Did she do it? - Pour elle (2008) Discussion

[–] princess_poux 15 years ago

We do find out she didn't do it. Quite early on we are shown what really happened - a drug addict attacks Lisa's boss with a fire hydrant in the underground car park for her purse. As she flees the scene she bumps into Lisa who is entering the car park and gets a bloody finger print on her coat. Lisa does not notice this. When she gets to her car she notices the discarded fire hydrant and places it against the wall. She then gets into her car and drives off (not noticing her boss lying dead inbetween their two cars). A janitor sees Lisa driving off and then sees the dead body. Hence why everyone thinks she did it.

I'm not sure how you missed this?!

reply

[–] Corner_House_guest 15 years ago

Clive ihd - did you go out for popcorn at this crucial point?

reply

[–] LAT71 15 years ago

But are you sure they were showing what actually happened or just a reconstruction of her story to The Police/Court.

reply

[–] clive-ihd 15 years ago

I did see the whole film. I just didn't understand what happened in that scene.

reply

[–] michael-lea 15 years ago

The scene showed exactly what happened. It showed someone else committing the murder. Nothing ambiguous at all! Lisa was innocent and was convicted on purely circumstantial evidence.

reply

[–] trailinghome 14 years ago

It's not a fire hydrant, it's a fire extinguisher.

reply

[–] princess_poux 13 years ago

I stand corrected!

It would, of course, be very difficult to lift up a fire hydrant and use it as a weapon...

reply

[–] ilutrov 10 years ago

Fire hydrant? Geezus, no. There's no way in this world she could have lifted a fire hydrant. Fire extinguisher, maybe.

http://imdb.com/user/ur2019270/ratings

reply

[–] ivar-ber 14 years ago

The junkie did it. Lisa was at the wrong place at the wrong time.

reply

[–] indieke 14 years ago

Even if your hesitate about if it was only the version that she gave to the police, then you must have noticed in the beginning of the movie, when she discovered that she has blood on her coat, she is very surprised how that could come on it.

The scene of reconstruction of what happened, is also rather early in the movie because it explains why she can't cope with it any more being innocent.

Just a pity, that the French police find everything out, in such a stupid way and much too fast, that it is not credible! But of course that is in name of supsence!

reply

[–] andyd-1 14 years ago

clearly her behaviour prior to the arrest was not that of a guilty person, when she noticed the mark on her coat she was puzzled and began washing it. Obviously she would have made destroying evidence a priority otherwise.

reply

[–] donnacha13-1 14 years ago

We see two segments using the same footage.

The first shows the extinguisher (no pun intended) and murder of the boss, Lise holding the murder weapon, and blood on the coat.

The second uses the same footage as before, but shows a junkie as the one who actually wielded the extinguisher, and how Lise merely picked up the extinguisher to move the unsafe item.

There is, however, *no* empirical evidence to say she did or didn't do it. The two segments shown deliberately show both possible sides of the story.

Why? Because it is ultimately irrelevant. The point is that Julien loves and needs Lise, is willing to do anything to reunite, and nothing is going to stop him.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] motaxes 13 years ago

its 100% clear by watching the film that she was innocent.

Im not sure how you missed it other than by having a low IQ.

reply

[–] revival05 13 years ago

Personally, I don't think it's a hundred. I obviously understood that the brief flashes we get to see of the murder would have us believe that she was innocent - we see a random woman (junkie?) for a few seconds and no content surrounding these fuzzy, overly dramatizised pictures - but I have to say, not until the very last scene did I surrender to the idea.

My first thought was that he would go through all this crime planning hoohaa and then at the end of the day it turns out that - tada - she actually did it. I figured it was going to end with her admitting to the crime and him trying to lead a new life (without insanity and crime-planning). Why else would the flashes of the crime be so brief. The movie wanted the audience to assumee she was innocent but gave it far to little to work with. Specially considering overwhelming evidence. And who was her boss anyway? I thought there would be SOME motive in there, or whatever, that would reveal itself toward the end.

I don't want movies to spell everything out for me, but this is IMO a case of unintentional ambiguity.

reply

[–] scharnbergmax-se 12 years ago

In many places where this movie was discussed no one has given a thought to the location of Lisa's finger prints. We saw her holding the fire extinguisher with both hands at both short ends. But this was evidently not how this tool was held during the murder. What did the police and the prosecutor and the judges think? Did they imagine that Lisa wore gloves when she murdered her boss, but took the off when she took the tool to a place where it would be conspicuously visible?

It must have been easy to disclose what part of the fire extinguisher that hit the head of the boss. It must also have been rather easy to disclose some of the ways in which the tool was held during the murder.

I do not know: are French defence counsels permitted to request that such investigations should be made? If not, it is a serious deficiency of the legal system.

reply

[–] kai_wen 9 years ago

this discussion is more fun than "the button never mattered" on the remake site.

overall I like the original over the remake.

both are good to watch.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1458175/board/nest/228576625?ref_=tt_bd_2

reply