MovieChat Forums > Keane Discussion > If Keane doesn't have a daughter.

If Keane doesn't have a daughter.


I've read several threads that stated that Damion Lewis, in a Q&A session about the movie, said that he believes that Keane did in fact have a daughter. I personally believe that was what Lodge Kerrigan was going for. It makes the character of Keane much more tender and human. I had a wild idea while watching the DVD though. If anyone has seen the DVD, there is an alternate version included. It's all the same footage, but edited in such a way as to paint Keane as a much more unbalanced individual that he is in the original version of the film. This got me to thinking... He shows a newspaper clipping to the clerks in the bus station of his "daughter," a story about the disapperance of a six year old. We then learn how the child disappears, while she went to get candy at the bus station. We later see Keane in his hotel room, pouring over the story of a New Jersey girl who was reunited with her parents, saved by her street smarts. What if Keane's "daughter" is actually a girl he kidnapped, who escaped from him by going to get candy, and leaving while he was occupied? This is the same girl he reads about in the paper.
I like the idea that he really did have a daughter (and beleve that was the director's intention) much better, and I know this theory has some holes, but it fits in the alternate cut pretty well. Any thoughts?

reply

never thought about it like that before. That's an interesting take on the whole thing. When I got to the end of the edited cut on the DvD I kept thinking that he was possibly a child abductor and this particular incident was like a scene of redemption for him because he decides to return the girl to her mom. Hmm....

reply

All sorts of possibilities. Another is that the wife he mentions left with his daughter when his mental illness became too much for her, and he's created alternative scenarios in his mind, like the child being kidnapped. He briefly sees Kira as his missing daughter, but at the end has one of his transitory moments of clarity and takes her back to her mom?


I have seen enough to know I have seen too much. -- ALOTO

reply

Spoiler in heading = complete b@stard.

reply

it says on the back of the dvd cover that he may not ever ahve had a daughter.....its not a spoiler

reply

--it says on the back of the dvd cover that he may not ever ahve had a daughter.....its not a spoiler--

It IS a spoiler and the op IS a bastard. It doesn't say it on the back of my DVD cover, and after watching the movie, if I hadn't of known that he may not have had a daughter I would have enjoyed it so much more.

reply

It says in the IMDB plot summary that he may or may not have had a daughter! I respect you trying to keep movie suprises secret to those who haven't seen the movie, but maybe a polite request would work better? OK gartlym you bastard? :)

"Oh no! The dead have risen... and they're voting republician!"

reply

I like your theory--it makes more sense to me, that he may have abducted a previous child ("Sophie") and maybe she was taken from him, by her mother perhaps? It would make a 'nicer' story if he was in fact a father who'd had his child abducted and would make the audience empathize with him more. But I felt right away something was askew, that his story didn't seem to add up. And no, I don't think he "snapped" when his daughter was abducted and then became paranoid schizophrenic. He didn't become this way overnight. But the delusions, paranoia, and then the alternative version of the film all make me think that maybe Sophie was just in his head.

BTW, to the person pissed off about the subject heading: If you read any description of this film (i.e. at Netflix before renting it), you'll see the "spoiler" that his daughter may or may not be real.

reply

Very interesting take, indeed. Thanks for sharing this view with us. It's definately food for thought. Wasn't Kira wearing a purple jacket and carrying a blue bag just like his daughter had when she was abducted? Did he buy her those items or did she already have them? I thought he was setting her up to be abducted so that he could catch the person that nabbed her daughter.

reply

i agree with JoJo

I have literally just finished watching this and i thought, when i noticed Kiras clothes, that he was trying to see if the same "abductor" would take her, then when he was crying he realised that he'd finally lost his daughter, like it was the closure, the final thing that made him realise that he had lost her.

Either way it was a great film, very much like Pi in that it's all about your interpretation.

reply

Wow. Thanks JoJo. I hadn't really thought of the idea that Kiera was "bait" for the person who kidnapped his daughter. Good point.

"Oh no! The dead have risen... and they're voting republician!"

reply

Hey JoJo:
Thats a excellent point of view that Kira was a bait. What I think is that the Kira part of the movie and he returning her back to her mom was the first part of his life and later he becomes crazy that her daughter ( he starts thinnking Kira as her daughter ) is kidnapped or lost. Note that the girl he describes as her daughter and Kira are wearing the exact same dress ( Jeans, purple jacket and a blue bag) I guess that the director is showing the latter part of his life first and then the first part.
Thx.

Kunal

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

Several of his actions around the little girl , would suggest that he has not had much experience of dealing with children - But of course that doesnt mean he wasnt a father

reply

Yeah I thought the same thing as Jo Jo after the film finished. It also seemed to me that he only took her (Kira) there for this reason, and wasn't seriously contemplating abducting Kira. He even bought the same tickets to the same place, stood in line to recreate the moment. Perhaps to stimulate his recollection.

reply

great point of view getkunal
hadn't considered that one.
Blown away by Keane - how come the lead actor hasn't made it more?
wtf?

reply

He's in Homeland, apparently a big show. He's one of the lead roles in it and won a Golden Globe. I'd say he's not doing too bad.

reply

That post was written in 2009.

reply

Hello Jo Jo
As I watched it, my immediate thought was he was using Kira as .bait. . I'd missed to clothing similarity thing totaly

few visible scars

reply


I agree that this thread's title is not a spoiler for reasons stated and, that in fact, it remains a question at the end of the film. That said, I opt that Keane's kidnapped daughter is a fixed delusion and that he suffers from delusional disorder rather than schizophrenia since its content is not bizarre and he is more or less organized, logical and coherent in other thought processes.

Isn't it neat when a movie leaves you thinking?

http://www.myspace.com/clunkygirl

reply

[deleted]

Good point on the delusional disorder, although I'd challenge that we can't make a definitive diagnosis as it is a diagnosis of exclusion and we don't really know enough about him or his thought content. We also don't know if he's experiencing any visual or auditory hallucinations.

reply

Yes, the thread title IS a SPOILER. Here's why. Although it does say in the summary (and on the DVD box) that the existence of his daughter is questionable, the viewer is expecting this mystery to be solved either at the climax or at some point during the film. The thread title informs us that this question is never answered, thereby SPOILING the movie.

reply

Pretty sure it's supposed to be ambiguous. Even the film's description reads "supposed loss of his daughter". He may have had a daughter, he may have not. It's quite obvious the filmmaker's intention was to have no correct answer to that question. Searching the film deeply and trying to read into it for clues and hints to a secret answer that's hidden is futile. There is no answer. There isn't supposed to be an answer. The film's purpose is have you think about it both ways. Does he have a daughter? Yes or no? Depending on which way you look at it the story could be interpreted in wildly different ways. That's the film's purpose. To have a double meaning.

reply

[deleted]

Keane may have kidnapped his own daughter from his ex-wife and then she had either escaped herself or been rescued by someone else. Or he may have just kidnapped a girl. I'm glad it's not explained. Not a big fan of the film; prefer Soderbergh's cut; don't like watching actors talk to themselves for extended periods, even if this can be justified by mental illness; admire the film's boldness and originality but feel there is something dissatisfying about it; something a little too personal and indulgent about the film's script/themes/style and the ugliness and pain the audience endures aren't quite worth enduring in the end. I dunno, maybe some found the film cathartic? Like, maybe 10 people? Maybe one or two people found it to be a thriller? I suppose one might call it a character study? I study more interesting characters in real life every day. Nobody forced me to watch it, and I'm glad I did - food for thought and all that, with the two cuts on DVD to compare; but I won't be recommending it.


If to stand pat means to resist evil then, yes, neighbour, we wish to stand pat.

reply