MovieChat Forums > Outcast (2010) Discussion > One beast or two?

One beast or two?

posted 12 years ago by imdb-16186
2 replies | jump to latest

Early in the film I assumed that Cathal was the beast. Then later it is revealed that Fergal is the beast. So were they both beasts with Beast Fergal merely the offspring of Beast Cathal (as I assumed when watching) or was Fergal the only beast all along and I got it completely and utterly wrong?!

... and if the former, what was the motivation for Cathal to kill his son if Cathal himself was also a beast?

Why also did the mother want to protect the beast? For any other reason than it was her son?

Confused :S

[–] In_Celluloid_We_Trust 12 years ago

I wasn't sure about that either, at first I thought Cathal was the beast and it was some curse he wanted removed or something. There's the scene where they're both in the cafe the morning after the girl is killed and Cathal looks ill and his brother tells him to eat something as it make him "feel more human", the Laird then confronts them and orders them from his territory and that they've been watching them. I suppose that was a red herring.

[–] empathy44 11 years ago

I thought there were two beasts as well, but that the boy only turns at the end. I thought Cathal was not human but whatever that beast was. He wanted to make the skin permanent--not only for the magic, but for the humanity as well. The Laird knew what he was as well.

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." Anais Nin