MovieChat Forums > Madeo (2009) Discussion > Very convenient plot element..? (Spoiler...

Very convenient plot element..? (Spoilers)

posted 14 years ago by Aditya_Gokhale
11 replies | jump to latest

So..Do-joon is able to remember seeing the face of the junk collector at the scene of the crime towards the end, which he also recognizes in Ah Jung's cell phone.

If he is able to remember everything right up to that point, it seems a bit too convenient on part of the script that he doesn't remember doing the deed in question!

Nonetheless, this is a very good film..with a splendid performance from Hye-ja Kim.

"We are God's unwanted children? So be it!"

[–] generouspalmstroke 14 years ago

Yeah I thought the entire junk-collector remembrance seemed really rushed. And he was on the girl's cell-phone because they had sex? That's why all those pictures were there, right? But the junk-collector didn't recognize her when he was in the house and she walked passed the window...

[–] Aditya_Gokhale 14 years ago

yeah..guess we have to assume that the junk collector was there to have sex with her..however, while relating the incident to the mother he obviously skipped that part. He probably did it with her before, and that's how the picture exists in her cell phone.

All of that can still be put together by filling in the blanks.

However, it is far too convenient IMHO that Do-joon does not remember the stone throwing incident, but remembers the face of this junk collector clearly!

"We are God's unwanted children? So be it!"

[–] kimdealslover 14 years ago

aditya is right.

The Junk Collector tells the mother his side of the story. He completely omits the bit about why he's at the house - to sleep with the girl. We as the viewer see the full reveal, since he has the rice cake in the bag and laying out a makeshift place to lie down.

As for her son not remembering that exact moment, I think it was something he purposefully repressed in the end. Earlier in the film, he gets confused about who smashed the wing mirror, but he remembers the reasons behind it and later on, he remembers his mother's suicide/murder attempt on his own accord, which was something he most likely repressed too.

Yeah, it was pretty selective, but I think that was because they wanted to leave his illness as vague as possible and leave some uncertainty.

---
"Now...where was I?"

[–] danielmccabe_mustdie 14 years ago

**********SPOILERS!!!!!*******

Just saw the film for the first time at the Qft in BElfast and thought it was a very fine piece of work. However...

I think you could argue the case for either one being the murderer. The Junk Collector in Do-Joon's flashbacks is ready and waiting whereas in the Junk collectors side of things he is simply there in the room. What must be remembered is that Ah-Jung had a picture of the junk collector on her phone, so how did she get this photograph if she didn't know him? Also when we see Do-Joon killing the girl it is simply the Junk Collectors side of things, we never really see Do-Joon's. When the Junk Collector says he recognises the Mother he really might recognise her, after all when he suddenly decides that he should tell the police his side of the story we never hear or see who he actually phoned.

As far as I'm concerned the only person we know for definite is a murderer is the Mother. Do-Joon can be made to look like one or proven innocent. The way in which the police operate in this film would suggest that they have simply substituted one person with a mental disability for another. The evidence against Ah-Jung's supposed boyfriend is no more convincing that the evidence against Do-Joon. What I also noticed was that when Ah-Jung's boyfriend is instead taken as the murderer, he has the same marks on the inside of his mouth as Do-Joon, perhaps from the 'apple' treatment by the Police.

There are more points to be considered and we could also argue a case for Jin-Tae being involved, after all he appears to like school girls, is known to be violent and untrustworthy. Also notice how his camera did not make a sound when he took a photo outside the prison towards the end of the film. Perhaps this has something to do with Ah-Jungs friend and her 'pervert' camera. The two characters share no screen time and it could be assumed that they know each other.

Alternatively we could ignore all of these points and go for the obvious, however I'm glad that this film was interesting and entertaining enough to have such points and make repeat viewing welcome.

[–] suz-mal 14 years ago

--I think you could argue the case for either one being the murderer. The Junk Collector in Do-Joon's flashbacks is ready and waiting whereas in the Junk collectors side of things he is simply there in the room. What must be remembered is that Ah-Jung had a picture of the junk collector on her phone, so how did she get this photograph if she didn't know him? Also when we see Do-Joon killing the girl it is simply the Junk Collectors side of things, we never really see Do-Joon's. When the Junk Collector says he recognises the Mother he really might recognise her, after all when he suddenly decides that he should tell the police his side of the story we never hear or see who he actually phoned. --

But then the scene where Do-Joon explains why the killer put the body up high (which you "could" take as an admission to guilt) would have been pointless.
Also, I don't think it's disputable that the Junk Collector had slept with the girl. That part is obvious, so I don't get why everybody is questioning it.

I also don't get why you think it is important whether the Junk Collector recognized the mother or not. If you are referring to when she bought the umbrella, her identity was never given away. Junko remembering wouldn't have changed anything.

Of course, it could have been Bong's intention to keep it ambiguous, but I don't think so. When it comes down to it, the film is a tragedy, not a mystery.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kindigth 14 years ago

while i would accept that he does not remember committing the murder, i think the film hints that perhaps he did remember: when he hands his mother the pins, he says something to the effect of "you should be careful not to leave these around." if he remembered, but had the sense not to incriminate himself, it would parallel his mother's approach to the ordeal: they know what they did, but they choose to forget. A compelling possibility, in my opinion.

[–] pbilleau 14 years ago

spot on... he had the where with all to make the comment to his mother on "leaving those lying around", or did he just mean, "i can't believe you lost your needles" but his comments leads us to believe he knew he committed the murder, which begs the question of whether or not his memory was selective.

[–] stemal-1 14 years ago

I didn't think that there was any doubt Do-Joon was the girl's murderer. It was significant that he told his mother at the end why he thought the murderer would have positioned the body where he did.

[–] suz-mal 14 years ago

--I didn't think that there was any doubt Do-Joon was the girl's murderer. It was significant that he told his mother at the end why he thought the murderer would have positioned the body where he did.--

I should have read that before I posted. Glad someone else is clued in.

[–] tomfern 9 years ago

I don't think the junk man was making his story up. He didn't know the connection between Do-Joon and his mother, so he wouldn't know about what triggered him to throw the rock at Moon Ah-Jung. (She called him "retard")There would be no need to include that detail if it wasn't true.