I'm no really sure, can someone give their interpretation
sharethe killer went back to the scene. the girl saw and talked to the killer.
repeat with the cop. the girl was unable to provide any real identifying info for the killer who got away with it...
The killer always returns to the scene of the crime. PARK DID IT!!!! OMG!!!!
There's two sides to it.
First off, it can be seen as the director having Park communicating with the actual killer in real life. When he looks into the camera, he's also looking at the real killer who most likely went to watch the movie, a way of saying "I know you're watching this".
The other side, and I admit I'm stealing this from a much better written post on here I've read before (I actually came to this board in order to find it), is that Park realizes that this whole time, they were after some freakish monster or some Buddhist priest with no hair, only to realize that the person who did it was completely ordinary. There would be no way to pick him out from the crowd.
www.qn5.com - The new hip-hop
Yeah I think the 2nd one is what the director/writer intended although it´s also possible, that the one looking into that hole after that many years was his police comrade and the shocking look into the camera results from the realisation that this unsolved case will never stop to hunt the two of them (obviously he also was driven back to the crime scene).
But the whole hunting a monster theme is more plausible then anything else, cause the whole movie circles around this topic. For example at the police office when one policeman asks the protagonist which of the two men in front of him is the rapist or when he tries to read if his opposite is lying from the eyes or it´s also not by chance that their first suspect is the monstrous looking retard, which they by all means want to be the killer.
c-noble222 I agree upon your first point. I believe everyone will watch a movie if the plot of that particular movie is based on you. So, we can conclude that the killer would have watched this movie in theater. The look on the cop's face says that how much he regrets about this unsolved mystery. The cop knows that the criminal(who must be convicted of murders is sitting in the theater and enjoying life) would be laughing at him. Most of us feel the same way, when we take up the job and quit the job half done and later we think that we could have done better.
Great movie. The sound track when the titles start rolling at the end of the movie leaves a lump in our throat. Some things keep haunting us.
The movie's central theme is not the identification of the killer. That would make it a normal police procedural. The theme is the detective's evolution to an understanding that as much as we might wish for certainty and resolution, sometimes those are unobtainable and we have to learn to deal with that horrible unknowing.
At the beginning of the film, he is so certain of everything. He can tell who did a crime just by looking in their eyes. He knows he has the right killer. Going through the procedural steps is a mere formality to be dispensed with by whatever means are necessary. You need evidence to back up what you know? Plant the footprint. You need a confession to confirm what you already know? Beat it out of your suspect, using doses of sleep deprivation and isolation to help.
When the Seoul detective disputes his conclusions, it makes him violently angry. You don't challenge certainty! That is like someone telling you your religion is wrong because certain evidence is lacking. Belief is sufficient to itself!
But as things progress, he loses faith in the certainty of certainty. They think they have an eyewitness in the young mentally challenged boy. But before they can get their absolute confirmation, the boy is killed, senselessly. The detective tries his "look into my eyes" trick on the suspected killer by the tunnel and realizes that he can't tell anything by looking at him. All that is left is the doubt and uncertainty that the Seoul detective now cannot cope with. The two men have changed places in the narrative.
I don't know if you read the letter that comes back from the FBI (it is shown very briefly). But importantly, it does not say "You have the wrong man... The DNA exonerates him." Instead it says "Results are inconclusive. We are unable to confirm that the two DNA samples are identical." So the Seoul detective doesn't break down because of conflicting evidence, it's the terrible lack of conclusive resolution that he had been desperate for... relying on it to give him the justification he needed to put the killer away.
The final scene is powerful because after all these years, the ex-detective happens upon an eyewitness who obviously saw the killer back at the scene of the crime. All she needs to do is give him something concrete that he can use to confirm or deny that their man was actually the killer all those years ago. He allows himself to hope that finally he will have the external evidence he needs to tell him whether he was right or wrong.
And all the girl can say is that the man looked "ordinary." What a perfect description of the actor they had playing the suspect! Can you think of any distinguishing physical characteristics that would define him? And it leaves the ex-detective with the same dashed hope of resolution and certainty. It tells him nothing. That could describe his suspect and could describe anyone else. He looks into the camera and we see his pain and frustration that once again, the answer is unknowable. And by looking us directly in the eyes, it makes us confront the same fact... You think you are going to get a nice tidy wrap up of who the killer was in this little thriller movie? Sorry... Prepare to live with the frustration. Some things in life are unknowable. Can you live with the uncertainty? How do YOU cope?
It left me feeling unrewarded and a little angry at the end of the film as well. I'm used to resolutions in my movie mysteries. But then I thought about it more and saw how powerful this message is.
great post. I agree with you on the last point, it was much more powerful ending that way.
sharebrilliantly spoken. great review by KLMonline. i just saw the movie and i was confronted with the idea that there wasn't an ending and that nobody was arrested. but slowly i realized that the movie is not about the killer or the murderer, it was about the psychological change that the protagonists undergo through the course of the murder investigation. "there cant be conclusions to everything in life" - a possible message from the movie..!
share"i realized that the movie is not about the killer or the murderer, it was about the psychological change that the protagonists undergo through the course of the murder investigation."
Exactly. This isn't your typical whodunit mystery, it's a hardcore cop drama.
wow....amazing thought....I am mesmerized by the ending...but with your understanding it is became more interesting.....keep posting.....I thought that he knew the killer...but now I got it........thanks......
shareHe looks into the camera and we see his pain and frustration that once again, the answer is unknowable.
I think this thread communicates the exact meaning of the film. That desperation to fill the doubt with certainty.
shareI completely agree. I saw it as if he finally figured something out. Also, the suspect was mentioned as being very good looking, so it wouldn't match with the description of the girl.
shareI agree with your post except this:
And all the girl can say is that the man looked "ordinary." What a perfect description of the actor they had playing the suspect! Can you think of any distinguishing physical characteristics that would define him?
I agree that the girl if describing Park Hae-il IRL, would say that he was handsome. The way they lit him in the film was almost angelic.
We are led to believe that he could be innocent just by the lack of any emotions about the crimes. If he were a guilty homicidal maniac, he hid it very well, which makes him a very dangerous psychopath.
But that was almost 20 years later. Would a young girl describe a 40 something guy as good looking?
I don't think so. To kids that age all people over 30 look ordinary if they don't have any special features like a strange nose or weird hair.
I do not know who the killer was but I'm sure that the answer of the girls just means that it could've been anybody.
Wait what? I thought it was three months later? I'm pretty sure I read that in the caption.
You just got slow clapped.
It said 2003 while the main events of the film take place in 1986.
Also the detective was sitting on a table with his two teenage kids. He did not have any kids during the events earlier in the movie.
LOL I even wondered why he had kids. Yes that makes a lot more sense now. They should have aged him a little.
You just got slow clapped.
"Can you think of any distinguishing physical characteristics that would define him?"
In response to that question in KLMonline's excellent interpretation of this movie, I would have to say that I felt the suspect had feminine features.
You can't really expect that detailed of a description from a little girl. She more than likely won't say he was handsome or good looking. You are also forgetting that this is many years later, he would be older and not be so plain. God this is why I love this movie. So much interpretation to be had.
shareI agree with KLMonline, the film isn't about who done it, its about the how the cops deal with not finding out who done it. The same way Pulp Fiction isn't about whats in the briefcase and Memento isn't about who killed his wife. Great film btw, completely got me involved and I couldn't wait to see how it panned out. I thought the ending was brilliant too, the conversation with the little girl and him seeing from the point of view of an innocent child who wouldn't know about evil and murder and realizing that the killer was completely normal and 'everyday'. If it was a hollywood movie it certainly would have had 'happy' ending but thats not always realistic and authentic. Great movie :)
sharenice post, really liked your point of view.
shareIf you pause the movie at a certain point you can see the killer rushing a victim. Can anyone make out who it is?
shareSPOILER ALERT!!
So i did pause and enhance the scene of the murderer rushing the victim frame by frame - and it is Park. His face is clearly identifiable. He's even wearing the same black jacket in the rain like in the last screen before he's about to get shot. You guys should try it urselves too 48m18s
Sorry, no way. I did the same, advancing frame by frame, and the murderer jumps in grabbing her from behind so fast that it it impossible to see more than a blurred face. Besides, one never sees the entire face. Only the back of the head and half of his face, from chin to nose, is ever seen.
shareYes, that's right. Though his face is not clear and was very fast but we can see the killer's face.
shareKLMonline - great post. This movie reminded me of Zodiac with it's similarly unresolved ending.
sharefantastic post KLMonline
enjoyed the movie but like others have said, your description of the film and its ending has definitely made me look at it a bit differently and more appreciatively, thank you for that
when he looked into the camera at the end, it really did feel like we felt the EXACT same way, frustrated and helpless to never know the truth, looks like the director absolutely nailed it.
It left me feeling unrewarded and a little angry at the end of the film as well. I'm used to resolutions in my movie mysteries. But then I thought about it more and saw how powerful this message is
Why would you feel angry and unrewarded? This is a TRUE, very well known unsolved mystery in Korea. The movie was released around the time the statue of limitations on murder expired.
Okay. I didn't want to assume you did or did not know and I am in America too btw and it says somewhere the background of the movie. Obviously you missed it, but anyways you should watch it again knowing this information.
The interpretations of other ppl seem spot on, how the actor looks right in the camera at the end... It eerie but yes, I am pretty sure the actual killer was sitting in the theater watching the movie when it premiered, knowing that even if they caught him, they can't have a trial.
The important things are the following :
the crazy retard said the killer is handsome
the girl at the ending said the man is plain
a fugly person most likely consider everyone else more beautiful than himself, while a pretty girl thinks otherwise
but it's also possible that after 17 years a handsome dude will become plain guy
so what the ex-detective realized by the end of the movie is........ nothing..... he fell in despair again
Also the point isnt to hint that anyone we saw was the killer. This crime is unsolved in real life
shareBut also, the previous suspects were NOT ordinary. I thought that was the point - further contradiction (and inconclusive contradiction at that) of everything that the cops were once so certain about.
share^^^This, agree with wuhugm!
OPEN YOUR EYES! dailymotion.com/video/xbi2hi_1993-chandler-molestation-extortion_news
This is why I love endings like this, everyone interprets it in their own way, and every interpretation is equally valid...
Personally,I agree with vicky_lc2001-1.The second the little girl said that the guy looked "plain" instead of something like "handsome" I thought it meant that even the third guy they caught was not the killer, and that the perplexed look on his face ment that he realized that they never were even close. At least that's how I will view it...
The last suspect might have been handsome, angelic even, in his early twenties, but as a forty-something seventeen years later, to a 12-year old girl, it is quite possible he could be described as "ordinary". I don't think this description could rule him out, as handsome young men can (though not necessarily do) lose their looks with age. And handsomeness is to the beholder anyway - she could have found him ordinary as a twenty year-old.
I doubt this last scene happened, but if it did they could have shown her an "aged" picture of him, if they had a photograph of him from the investigation.
There's nothing essential in showing the photograph to the little girl anymore. The 17 years old unsolved case was so much closed and forgotten among other things. It's just the old time nostalgic sense that brought Park back to the scene. He was not even a police detective anymore and just a household appliance sales instead.
shareIt's really simple, It means nothing the killer is and can still be anyone.
This point is really driven home when Detective Park Doo-Man addresses the audience. It could be anyone, it could even be us.
They suspected a not-so-good looking guy. Everyone's first thought, right? Of course the killer is ugly and creepy. They take him into custody and realize they have nothing on him. Then they think the killer was the total opposite; a young, handsome guy. But it's revealed that there's not enough evidence against him as well, and he's let go.
Basically, all through-out the movie they were looking for 2 extremes. They were certain the killer had to have something that stood out. They spent so much time looking in these directions, when all along, the killer was just a normal person. Not an ugly monster, and not a charming handsome man. Just a normal person like you and I. I think that's what he realized in the end. The look he gives us is a look of confusion, as if he were thinking "Were we wrong then? Could it really have been just an ordinary person? How could we have been so blind?"
And that's why I loved the ending of the film, because that's what I got from it. That the killer was no one special.
Basically, all through-out the movie they were looking for 2 extremes. They were certain the killer had to have something that stood out.
The end is what makes this movie worth watching. The acting and emotion Song Kang-ho shows in this scene is phenomenally brilliant.
share"Ordinary" was, to me, the key word in the final scene
share