MovieChat Forums > Le temps du loup (2003) Discussion > Was that the man who killed her husband?

Was that the man who killed her husband?

posted 17 years ago by jse126
10 replies | jump to latest

In one of a number of scenes in this film that seem to deliberately make the viewer experience exactly what the people in the situation are experiencing, I was unsure if the man near the end of the film who the wife accused of killing her husband was actually the man who did it. She and her daughter seemed certain - and he seemed genuinely affronted and innocent. Certainly the man and his family resembled the ones in the beginning of the film, but you can't really be sure. I'm certain that this was the filmmaker's intention. It puts us into exactly the position of the man who is forced to first judge and then declare the inevitable - that nothing can be done about it, given the situation as a whole. And both parties involved know this to be true as well, and knew it from the second that she made her accusation. She must give up on it, she has no choice; and he, if guilty, has the chance to get away with it.

The only difference between us and the man who was put in the position of judge is that we witnessed the murder. But since we could not be sure if he was the man or not, it is not much help to us and we can sympathize with the de facto judge's position. I had no intention of rewinding this film to the beginning and then going back and forth to the end again to try to make up my mind either. For one thing, if I had been at the cinema I would not have had the chance, and for another it would be quite disrupting and annoying. And it would not have felt right.

I don't believe that anyone who has not seen the film more than once - and I do not plan to watch this one twice, it's just not that type of film - really knows for sure if he was guilty or not. And again, I feel that this was the filmmaker's intention. Still, I would like to hear your opinions; and if anyone has gone back and reviewed the film and made a conclusive decision I don't mind hearing what it is now. I've seen the film and I know only one thing for sure about the scene, and that is that I don't know. In other words the film made its point with me, so knowing the answer now is not a problem for me.

[–] jse126 17 years ago

WELL to answer my own question here, judging by what I read on some other threads, he was the guy. If so, I recognized the wife a lot more than I recognized him. If he is truly the man, he was a lot more disheveled looking in the beginning and certainly more threatening; when he reappears (presumably) at the end he looks a lot cleaner and of course tries to come off as non-threatening. He is in an entirely different situation now.

I'm still uncertain, but I appear to be outnumbered in my uncertainty. What do you think? And one final thought - it makes no difference if you are certain or not. Perhaps the filmmakers thought of this too. Either way it puts you in a moral dilemma.

[–] bogwart-1 17 years ago

I didn't have any doubt whatsoever that they were the same people. The daughter recognised them instantly, as did the widow. When they were first accused the wife was terrified, but she rapidly gained confidence from her husband. The killed man had said before he was shot that there was hardly any fuel for the car so, having got rid of it when it eventually ran out of fuel the murderer knew there was no way to connect him with the killing.

[–] podracer96 17 years ago

I think the filmmaker's tip to the audience is the look of recognition of the wife of the killer when she crosses paths with Eva. When I saw the movie (and I also don't have any intention of seeing it a second time -- it's too intense), I didn't recognize her, but it became obvious with what happened next that that's who she was.

Her husband the killer did look different to me.

The killer's wife and son were there, but anyone else notice the baby was gone? That baby who was crying in the beginning of the movie? I suppose that baby didn't survive.

The fact that there was nothing that could be done because this post-apocalyptic world had no more justice made me sick. Not disgusted sick, but sick with despair.

Another thing implied by the presence of that killer and his family: it means that even though they killed someone and took over the weekend home, they eventually had to leave anyway.

Which means that even if the family never lost the dad, they wouldn't have lasted long either in their weekend home. The supplies would have eventually dwindled and they would have had to move on.

------
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.

[–] lulupalooza 17 years ago

I immediately recognized the wife of the killer in the shot where she crossed in front or Eva (the daughter) and the young man who was planning to steal the goat. My stomach sank as soon as I saw that woman and she was clearly horrified to recognize the daughter of the man whom her husband killed. Immediately, the daughter runs into the station to get her mother, Anne.

Also, it immediately looked like him to me. Sure, he's cleaned-up. He has to conform and can no longer control the situation alone anymore...with or without a gun. His family is thirsty and hungry - the supplies that were stolen from the dead man's family have run out. Of course, he will vow innocence!! Hi wife and child need him as well, so the wife is going to stand by her man desperately, even though we know she did not condone his action as seen in the beginning.

The point to me was that there is not necessarily justice during times of unorganized society. It was simply "he said, she said" in the minds of the men hearing the accusations. Notice, I say men. I got the feeling that even though this woman and both her children recognized their father's killer without any doubt, those in charge may've thought Anne a bit of a hysterical woman whose eyes and heart were playing tricks on her and her kids. After all, that strong, "clean" family man with a son and clinging wife couldn't possibly be a killer, right? Geez. I was sick about that situation.

Though he could have survived from the kindness and generosity of strangers, that man chose to kill for limited supplies to sustain his family briefly...only to run across the victim's family's path when he himself was later even more vulnerable (needing food/water again), but was not held accountable for his unethical and immoral wrongdoing. That was the sad point of that entire murder and chaotic societal statement. He was like a wolf biting one day, then acting as a friend the next. There's that theme again...

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hailtheoldschool 9 years ago

Wow. Wonderfully said!

[–] adamseven7 15 years ago

it was difficult to tell at first, then i noticed he had the same jumper, he was clean shaven, the wife i was unsure about at first, but it was their little boy that clinched it for me. it was the same lot.

i like the way we, as the audience were not sure either

but lets not forget that as their characters, bennys mother and sister wouldnt have spotted them out for no reason.

_____________________
"Portman is the poor man's Knightley"

[–] psychotico 14 years ago

That was the man who killed her husband. I was hoping for some form of revenge to take place during the movie.

[–] CitrusWithFuschiaTrim 14 years ago

I don't believe that anyone who has not seen the film more than once [...] really knows for sure if he was guilty or not.

It was clear to me within a second that the wife of the gunman was, well, the wife of the gunman when she crossed paths with the daughter. Her own behavoiur in these later scenes (moreso than the husband's) seems to indicate that she recognised the central trio herself just as they never seemed anything less than certain of her and her husband's identity. I doubt any ambiguity was intended.
_____
I suppose on a clear day you can see the class struggle from here.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]