Great movie, but it has a poor red herring.

So. After reading this entire thread and stealing one hour of my life, I want to give my opinion as well. Excuse me if my english may be twisted at some points, I am not a native speaker.

Is Alex guilty or is he not? I have my own take on this. I don´t think Alex can be seen as innocent (in my mind- no way), nor can he be viewed as fully guilty because I believe that his character is based on a psychological condition where a person, who used to be abused, dissociates, which means that part of the psyche is separated from the rest and not accessible at all times.

I will first start with looking at the "Alex is innocent" arguments and then bring the "dissociating, but sadistic and in a way guilty Alex" into the picture.

Firstly the "They didn't cry until I left them" scene: This scene- at first sight and without the whole concept of the film wrapped around it- can be read in two ways, no matter how much you look at it and how often you view it. It could mean that Alex was trying to tell Dover that he didn´t hurt the girls - while trying to protect his aunt by not revealing anything in front of the police. At this point of time, Alex could´t know that Dover would kidnap him later on, so if he was an innocent abused person in the film, he could have tried to calm the father. I think this was speed racers take on it.

I do doubt this interpretation highly because I personally believe after taking all facts in account, that Alex was taken in by Holly as a second son (of course at this point of time he was "abused" too by her and the uncle who used the maze on him as a little boy, which turned him into the person he is later on) and that he was involved in all the killings. Not as someone who hurt the children physically, but as the predator who took small children "for a ride" in his RV and brought them to his aunt. The film makes it obvious that he knew all about Holly holding the girls hostage and even though he most definitely was also a victim of Holly at first, he became a accomplice later on, but with a mind that can dissociate and not remember things at some points of time- which for victims of child abuse is very normal as I know from a friend who works in this field since many years. But even seeing Alex as a person that dissociates I still view him as a guilty person, because some characteristics seem to stand out about his persona:

a. Sadistic behavior: To link his basic character with sadistic tendencies is obvious if we think about the dog scene and not only, as I think speed racer said, a a textbook sign of abuse in childhood. Alex comes out of the house, where at this point of time the small children are being imprisoned. He seems to be in a normal up to good mood (singing the little Jingle Bells song) when he tries to choke the dog twice. It is very normal for him to make someone else suffer and feels like a daily routine. This, for me, indicates, that he has developed a sadistic nature and is not a victim only. The victims of child abuse who do not become abusers themselves don´t act sadistic but rather masochistic towards themselves. So I would put Alex into the category of abused children who become abusers themselves. Therefore I few him as a person with sadistic tendencies and reading him this way, I can only read the "They didn´t cry until I left them" scene as him trying to hurt Dover and drive him insane.

b. Sadistic behavior that is used consciously: Again, the "They didn't cry until I left them" scene. Now, having in mind how he treated this dog and thinking it through from a psychological point of view, he most definitely has sadistic tendencies AND knew that the girls are imprisoned at his aunts house. Remember that the aunt takes care of him, lives with him, feeds him, so she is the most important person in his life. If we take away the thought that he- as I believe- abducted the children with the RV- we still have the fact that he lives in the same house as the aunt and knows what is going on. If he were mentally like a 10 year old or drugged or completely unstable WHY in the world would he NOT say anything to the police when saying something to Dover soon after? Now the "Alex was innocent" fraction would say that he did so to protect his aunt. But that does´t make any sense when he makes this one statement to Dover in the parking lot. So, the more logical take on this is, that he was trying to harm Dover. One could also state that Alex is the opposite of someone with a small IQ, only faking this to make everyone believe he was unable to understand or do anything. To make a statement like that to a father of a lost child after saying nothing to the police seems cruel and not "innocent" at all to me. It seems as sadistic as lifting up the dog to choke him. In my opinion Alex wanted to twist Dovers mind and make him go nuts over his daughter. If you view this scene as Alex trying to tell Dover that he was innocent, but knew where the girls were, it is a very strange way of reading it….

The only OTHER way to interpret this correctly in my point of view, would be to think Alex was dissociating when he was at the police station and also when he crashed his car, and remembering the girls situation for a moment, when he looked into Dovers eyes. In this view, he still is guilty, because even though he sometimes forgets who he is and all about the killings, a part of him stills knows and still is involved.

c. The discussion of Alex being tortured: In my opinion after reading everything about this and thinking a lot about it, Alex does not say anything out of two reasons: He wants to protect the aunt AND he wants to destroy Dover mentally - OR in the moment of torture he is dissociating from the part who knows about the killings and where the girls are.
If he were innocent like some people here stated, WHY would he tell Dover nothing at all? It does not make any sense since we KNOW for sure that he was in the house and does know that the girls are there. And also after the "they didm´t cry until I left them" scene. If, like speed racer said, Alex said that to comfort Dover, WHY would he say nothing at all when he is being tortured?


So, is Alex guilty or not?


To wrap it all up: I personally believe he is guilty either way. If he is a person that has sadistic tendencies and wants to arm Dover by not telling him where his daughter is he is guilty. And also, if he dissociates and does not remember at times, he STILL is guilty because he still knows what is going on in the house of the aunt at some points of the film. And also, the film highly point towards Alex being the RV driver (why should he not be is the other question, very unlikely..). So, in a court room he would probably be arrested and put into a mental institution for the rest of his life if all we see in the movie was true. A crazy person, even one that forgets things and is traumatized himself, still is a guilty person and not someone you can lead a free life in society.

Why would it be the big point of the movie, as speed racer stated, that an innocent person is tortured by a man trying to rescue his innocent child? I think differently. In my opinion a huge movie like that would only torture a guilty person, because otherwise the viewer would not be able to handle watching it. For us, it is much more easy to see the child molester suffer, than an innocent person. So I think, if the script would have wanted Alex to be completely without guilt, a pure victim- there would have been no dog scene for sure.

In my view the "an innocent person is tortured by a man trying to rescue his innocent child" plot is much more boring and shallow than the ambiguity the movie shows.