The police concluded this, because of his behavior which could easily be faked.
No ... I don't think it could easily be faked and ... no ... I don't think Alex was faking in the movie...
1. If Alex is faking then the filmmakers need to tell us that at some point. It's a basic rule of storytelling. There is nothing whatsoever in the movie to indicate that he is faking and therefore he isn't. I mean ... ultimately you can interpret a movie any way you like - as you rightly point out elsewhere - but that doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid. For example, you could say that the two main characters in Fight Club - played by Edward Norton and Brad Pitt - actually
are two separate people, exactly as portrayed throughout the film, and that everyone is lying to Edward Norton's character when they tell him he's Tyler Durden. There is nothing to support that interpretation though - in fact we are told the exact opposite is the case - and therefore that interpretation is not as valid. The same thing goes for the idea that Alex is faking his mental deficiency; there is nothing to support it - in fact we are told, and shown, the exact opposite is the case - and therefore that interpretation is, while theoretically possible, not as valid as an interpretation in which he is mentally deficient.
2. It was Loki that determined that Alex was mentally deficient, and we are specifically told that Loki has solved every case he has ever been assigned. We're told that so that we know to take him seriously and give weight to what he says. So ... when Loki says that Alex is mentally deficient, we are meant to believe it.
3. We are told that Alex passed a lie detector test.
So ... in summary, if you choose to believe that Alex is faking his mental deficiency, you have to believe that he is clever enough to fool a brilliant detective AND a lie detector test AND that the filmmakers chose to ignore a basic rule of storytelling. You're certainly free to believe it if you want to, but I don't understand why you would, because the whole story makes much more sense, and the whole movie is much more powerful, if you choose to believe that Alex is mentally deficient, that he is innocent of kidnapping the girls, and that he doesn't know where they are when he's being tortured.
Lets not forget also that the Police and Loki were wrong about almost EVERY aspect of this case:
No ... they most certainly were NOT wrong about ANY aspect of the case! Well ... actually it all depends on your interpretation of the movie. If you choose to believe that Alex kidnapped the girls, and that he knows where they are while he's being tortured, then ... yes ... Loki is wrong about everything. However if you choose to believe that Alex was innocent of kidnapping the girls, and doesn't know where they are when he's being tortured - which is clearly what the filmmakers intend you to believe - then Loki is absolutely RIGHT about everything...
Loki says numerous times that Alex had nothing to do with the kidnapping, saying at one point that he "cant waste any more time" with Alex and his Aunt, when in fact Alex was the one who took the girls.
No! Alex did NOT take the girls! Well ... let's say that if Alex took the girls - which is a big if and is by no means a certainty - then he didn't take them against their will and it certainly wasn't a kidnapping. Furthermore - and most importantly - he didn't know that Holly was holding them against their will when he was being tortured...
In some of you other posts in this thread, you pointed out that there is a difference between facts and beliefs. You were exactly right! However I think you need to take your own advice because there are things which you clearly believe to be facts, even though they aren't. Namely...
1. You obviously believe that it was Alex who took the girls, but that is NOT a fact. We do not know who is in the RV at the beginning of the movie and we never find out exactly what happened. You can choose to believe that Alex was the kidnapper, but that is not the only possible interpretation and, in my mind, the whole movie makes a lot more sense if Alex is innocent. The RV is parked outside the house where Alex used to live when he was a child named Barry. Is it just some amazing coincidence that he's parked there in front of his old house? That seems a bit far fetched! To me it seems much more likely that Holly was the one in the RV when it was parked outside the house. Either that or Holly and Alex were both in the RV at the beginning. Whatever. The point is that we really don't know who was in the RV, what the sequence of events was, and who kidnapped the girls...
2. You obviously believe that Alex was referring to the girls and was deliberately trying to antagonise Keller in the car-park after he was released from police custody. In fact ... as far as I can tell ... EVERYONE ... no matter which 'side' they're on, seems to believe this. Except me! How on earth would Alex, the mentally deficient young man, know who Keller was? Well ... he wouldn't! We, the audience, are obviously meant to believe that he's referring to the girls, but after we find out that he's actually innocent - we're basically told that by Holly - you have to wonder whether he meant something else. I mean ... the whole point of the movie - as far as the torture theme is concerned - is that we're initially led to believe, like Keller, that Alex is guilty. The torture is then justified. However we later find out that Alex is innocent and then, when we watch the movie again, we find that all the clues that pointed to Alex being guilty - which seemed so conclusive the first time around - actually have alternate explanations.
Loki says that he can't waste any more time on Alex - he doesn't mention the aunt - and that Keller has to trust him. He's only wrong if you choose to believe that Alex is guilty. However if Alex is innocent - which is my interpretation, and is obviously the intention of the filmmakers - then Loki, the outstanding detective who has solved every case he's ever been assigned, is exactly right; which is yet another reason that the whole movie makes more sense, and is much more powerful, if Alex is innocent...
The police say they cant find any trace of the girls in the RV, the girls were taken in the RV
The police do NOT say that!
1. The police say that there was no struggle in the RV. The tech guy says that the RV could have been used to transport the girls. This simply indicates that if the girls were taken in the RV, then they went voluntarily. This is further proof that Alex is innocent and did not kidnap them.
2. Regardless of Point 1, it is NOT a fact that the girls were taken in the RV. It is just an assumption that they were taken in the RV. It's probably a good assumption, but nonetheless it's still an assumption. We don't actually know exactly how the girls got to Holly's place.
The police say he has the mind of a child yet he drives an RV, and even has a valid license?
Loki says that Alex has the IQ of a 10 year old. He says this when he's asked about Alex being questioned, and about Alex passing the lie detector test. What he says is very important. He states that Alex is mentally incapable of understanding the questions he was asked during the polygraph. That is, needless to say, also the reason he doesn't say anything when he's tortured for a week; not because he's trying to protect Holly, or some other interpretation in which he knows something, but puts up with brutal torture for a week instead of talking. Alex is innocent; he didn't kidnap the girls and he doesn't know that Holly is keeping them captive. That's why he passes the polygraph and that's why he doesn't say anything for an entire week while he's being brutally tortured. That's why, when he finally does say something, he makes a cryptic comment about the "maze", rather than revealing the location of the girls, or saying that Holly has them, or something else that would actually be useful; because he's innocent and doesn't know anything...
But I digress!
The point is that there's no reason that Alex couldn't hold a driver's license...
They are never correct, and that is demonstrated many times during the movie.
No ... they are correct about everything as a matter of fact, and you see that as the movie progresses, and it becomes crystal clear when you then watch the movie again. Only if you choose to believe that Alex is guilty are they wrong; which is yet another reason why the movie makes a whole lot more sense, is much more powerful if Alex is innocent and, as such, why that was clearly what the filmmakers intended...
I have explained many times why the "factual evidence" of Holly telling Keller that Alex was not part of the kidnapping could simply be a method of harming Keller, because she steals away any vindication he might have felt from torturing Alex.
Holly doesn't know that Keller has been torturing Alex when she says that; all she knows is that Alex has disappeared. There is no reason for Holly to lie to Keller about Alex. You can certainly interpret the film that way, but it makes a lot more sense, and is much more powerful, if Alex is actually innocent. Everything in the movie indicates that he is.
If you choose to believe that he's guilty, then there's all kinds of convoluted gymnastics required for the movie to make sense. Alex has to be smart enough to fool Loki - the brilliant detective who has solved every case he's been assigned to - and the polygraph test, and the filmmakers have to be breaking the rules of storytelling by not revealing to us the fact that he's faking. He has to withstand brutal torture for an entire week, after which - when he finally does crack - he still doesn't supply useful information, he gives a cryptic reference to the maze. Holly has to be lying when she tells Loki that Alex is innocent, even though there's no reason for her to lie. The torture theme of the movie goes from being a profound, powerful observation to being a muddled, noncommittal view.
If you choose to believe that Alex is innocent, then the whole movie suddenly makes sense. In the beginning we learn that Alex has kidnapped two girls and Keller decides to torture him to find out where they are. The torture is completely justified and of course anyone whose young daughter was kidnapped would do the same thing in Keller's position. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. That's why they bring in the mother of one of the girls and even she says to keep torturing him. Everything in the movie makes sense if Alex is innocent and that's clearly what the filmmakers intended.
Yes, I suppose the movie can be interpreted both ways, but I don't understand why you would prefer to interpret Alex as being guilty. Especially when the filmmakers clearly intend him to be innocent. So many things make no sense when Alex is guilty and the whole experience is far less enjoyable, and far less powerful. Can you explain please?
We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.
reply
share
MRMovieBuff
7 years ago
No ... I don't think it could easily be faked and ... no ... I don't think Alex was faking in the movie...
1. If Alex is faking then the filmmakers need to tell us that at some point. It's a basic rule of storytelling. There is nothing whatsoever in the movie to indicate that he is faking and therefore he isn't. I mean ... ultimately you can interpret a movie any way you like - as you rightly point out elsewhere - but that doesn't mean that all interpretations are equally valid. For example, you could say that the two main characters in Fight Club - played by Edward Norton and Brad Pitt - actually are two separate people, exactly as portrayed throughout the film, and that everyone is lying to Edward Norton's character when they tell him he's Tyler Durden. There is nothing to support that interpretation though - in fact we are told the exact opposite is the case - and therefore that interpretation is not as valid. The same thing goes for the idea that Alex is faking his mental deficiency; there is nothing to support it - in fact we are told, and shown, the exact opposite is the case - and therefore that interpretation is, while theoretically possible, not as valid as an interpretation in which he is mentally deficient.
2. It was Loki that determined that Alex was mentally deficient, and we are specifically told that Loki has solved every case he has ever been assigned. We're told that so that we know to take him seriously and give weight to what he says. So ... when Loki says that Alex is mentally deficient, we are meant to believe it.
3. We are told that Alex passed a lie detector test.
1. I believe the filmmakers were telling you this during various parts of the movie, I have listed all of these before but there are examples: He lies to the Police about every seeing the girls, he says nothing to the police about the girls for 3 days, then he tells Keller "They only cried when I left them" in less than 5 seconds, clearly he understands the question that Keller is yelling at him, but he lies to the police? He clearly looks around before choking the little dog, a clear indication that he knows he is doing something wrong. He also attempts to run from the police in the gas station parking lot when they first arrest him, which is not concrete but does point to a guilty conscience.
2. I will bring this up again because you do as well, but Loki was wrong about almost every aspect of this case (in regards to the kidnapping), there is clear evidence in the movie that he is wrong.
3. Lie detectors are not fool proof
No ... they most certainly were NOT wrong about ANY aspect of the case! Well ... actually it all depends on your interpretation of the movie. If you choose to believe that Alex kidnapped the girls, and that he knows where they are while he's being tortured, then ... yes ... Loki is wrong about everything. However if you choose to believe that Alex was innocent of kidnapping the girls, and doesn't know where they are when he's being tortured - which is clearly what the filmmakers intend you to believe - then Loki is absolutely RIGHT about everything...
Alex did kidnap the girls, at the end of the movie there is a newspaper shown that gives some back story on what happens to Alex, in the article on that Newspaper front page it says "Alex took the girls to Holly, whom he believed was his Aunt" Thats paraphrased slightly but the movie "canon" says that Alex took the girls, so they were wrong about that. If you would like more evidence there is a scene where the girls are singing "Jingle Bells, Batman smells" in the living room of the house, the next scene is closeup view of the window to that room, with a tree half obscuring the view. These types of shots are almost always used to indicate a person watching from that vantage, if you go back and watch the movie is pretty apparent that is whats happening.
2. You obviously believe that Alex was referring to the girls and was deliberately trying to antagonise Keller in the car-park after he was released from police custody. In fact ... as far as I can tell ... EVERYONE ... no matter which 'side' they're on, seems to believe this. Except me! How on earth would Alex, the mentally deficient young man, know who Keller was? Well ... he wouldn't! We, the audience, are obviously meant to believe that he's referring to the girls, but after we find out that he's actually innocent - we're basically told that by Holly - you have to wonder whether he meant something else. I mean ... the whole point of the movie - as far as the torture theme is concerned - is that we're initially led to believe, like Keller, that Alex is guilty. The torture is then justified. However we later find out that Alex is innocent and then, when we watch the movie again, we find that all the clues that pointed to Alex being guilty - which seemed so conclusive the first time around - actually have alternate explanations.
This point actually strengthens my argument, you are right, how would a mentally deficient person instantly put together the idea that Keller is the father of the girl he picked up a few days ago? Well for one he was inside the RV when the girls start climbing on it, and he could figure out that keller was most likely the father of the white girl. Or from all the police questioning he would understand that a man coming out of nowhere and screaming at him about where his daughter is, would most likely be connected to the girls he abducted. Do these sound like the thoughts of a mentally impaired person? Or is he maybe a little to quick on the uptake in these scenes?
1. The police say that there was no struggle in the RV. The tech guy says that the RV could have been used to transport the girls. This simply indicates that if the girls were taken in the RV, then they went voluntarily. This is further proof that Alex is innocent and did not kidnap them.
2. Regardless of Point 1, it is NOT a fact that the girls were taken in the RV. It is just an assumption that they were taken in the RV. It's probably a good assumption, but nonetheless it's still an assumption. We don't actually know exactly how the girls got to Holly's place.
Alex luring the girls voluntarily into the RV is still kidnapping, force is not necessary for a kidnapping. While I wont go so far as to say its a fact that the girls were kidnapped in the RV, it is EXTREMELY likely that this is the scenario (as you note)
Loki says that Alex has the IQ of a 10 year old. He says this when he's asked about Alex being questioned, and about Alex passing the lie detector test. What he says is very important. He states that Alex is mentally incapable of understanding the questions he was asked during the polygraph. That is, needless to say, also the reason he doesn't say anything when he's tortured for a week; not because he's trying to protect Holly, or some other interpretation in which he knows something, but puts up with brutal torture for a week instead of talking. Alex is innocent; he didn't kidnap the girls and he doesn't know that Holly is keeping them captive. That's why he passes the polygraph and that's why he doesn't say anything for an entire week while he's being brutally tortured. That's why, when he finally does say something, he makes a cryptic comment about the "maze", rather than revealing the location of the girls, or saying that Holly has them, or something else that would actually be useful; because he's innocent and doesn't know anything...
This line if thinking does not hold up when you add the fact that Alex instantly says "The only cried when I left them" to Keller, after 3 days of saying nothing to the police. He told the police he had never seen the girls before, which was for sure a lie, a lie that protects his Aunt and himself. Why wouldn't he just stare dumbfounded at Keller when he is yelling at him in the parking lot? If its Kellers aggression that triggers his response, you have to believe that the police never got aggressive with Alex, which seems unlikely given the fact that they are trying to find 2 missing kids. If he did not kidnap the girls, when did "They only cried when I left them" happen? You say maybe its a totally unrelated thing he is talking about, but no evidence of that is ever given.
Holly doesn't know that Keller has been torturing Alex when she says that; all she knows is that Alex has disappeared. There is no reason for Holly to lie to Keller about Alex. You can certainly interpret the film that way, but it makes a lot more sense, and is much more powerful, if Alex is actually innocent. Everything in the movie indicates that he is.
If you choose to believe that he's guilty, then there's all kinds of convoluted gymnastics required for the movie to make sense. Alex has to be smart enough to fool Loki - the brilliant detective who has solved every case he's been assigned to - and the polygraph test, and the filmmakers have to be breaking the rules of storytelling by not revealing to us the fact that he's faking. He has to withstand brutal torture for an entire week, after which - when he finally does crack - he still doesn't supply useful information, he gives a cryptic reference to the maze. Holly has to be lying when she tells Loki that Alex is innocent, even though there's no reason for her to lie. The torture theme of the movie goes from being a profound, powerful observation to being a muddled, noncommittal view.
If you choose to believe that Alex is innocent, then the whole movie suddenly makes sense. In the beginning we learn that Alex has kidnapped two girls and Keller decides to torture him to find out where they are. The torture is completely justified and of course anyone whose young daughter was kidnapped would do the same thing in Keller's position. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. That's why they bring in the mother of one of the girls and even she says to keep torturing him. Everything in the movie makes sense if Alex is innocent and that's clearly what the filmmakers intended.
Yes, I suppose the movie can be interpreted both ways, but I don't understand why you would prefer to interpret Alex as being guilty. Especially when the filmmakers clearly intend him to be innocent. So many things make no sense when Alex is guilty and the whole experience is far less enjoyable, and far less powerful. Can you explain please?
Your last statement in this paragraph is puzzling, the entire crux of my original post was explaining why I think he is guilty. And I give lots of evidence for the problems you post.
reply
share