MovieChat Forums > The Interview (1998) Discussion > Endings

Endings

posted 18 years ago by MovieBookLvr
6 replies | jump to latest

I've read several complaints about the alternative ending on the DVD. Personally, I don't completely get the anger. With either ending I come to the same conclusion; that Hugo Weaving's character is the killer. I do like the original ending much better, but I just don't see what the fuss is about. It's pretty clear from the ending to me that Fleming is the killer. But I've only watched it once so maybe I would change my mind with a few viewings. But I don't think so. Anyway, it's a great movie and Hugo was absolutely riveting.

To a few, it'll be grief
To the law, a relief
But it's death for Bonnie and Clyde

[–] CROWJANE29 18 years ago

I've seen the film five times and at first I agreed with the conclusion that Fleming is the killer. But subsequent reviewings have made me reexamine that conclusion. For example we see the policemen lie several times in the course of the investigation to force Fleming to confess. I am sure Det. Steele honestly thinks Fleming is guilty and is trying to stop what he perceives as a dangerous criminal. But his tactics are questionable and allow Fleming to slip through the net. But there are too many unanswered questions given the facts presented in the film to draw an unambiguous conclusion of guilt or innocence. This film has been compared to The Usual Suspects, and it has surface similarities, but it doesn't have the same goals. It isn't trying to be a crackerjack crime thriller playing "gotcha".

And the unused original ending was what director Craig Monahan called "a bunch of crap" shot to please the financers who loathed the brilliant ambiguity of the original and better ending. It reduces the finely-wrought tension and character-probing in the rest of the film to a paint-by-numbers American cop show finale in which no questions are allowed and the Bad Guy must always be punished regardless of how much the police bend the rules to do so. I'm glad Monahan had the courage to stand by his convictions and go with the ending he chose.

[–] MovieBookLvr 18 years ago

You make good points.

However, I believe in Fleming's guilt for a couple reasons. I may be recalling incorrectly, but I believe it was Fleming who first mentioned they were really after a missing person and he was the first to suggest anybody being killed. The detectives only talked to him about the car and his forging the signatures for the sale. Also, Fleming's sudden change in his behavior was very suspicious. He went from upset and nervous, to calm and very cool and then when a new person came in, back to upset and confused. Plus, he was just way too cool when giving his story to the detectives. And it makes me suspicious that he gave the detectives the story. It is reasonable that he could have just been telling them what they wanted to hear, but he could have just refused to say anything to them. As his lawyer suggested, Fleming did say no comment but only once and after that he kept talking. And last, his smile at the very end looked just too devious to be merely smug about fooling the detectives to get out of the interview; but perhaps I am just reading malveance into the smile as I'm used to seeing Weaving as a bad guy. But I really feel that Fleming is guilty.

But I can see why there might be ambiguity.

As for the detectives, they were trying to get what they believed was a killer to confess. Intimidation is a common technique in getting a suspect to confess and it can work. And yea, they did lie during the interview, but I don't recall any of the lies having to do with anything Fleming admitted to. Just the fact that the detectives lied about some stuff doesn't mean that Fleming's confession wasn't real. I don't know about Australia since I live in the US, but here most of the time in court only the fact that the defendant made a confession is introduced; they don't generally show the video or tape of the interview in court. A confession can often be used just as a way to be able to indict a suspect and then the case will be dependent on any physical or circumstantial evidence that exists.

To a few, it'll be grief
To the law, a relief
But it's death for Bonnie and Clyde

[–] CROWJANE29 18 years ago

I'm American too, and I know that many confessions which seem obvious signs of guilt are later revealed to have been hoaxes or the result of intimidation. What happens to Fleming is fairly mild in comparison. But while his confession to the initial murder and car theft seems genuine, the later confessions sound made up, deliberately calculated to provoke a reaction. Fleming and Steele are so deeply involved in their game of one-upsmanship that the truth is elusive in the end. And we are shown a flashback of the investigation where a witness Steele is telling Fleming confirmed seeing him in the missing car is shown onscreen shaking his head when shown a picture of Fleming. Then there's the handwriting evidence, which in most cases isn't considered strong physical evidence in court cases but Steele implies is incontrovertible proof.

I have noticed American viewers are more likely to assume he's guilty while British or Australian viewers assume he's either innocent or partially guilty. I tend to think Fleming had something to do with the stolen car and disappearance or murder the investigation centers on, but that the rest might be a hoax to gain attention or manipulate Steele into overplaying his hand. Fleming is revealed to be a compulsive reader of crime stories in newspapers; this might indicate he saves evidence of his deeds or that he's a disturbed individual with a grudge against the police who wants to sabotage their investigation. (We're never told what happened to Fleming when he was 15, but it provokes a stronger reaction in him than any of the crimes he's accused of.) In the end there really is no conclusive evidence against Fleming, though a strong circumstantial case at least for the initial crime.

I agree both leads were magnificent. I don't particularly perceive Hugo Weaving as wicked (I've seen him act the full range of human behavior) but Fleming is a disturbed individual, whether guilty or innocent.

[–] MrPrudence04 18 years ago

I came to the resolute conclusion that Fleming was as guilty as sin. What is so clever is the way he turns the system on its head, to get himself off.

I really think this is the most underrated film. Best Australian film, ever, with the possible exception of Blue Murder.

[–] CROWJANE29 18 years ago

I'm not sure that Fleming could have had any knowledge of most of the factors involved in enabling him to "get off". He didn't know he was about to be arrested and certainly couldn't have know Steele and his cohorts were being independently investigated and taped by their superiors. Granted Fleming is clever and devious, whether you believe he's guilty or not, but he also got lucky in the end. I think his goal in confessing (whether he told the truth, lied or--my own opinion--bits of both) was to sabotage Steele's investigation regardless of whether or not he was charged.

[–] Demarates 13 years ago

I agree that Fleming looked pretty guilty ànd it is unclear as to how he knew he was getting off (thanks to the unseen investigation focussing on his investigators).

What was the real kicker is how the detective rails against these "toe cutters" undermining his "honest" work as a policeman, but then consciously uses the same arguments (intimidation, threat, etc) to clear himself.

"The elderly, they seem friendly enough, but can you really trust them ?"