I find it a little strange that the boy can send a letter to the disabled girl, while he's in jail for raping her. I mean, c'mon, there's probably a strict censorship there, pre-reading his letters. Would they allow him to send her a letter?
The solution I figured was.. Maybe he sent the letter to his younger brother (who seemed to be nice to him, like him) and ask him to deliver it (maybe finally explaining the situation)
but.. it's a far stretch.
There as a minor debate about this on one of the other threads.
I think the sole fact that he is allowed to send a letter to her shows that he is not convicted of rape (the film never shows a trial or mentions what he is convicted of), but instead he is convicted of destruction of property or some other lesser charge. Having a prior record would pretty much guarantee he is going back to jail for doing anything wrong.
For having him convicted of rape it would require the girl to testify, or considering the state she was, at least some type of exam. But since the movie never mentions it, i guess he was convicted as for just attacking her, not necessarily rape.
"I believe the common character of the universe is not harmony, but hostility, chaos and murder."
Not sure if anyone has mentioned this in another thread, but given that girl has flights of fancy, couldn't it all be in her head?
~The man is a liar and murderer, and I say that with all due respect.~
I agree with Wanbaclone..
to some extent
The last letter part seems like that she is having it in her fantasy world(Like the pigeon and butterfly)
The movie never clears this up, but one possibility is that she at some point testified that he wasn't raping her (whether or not she was able to tell this to anyone is up to you) but in the end he got off for the 'rape'. Maybe he was in prison for a shorter time charged with escaping from police custody, vandalism etc... and thus was able to send her letters.
Its all left to your imagination really.
I also agree that the last scene was probably in her head. I wouldn't put it past the movie; there were some other scenes that played with reality in just that fashion. Plus the surreal aura of the final scene with the sunlight and the white stuff in the air.
That's my first guess. My second guess is what somebody else said, which is that he wasn't convicted for rape (if you remember, her brother and his brothers were discussing a financial agreement so things wouldn't need to legally go that far). The only problem I have with this theory is that, in the "letter" he mentions that SHE wrote HIM first. Can she really write a letter? And if she were able to, how would she send it to the prison?
So again, I think she's just fantasizing writing letters back and forth.
There was no rape. They were best of friends and loved eachother. The ones raping this girl were everyone else in the movie except the one and only person who actually understood and loved her. He saw her not as a shameful mistake or a burden like everyone else, but as a beautiful woman that he loved.
shareFirstly a good observation, makes you a person seriously involed in the story. So keeping that in mind, I'll try to put my thought in a simple way- In films there is a space left between facts and reasons. This is mostly done by all the intellectual directors who believe in interracting with their audiences through their films. Now this is the space left for your immagination to connect the dots to reason the facts(and your doubts), examples are follwed by the arrays of replies everybody left underneath. This is not done to prove that the makers are more intellectuals but to respect the audiance's intellectuality. Here the 'letter' does the same, we all know it is well reasoned but interestingly we all have different versions of it. So the trick is- director gives you a blank slate after showing you a beautiful scenery, now its upto you that how much really provouged you are, to draw your own picture out of that impression so that an impression of the story would live along in our mind.
share