MovieChat Forums > Soft for Digging Discussion > What happened?

What happened?

posted 19 years ago by yojimboy
17 replies | jump to latest

I'm discussing the end of the movie here, so if you haven't seen it, don't read on...

For most of the movie I was sure I had the twist ending figured out in advance. I thought for sure the old man and the murderer were the same guy, and that the old man had killed the child decades before while working at the orphanage, and was simply tormented by the memory of what he had done (or by an actual ghost of the girl). Which would have explained why no body was found. This theory finally went out the window at the very end when he and the murderer were finally in the same room, and then the priest entered the picture and spoke his piece (which confused the heck out of me at first).

So, I guess what happened is that the priest decided that the girl was possessed by the devil because she had murdered a dog and done other evil things, so he ordered the workman to kill and bury her at the same time as he buried the dog. When she dies, the spirit possessing the girl then leaves her body and possesses the old man, which is why the cat won't come back to him for a long time and why the newspaper delivery kid is scared of him. This is finally manifest for us the viewer when the old man kills the workman. Although it is shown as if the girl herself is doing the killing, it's actually the old man possessed by the evil spirit that had formerly possessed the girl -- which explains the final twist ending when the old man kills his cat. He does this because he's possessed by the same spirit that drove the girl to kill the dog.

Is this pretty much the accepted explanation?

[–] ratblast-1 19 years ago

you hit the nail on the head. i had the exact same toughts about the plot. but i did not clue in about the cat not going back into the house. i just figured the girl was inside him right after she saved him from being kille. after reading your explanation , i feel you are 100% right.
great movie for not having more than 2 lines of dialog lol.

[–] tricklebrook 18 years ago

But then why would the cat be sitting there, waiting for the old man to pick it up when he got back from the orphanage?

[–] lennonforever 18 years ago

Yea, why is the cat there?

[–] dualexaust2002 18 years ago

You're overthinking the ending.

He killed the cat, because it was because of that cat that all those bad things happened to him. He was angry at the cat at that point.

The end.

[–] dave1661 18 years ago

^^ Thats what I thought too. This was a terrible movie. 74 minutes and 2 lines of dialog were even too much. This is coming from a guy who enjoyed watching Raising Helen. Soft For Digging needs to be buried in cold, cold earth.

[–] nekroman 16 years ago

I like the hypothesis above and it's a reasonable one. My idea is this. I think he genuinely did see the girl killed. And her spirit wanted to help him right her wrongs. That's why he had the dreams that pointed out clues to solve it. When he discovered her burial spot, I do believe he found a piece of rope. Whether it was the murder rope or just a random piece is irrelevant. But I think the hand he finds is an illusion. I support that idea since the hand tries to move away. I need to watch it again but when he picks up the rope, he shoves it in his pocket, but if I recall right, when he pulls it out later, it's coiled up. Might be a different rope. But I digress. He finds the girl's killer and when they have their fight, the ghost is released to scare off the shovelman. When he returns he kills the cat because the cat is what started this whole mess and almost got him killed. As for the kid on the bike being afraid of him, I would be creeped out by some weird guy who walked up to me and said, "murder".

[–] rivethead808 16 years ago

He said "murder"? Me and my boyfriend were watching this last night and we thought he just blurted out nonsensical gibberish. I already sealed the envelope and the mailman's about to get here to pick it up so I cant go back and check now... Can you confirm that for sure?

My Collection: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11097838

[–] nekroman 16 years ago

Sounds like you got it from Netflix. If so and you have a fast enough connection, you can watch it instantly there. I bought the DVD and have seen it a handfull of times now and he does indeed say "murder". They mention that in the commentary as well.

[–] rivethead808 16 years ago

OK, but it wasnt just me, it did sound gibberishy, right? The only clear words I could hear in this film at all were the priest's lines... Thanks for the info. Btw, my speed isnt fast enough to watch it instantly. I did notice that option though. Someday the laptop fairy will bring something more modern than a '99.

My Collection: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=11097838

[–] nekroman 16 years ago

And if you decide to buy it, good luck finding it in stores. I scoured my city for it and had to get it from amazon. I was mainly interested in the commentary track because I wanted to see if they talked about the character of Virgil or the guy who played him (Edmund Mercier) because to me he was such an interesting character that I wanted to know more about him.

[–] catlebrity 14 years ago

That line seemed clear enough to me. The bit I couldn't understand was what the girl said when she first appeared to him in a vision, but I imagine we weren't supposed to understand it.

----
http://blankingdelicious.tumblr.com/ Replace "blank" to get the real URL.

[–] BrrandBA 16 years ago

I think you got most of it pretty good. I would like to share a different idea about the cat only: the cat could be actually attracted to the possessed girl and wandered off the house lured to the woods - it might be a weak point, but still - it was in the woods when the search party was looking for the body; and next it was waiting for his owner at the porch. And somebody else here said what I think might be right - he killed the cat because the cat was the reason he went to the woods and saw all this, or/and - because he might have been possessed.

The film is made simple yet excellent. I really liked it. And I liked those little tricks to avoid any plain obvious conversations people do to underline the old man's seclusion from he world - not only by his place, but also by his age: old people did so much talking in their life that only those a few new words really matter in their lives. I think the film is worth watching and giving it some consideration.

[–] lathe-of-heaven 15 years ago

Ahhhhh... THANK YOU so much!!! I was REALLY trying to puzzle out WHY the hell he killed the cat at the end and your lovely explanation explains everything!

I don't know why I didn't think of that, but of course the girl possessed him there at the end and continued to do so and TOTALLY clarifies why he killed the cat. DAMN good job mate!

Sorry, I just cannot buy the other explanation here that he was just pissed at the cat for leading him into all this. WAY to petty and stupid for this subtle of a film. No way...

ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!

____L@th3

[–] willisdetroit 15 years ago

Wasn't Virgil a Priest, the cat representing temptation, the young (perhaps imaginary, perhaps a younger Virgil) priest with all the lines (other than "MURDER") and the handy man (goon or whatever) representing the two sides of Virgil (one being no better than the other), and Virgil's violent murder of the cat at the end representing his control of (sexual) temptations?

This approach could take into account the whole Christmas themes, the themes of youth and old age, and the obvious references to Hitchcock's thoughts of the irrelevance of agents of the state (here being the very British-like police figures).

The girl child seems virginal (again consistent with the Christmas theme) and allows Virgil to conquer, even kill, temptation by saving him from the two (human) sides of himself.

Considering the sound of the boiling egg and the purring of the cat are remarkably similar, and what happened to the boiling egg early on, it should be at least considered that the egg and the cat have some sort of at least symbolic connection. When put together with the Christmas themes, and the virgin child, well I just don't know, but something.

[–] catlebrity 14 years ago

This makes a lot of sense to me. But is could also be that the evil spirit didn't possess him until he got to the orphanage, and that up until then she was leading him to clues but not actually inside him. Of course, your theory explains the cat's behavior after he saw the murder better.

The big question then is why did the cat lead him into the woods to see the murder in the first place? It's hard to accept that in this movie that would have happened just by chance.

----
http://blankingdelicious.tumblr.com/ Replace "blank" to get the real URL.

[–] horrorshowmovie 13 years ago

There are so many blanks in this movie that I'm going with the simple answer--everything that happens ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN, and he kills the cat because it was the cat's fault he got into this whole mess. No, it doesn't make much sense aside from being blackly humorous, but it fits better than more complicated theories

Like other people, I figured he was basically recovering lost memories of him committing a murder, but the later part of the movie seems to remove this possibility

[–] luxmissus 13 years ago

I am willing to believe about anything. I'm not sure he and the janitor/killer were not the same person -- and that much if not most of the "action" is inside his head.

I'm of two minds about the strangling of the cat. It could be in response to everything he's seen as has been posited, but it also could be further confirmation that he and the killer are the same.

I don't think that he and the janitor/killer going at it necessarily means they are different people. I just don't know and I love that.

with only minutes to react we've somehow been killed by a stick insect -- Londinieres