure. If you have been abused the way Paulina was, nothing can make up for it. But what can help in some small way is an explanation of why those things were done to you - it's actually not uncommon for victims of such crimes or the families of murder victims to seek these answers. By bringing Miranda to the point where he really thought he was going to die and had nothing left to lose, Paulina was able to gain that explanation.

And also, less of the "Is Polanski saying..?" business. The play is by Ariel Dorfman. Although Polanski's decision to take it on as a project is certainly significant, the words and intentions are Dorfman's.

[–] bad_touch_granny 12 years ago

The confession didn't completely satisfy Paulina. She saw too much
of herself in him. Just as he sought sexual and scientific knowledge
through torture, so too did she seek justice through the pretense
of a formal inquest. By the end she realizes that the act of
interrogating the doctor puts her in the same inquisitorial position
he once held over her. The questions she puts to him produce only the
same pornographic answers that greeted his "scientific queries."

So I agree with you. It shows that revenge masquerading as justice
accomplishes little and is morally problematic. Whether that is
strictly true is open to debate, but I think this is what Polanski
is saying.

Very good post, OP.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] franzkabuki 12 years ago

I think there was ultimately ´some´ satisfaction gained by Weaver from the encounter as Kingsley´s facade eventually does break, he does confess and allow a look into his soul, the way he was... instead of all the terror just facelessly, anonymously sinking into the past and the people that perpetrated it just kinda vanishing or sitting stone-faced like sphinxes and denying all knowledge. Kingsley´s final monologue is stunning - amazing writing and acting.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan