Please explain some things to me (major spoilers) - Leviafan (2015) Discussion

[–] daphen_axa 10 years ago

hi

1/ Dima got the dossier from an attorney he worked with at the Moscow bar. He was friend (as much friend as you can be in this situation i guess) with the attorney and the attorney probably had unresolved beef with the mayor as well or maybe he was corrupted by Dima to give the info, we don't know.

2/ I believe Dima wasn't paid. He did it graciously for Kolya who was his intimate friend from their time in the army. The mayor wonders who is paying him and is sure someone else is pulling the strings because he can't believe someone would do that for a friend without afterthought.

3/ Yeah he didn't shoot him. They just abandoned him in the middle of nowhere. It was to show him they were able to do whatver they wanted, they could and would kill him without any problem. So that's why Dima leaves and you see him in a train going back to Moscow.

4/ Lilya most certainly didn't kill herself. She was raped and murdered with a hammer. Her husband is convicted for the crime. And that is were the movie doesnt clearly states what happened. Either Kolya really became crazy and drunkenly killed his wife and has no recollection of it. Or either the mayor had her executed to have Kolya sent to prison because he dared going against him.

We are not entirely sure and that is where you make up your mind. But the film strongly influences you with the telephone conversation at the church between mayor and unknown person where he says something like "well done for him that will teach him going against me". So we have to assume he is the one that had her killed. That's how i see it.

reply

[–] Dougienesses 10 years ago

In regards to question 4, I'd almost definitely go with the idea that the Mayor hired someone to kill her and plant evidence.

reply

[–] rubenm 9 years ago

Concerning question 4: I assumed Lilya did indeed kill herself. We see her standing at the cliffs, ready to jump. After a couple of days, her body washed ashore. But I admit this is not entirely clear, since the investigation showed that she was killed because of head wounds inflicted by an object. Perhaps her head hit the rocks, which caused the head wounds. It looked to me as if the investigation wasn't conducted very thoroughly.

reply

[–] rosettacare 9 years ago

Lilya did not commit suicide. She may have at that particular point contemplated suicide, which is understandable, given the turn in her life. She was having an affair with her husband's friend and was exposed by her close friends. She was hated by her husband's son. One can be pretty sure that in the small community that had been shown, everyone knew about this affair. Her husband was driven to heavy drinking and suspicion. On top of it, her lover had disappeared to Moscow. So yes, she was close to committing suicide. But she was actually raped and murdered by the mayor's henchmen so that Kolya can be implicated. This is the only way the evidence against him can be nullified as no one would believe the allegations brought by a discredited man like Kolya.

reply

[–] ibbi 9 years ago

I assumed the most likely suspect for the murder was Roma really. A hammer from their property was used, he hated her. It certainly wasn't suicide if she had a blow to the back of the head, and while it could have been Vadim's goons there isn't much to suggest it was. It was left ambiguous.

___
http://tinyurl.com/m746w8t

reply

[–] angelx 9 years ago

I just saw it. I thought it was Roma too but I really doubt he would let his father take the fall for it. That and the phone conversation with the mayor makes me think it was the mayor's goons who did it (either they did the deed or planted/fabricated evidence).

reply

[–] liquidghost-1 9 years ago

I too think it was Roma.

There was no rape, the traces of semen are from Kolya and Lilya's time at the cellar the day before, or it could even be from the night before, although we didn't get to see any sexual activity.

Kolya bursting into tears as the inspector lays outs the facts makes me think he realizes then and there what has happened: his son murdered his wife. He opts for keeping quiet and taking the blame instead of feeding his own son to the wolves.

When the couple go visit Roma at the house and tell him the state is charging his father with the murder, Roma says something to the effect of: "That's not true." And he would know, he did it.

reply

[–] spaceman88 9 years ago

I fully disagree.

Lilya was more-or-less forgiven by Kolya, but was still very vulnerable and emotionally fragile. So when Roma, most likely the person she cared for and loved the most, wants her to be gone and never forgiven, she breaks down and gives up on life.

The scene with her facing the sea, and seeing the whale speaks a lot about her abandoning all hope and plunging into the realm of the large beast, that can not be defeated.

The mayor abused the situation of her death, to get his way.

reply

[–] maxgurion 9 years ago

That's exactly my thoughts and indeed what happened in the movie.

reply

[–] derfball 8 years ago

Correct. She committed suicide; the authorities made it look like murder (doctored the 'evidence') to screw Kolya. Ya don't let a good opportunity go to waste! Kinda like Hillary and Benghazi; that's worked so far! "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

reply

[–] caustic576 9 years ago

Neat interpretation- but if Kolya knew that it was his son who murdered his wife- then why did he 1) Plead not guilty and 2) not confess that he pursued the murder?

reply

[–] iHelegis 9 years ago

It wasn't Roma (that would've been a bad movie). It was most-likely a suicide. Considering her situation and the character, and whole metaphorical realm of the movie, that was exactly where she was heading. On the contrary, killing her with a hammer would've been a illogical. Not to mention bringing the hammer back home and putting it somewhere where it would be so easily found. Also she clearly had sex with Kolya before she went to the cliff, so there was no rape.

But when it happened, the mayor's people jumped at the opportunity to get rid of the man. And Kolya's friends came forward about the conflict that had actually taken place. So maybe the forensic report was forged (we don't know if there was ACTUALLY a blunt trauma, maybe that was a lie, and if it was real, maybe she hit the head on the rocks), and then the evidence was clearly planted. Though MAYBE they did kill her, after all. That's one of the points why we don't get to know for sure what happened EXACTLY, cause the outcome would've still been the same.

The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bull$hit.

reply

[–] Tchoutoye 9 years ago

This is exactly how I see it. Although murder by the mayor's henchmen can't be completely ruled out, most likely the mayor's phone call was about getting Kolya convicted on fabricated forensic evidence.

reply

[–] darthsparhawk 8 years ago

this

reply

[–] Revolutionow 9 years ago

This^

reply

[–] CookiesSmuggler 9 years ago

Dima was old Army friend and decided to help for the sake of old friendship. Nobody was paying his bills. As it was said Vadim couldn't believe that there was nobody behind Dima and Dima tries to play on it, by mentioning that he is a friend with some powerful figure from Moscow who can easily destroy Vadim. The thing was that it was all bluff. Dima didn't really had a powerful friend, I guess they were merely acquaintances. Where Dima got the dossier is not really important, because even if you have some incriminating evidence you will not get anywhere without powerful friends, Vadim's superiors most likely were well-aware of his actions but he was loyal and useful and that's why nothing was going to hurt him. He was afraid to fall from grace and that's why he feared powerful people from Moscow, because he thought that he will be disposed. But then he decided to play all-in and harass Dima and as we can see it worked because it was all bluff and Dima run away with tail between his legs.

A little about dossier. You will be surprised how much things you can find on Russian politicians on the Internet, for some it is enough to prosecute them right away, but cases are never opened or neven set into motion. For example: http://navalny-en.livejournal.com/93479.html

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] benman46 9 years ago

There was no evidence to support suicide but there was to indicate it was murder, or was there. Problem not solved.

reply

[–] TheEpicPancake 9 years ago

I just watched the film and my thoughts were that she killed herself, and the mayor then used the event to frame Kolya. I certainly had no inclination that it was Roma who killed her.

reply

[–] gortx 9 years ago

I just watched the film and my thoughts were that she killed herself, and the mayor then used the event to frame Kolya. I certainly had no inclination that it was Roma who killed her.

Concur with this. It fits the movie's theme about corruption and the mayor even has that line in the restaurant about Kolya getting what he deserved for getting uppity.

And, it also helps if one knows how the Russian legal system works. It functions mostly as a rubber stamp for the government in that the accused has to prove their innocence, not the other way around. The court basically has already decided their guilt with only a small chance the accused can prove the opposite. So, a couple of witness statements and a (maybe) planted hammer - and voila! Conviction. Further, the Russian prosecutors have a tactic of honing in on a suspect's "mental" state as a reason for their "deviant" behavior against the state. In Kolya you have a grieving husband, prone to drinking, who's lost his wife and home, broken up his family etc. etc. A very easy target. (it's very quick, but there's a reference to Pussy Riot on a TV set. And, one of the key charges against P.R. was how deviant their songs were)

reply

[–] rosettacare 9 years ago

Many thanks for the link and agree with your explanation of the film. This link actually proves the extent of corruption in Russia today and how the state machinery is hand-in-gloves with it. But is the church too part of this?

reply

[–] BoromiRofGeo 9 years ago

im sorry people i was just reading all these replies and i couldnt bare the thought that none of you understood to whats what. i had a sudden urge to write it. I dont know, maybe in a translation to english there was lost something, but as (multilingual) myself there was a clear moment, when mayor near the end of the movie was sitting in a car, exactly after he let go Dima, someone called him, and said that: "sir, i cant make it excited ( talking about his male organ )
mayor responds and yells at him: them make it excited or i will find someone who will be excited.
This is clear hint of rape intent with one of his goons, maybe police officers, who he clearly commands.
Another argument was already written higher, that mayor sitting at the end of the movie in a restaurant and saying that 15 years serves him right, and that he is pleased with the verdict.

reply

[–] gortx 9 years ago

when mayor near the end of the movie was sitting in a car, exactly after he let go Dima, someone called him, and said that: "sir, i cant make it excited ( talking about his male organ )
mayor responds and yells at him: them make it excited or i will find someone who will be excited.
This is clear hint of rape intent with one of his goons, maybe police officers, who he clearly commands.

What was the onscreen translation of that line, if any? My Russian is strictly elementary school level. Still, I don't recall those lines in the subtitles.

thanx

reply

[–] perpetrator-210-280333 9 years ago

"Excite" in Russian is a prosecutorial slang which means "open" (instigate, initiate) a criminal case. (The literal phrase in Russian is "to excite a case"). So Vadim was talking to a prosecutor who must have said that Kolya was "clear as a crystal" and he (the prosecutor) had nothing to base a criminal charge on. No-one in his right mind would discuss (or, in fact, be allowed to discuss) his sexual arousal problems with a mayor like Vadim.

reply

[–] nyjack 9 years ago

I sort of went with the opportunistic framing-after-the-fact explanation too. Made more sense and I doubt the kid could have approached Lilya on that barren rockface without her seeing him and struggling, which would have left more evidence than a hammer blow to the head.
But a couple of other questions: that was the first time that Dima and Lilya met? fast worker he was, and all supposedly in ten minutes too?
The other question was the ending: it was snowing and obviously some time later, couldn't tell what season the movie took place in other than I guess spring or fall as it looked still a bit chilly and the kid was in school. That church at the end; was that what was built on the spot of Kolya's house? Seemed to be the same place, and oh what a condemnation of the Russian political system that would be to have the politicians and religious authorities in such cahoots, while also making a red herring of Kolya's suspicion that the mayor was going to turn his house into a tourist hotel to make money off of it.

reply

[–] supadude2004 9 years ago

SHOCKED!

This poster is shocked by the sheer number of people here who somehow think that her death might have been because of her being killed by the mayor/husband/son/the whale etc.!!! ALL total nonsense.

You above, who don't realise that it's most definitely a suicide, are overlooking/underestimating the cited parable of Job, which more than explains what's really going on, and told in one of the succeeding scenes.

REMEMBER (in other words): The whole point of the movie is that Kolya is suffering an almost biblical plague of wrongs against him - including the simple death of his wife (after hitting rocks on the cliff - because such would give similar appearance on her neck to a hammer striking her there too - particularly in a rushed investigation, where one couldn't afford a decent defence lawyer to argue comprehensively the truth...) being pinned upon him wrongfully etc. etc.

'Those with power', after arrest, either did not believe nor accept that she had sex with her 'lover' just days before her death, got into an argument then when caught, was struck by her husband (holding a hammer, from the nature of her injuries) but then somehow made up afterwards (WHY? perhaps he'd been caught unfaithfully too, in previous years), during which time, she had rough sex with her own husband who forced himself on her in the pantry in a moment of unguarded extreme passion - all of which, when combined, gave enough evidence to suggest forceful intercourse, and traces of semen from more than one male. If he was going to finish her off, it would surely have been when he was inebriated, when they were shooting bottles, and caught her plus lawyer 'in flagrante delicto' (as latin would put it!)

Her husband had more than enough trouble on his plate, without the ridiculous idea (believed by quite a few above) that coolly getting rid of his own wife - someone he'd already punished by hitting (which naturally looked to investigators like it was part of the same single act, when we know it wasn't) when he caught her just days before, and besides she was even needed to help finish packing their own items together, BEFORE the eviction - would somehow make his life better!????? Remember too - the second last scene shows that all their belongings were never properly packed and so were lost to the wrecking ball, and dumpster trucks, when they arrived. He was not the sort to have a huge insurance claim to collect - even if he could somehow get away with doing so! So we know that there was really no motive then to end her life. He'd already started to get over what happened with the lawyer. So we know he mostly made up with her, before she went missing. The movie makes this clear. At no point does it suggest that he made up with her so he could finish her off later - and long before they'd even finished packing up! Ridiculous!!

She decided to take her own life on realising the absolute hopelessness of their situation, and for realising that whatever hope they had, she managed to dash when she was caught having an affair with the one person who could have really helped her own husband. She couldn't live with the guilt, and so...

BTW, The mayor simply delighted in Kolya's misfortune. Nothing more than that. His 'helpers' roughed up the lawyer only. And that was enough to send his packing, back to Moscow. He had nothing to do with the wife's actions, nor need he orchestrate the 15 years for Kolya. That was simply down to a case based on common sense reasoning, which didn't take into account the realities of what actually happened, because the case's facts suited the prosecution's arguments more than they suited the truth! Remember too that Kolya really couldn't afford a good lawyer, and his former friend was, by then, totally out of the picture. More bad luck (as usual for Kolya)

Lastly, it should be explained that the movie's brief makes it very clear that they are old friends, i.e., Kolya and the lawyer, and despite the fact that friends really shouldn't take advantage of the other's respective wife, that was simply another wrong which Kolya had to endure.

If you see the movie this way, you're seeing it correctly: as simply one in which the protagonist (Kolya) has to suffer a whole series of unjust misfortunes, then Leviathan, as a movie, makes perfectly simple sense, and without any conspiratorial embellishment. Simple. Perfectly simple.

-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox

reply

[–] Stijak91 9 years ago

I saw the film last night and this is what I thought happened as well. The way Lilya looked at the sea, it was clear she's going to jump. Good, elaborate response.

That signature really tied the post together.

reply

[–] brunolly-1 9 years ago

I tend to agree with what you say here that it's a suicide, but I think the director throws in a few question marks to make people question what happened. The most glaring would be when Roma says "it's not true!," it's easy to pause for a moment and wonder if he could have caused Lilya's death. It's more likely that Roma just doesn't believe his father would do such a thing, though. The fact that the mayor is shown to resort to violence to get what he wants creates a reasonable scenario by which he may have ordered Lilya's death to frame Kolya and help his cause. Again, not the most likely scenario, but not impossible. The only thing the movie shows with 100% certainty is that Kolya himself had nothing to do with Lilya's death. Other than that, I believe the director desired a certain level of ambiguity here.

reply

[–] TermlnatriX 9 years ago

brunolly - I too feel Zvyagintsev left that up for interpretation which is why my interpretation would be this;

1. She did kill herself by throwing herself into the sea.
2. When her friend suspects Kolya could have done it, she presumably forces her husband to confess their 'suspicions' based on various things Kolya had said, and how he acted - under heavy intoxication - at the picnic. Suspicions which are NOT looked into sufficiently by an investigation as 'circumstantial' evidence. But taken in as fact.
3. The mayor could or could not have used his influence in that investigation to just blame it all on Kolya. We don't know that entirely, but it's very possible. Thus the theme of a corrupt authority is complete.
4. Lastly, one thing I'd like to mention about the entire last chain of events. It's very possible that Zvyagintsev intended it to be purely existentialist, Kafkian if you will. If you look at it from such a perspective and within the context of a corrupt authority - you end up with a very complex philosophical result. A suicide, a few words and actions said while intoxicated used as evidence, corrupt authoritarian government. All this mixed. Very tough scenario to get out of if you're caught in such a situation and environment. It's a very solid observation by Zvyagintsev on life.

:: filmschoolthrucommentaries ::
http://bit.ly/11DHMHW

reply

[–] gortx 9 years ago

There's no need to use censor bars - the thread is clearly marked (major spoilers).

And, no need for over-use of exclamation points and emphatic 'you are wrong' kind of replies. Anybody who goes to see a movie like LEVIATHAN is an intelligent adult that can read and surmise for themselves.

reply

[–] supadude2004 9 years ago

@ gortx - I didn't just brusquely tell anyone in particular that they were mistaken, (as might be inferred from your criticism); rather, if you might review what I wrote, you might just accept that I took time, and care to explain how there is a correct interpretation of events, and how there are incorrect ones. Of course, had I simply,proclaimed "you are wrong" here, there and everywhere - without *also* explaining at length - *why* so, then you would be correct, in criticising such an (otherwise) crude argumentative stab. Regardless, there is nothing wrong, in other words, with stating that another's viewpoint is mistaken - *provided* that such a counter-view is *also* backed up by facts, comparative analysis and logical argument. It is put to you that rather than criticise me (even indirectly) for arguing that another viewpoint is mistaken, it would be far better if you would instead take issue with specific points raised in my supporting analysis. For instance, I see that you believe the major was somehow complicit in framing Kolya, please could you elaborate on this viewpoint, as I don't believe that the movie's facts support same?

Albeit, I must now concede this much to you - that I certainly did use too many exclamations, on occasion. That much I can't argue, particularly as my sense of disbelief (at just how many failed to interpret the movie correctly) got the better of me, and must now stand corrected.

As regards your criticism of censor bar usage in a thread which has its subject partly alluding to spoilers. Firstly, unlike, you I believe it is infinitely better to use one too many censor bars, on the message boards, than one too few. Moreover, I usually (for example, and I believe I'm not alone in doing so) open multiple threads at once, and in doing so, it sometimes can escape my attention - that at the end of a thread's subject line someone has slipped in the terms (spoilers inside, major spoilers, caution spoilers etc.). So I use censor bars, despite the thread's title stating "major spoilers", because I believe there may be other persons who've not seen the movie before seeing the message boards, and may not wish to glance at spoilers at that moment, yet who still open multiple threads of interest at a time. Spoilers can ruin a movie, and I prefer (as I believe most thinking others do) to discover the finer points of a movie as the director intended them to be discovered. The fact is that there is simply not enough use of spoiler/censor bars on IMDB.

Frankly, I've given up on the number of times I've read a given movie's message boards *before* seeing a movie, only to find that a number of indiscreet others have indiscriminately given away major plot points in general discussion. So I must meet your criticism with this: Rather than discourage the use of censor bars, their greater use should be applauded. Besides (...one might cheekily add) is it not far easier to read a response that has made liberal usage of censor bars, than it is to take time to criticise the using of them? ;-)

Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox

reply

[–] ElvisShoemaker 9 years ago

The situation wasn't easy.

The movie is a movie: I can't understand why Lilya knocked on the hotel room when Dima was taking a shower and then have sex with him - her husbands friend...and also later by the outing. After the hunting/party trip she tried to be with Dima, but he pushed her away.

But: Why would she be making a suicide, if she returned to Kolya and he was trying to forgive her, was clearly passionate about her and she asked him: would he want to have a child (with her)? And when Yulya asked her if she'll go to Moscow, she refused to answer.
She wanted Kolya to move to some other place and they actually were doing that. Maybe the new appartment shown by Yulya wasn't looking good, but still - could that be a reason enough for suicide?

Maybe she was just starring at the sea to calm down, clear her mind. Like Kolya did later.

The mayor was told by grand priest to do what was in his power, to keep his power. He obviously had some blood on his hands from before. Why not some more after such instructions.
Lilya might have been killed, and murder weapon was planted in Kolya's garage. There must have been some blood on it, otherwise almost any object fitting the wound can be proclaimed murder weapon?
If by the law a person committing a murder is sentenced 15 years, why should the mayor be commenting it the way he did; "that should teach him where he belongs". Mayor obviously had causality in the matter.

On the other hand, how could the mayors helpers have spotted her just at the moment when she was starring at the sea, and also knowing they had dispute etc?
And more probably the wound/weapon was done latter when the body was found, just using the situation?

I think there are many questions unresolved and can't be resolved, since the movie is a movie. Finite, dramatic and intentionally made mysterious.

reply

[–] maxgurion 9 years ago

BRAVO !! very beautiful and meaningful interpretetion...I don't know why people sees event as plots and schemes rathar then it's emotions and fellings at the situation.

The sequence of events actually take place as describe above.also director also said that it's loosely thematically based on the Biblical story of Naboth’s Vineyard and ethereally based on the Biblical story of Job.

reply

[–] raschs 9 years ago

You are. of course, correct. I do not see how anyone could understand the Job-based message of this movie and not realize that she committed suicide. Neither the "goons," her husband, nor the boy were involved in any way in her death. So she had blunt force trauma to the back of her head? The scene right before she jumped showed the jagged cliffs. There is no way the police (given the investigation shown) could have determined whether she suffered the blunt force trauma before she jumped from the cliff or as she fell down to the cliffs. A hammer was found at the house? So what? That's not an unusual tool to have around the house. There was no mention of blood found on the hammer. It was a flimsy circumstantial evidence case but in the corrupt Russian system portrayed in the movie the evidence was more than enough to convict. How could anyone believe that she was "raped" before the "murder?" Did you not see the scene where her husband had rough sex with her (and observed by the son)? The whole reason that scene was in the movie was to let the viewer know that she was NOT raped by some "goon." Come on, people!

reply

[–] mathew5000 9 years ago

I do not see how anyone could understand the Job-based message of this movie and not realize that she committed suicide.

I do not see how this follows. Job's wife in the Bible did not commit suicide.

I re-watched Leviathan a couple of days ago, and I believe now that it was intended to be ambiguous as to whether Lilya's death was suicide, murder, or accident. What seems very unlikely is that Vadim's goons arranged her death: if they had decided to murder her, they would have kidnapped her first, not followed her around all day in the hope that she would voluntarily go to a secluded spot on a cliff! If Lilya was murdered, then Roma was the culprit; he could well have followed her, or just happened to be there when she was, and decided on the spur of the moment to take advantage of the situation by pushing her.

reply

[–] raschs 9 years ago

It was suicide. Lilya's mobile phone had an "out of service" message when called multiple times. The implication is that Lilya disconnected the cell service on her phone since she knew she planned to take her own life. Did Roma call the mobile phone company to cancel Lilya's cell service after he murdered her (with or without a hammer in his hand)?

reply

[–] lamont-hard 9 years ago

Great summary. If I can ask a couple of questions on something i missed. I was wondering why the wife was having the affair. I also thought she really killed herself because the lover was gone and she had gotten him hurt. Obviously i was not deeply into this part of the plot and was doing other things when she and the lawyer were talking.

My second question was, how long was she gone before she jumped.

reply

[–] supadude2004 9 years ago

@ nyjack: yes, Kolya was definitely framed. The movie is themed on how much suffering a man can take; Hence the parable of Job reference, near its end.

re your qtn 1) please explain how it could have been "the first time" that Dima and Lilya met, when Kolya (after she went missing) was shown looking at a .mov of clearly his own wife, skating/playing, when she was a young teen? Remember that Kolya + lawyer are old friends, ergo she must have known him too, from long before. So ten minutes had nothing to do with it. Their first 'intimate scene' was presented just as if they were doing, once again, what 'came'(no pun intended) naturally to them...

re 2) look again carefully, at the landscape when the camera pans, as they exit the building and you will know that the mayor did indeed commission a church to be built on Kolya's former house's land. The movie's climax shows that the true wrongdoer is shown leading a very wealthy, comfortable, and respected life. And he who was poor and (moreover) repeatedly wronged against, is left no better than that beached whale's bones in the final scenes.

The cruel irony, the very irony of it all.

Absolutely brilliant movie.

-
Sandwiched between The Principle of Mediocrity & Rare Earth Theory, you should see The Fermi Paradox

reply

[–] Redisca 9 years ago

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

1. Where did Dima get that dossier?

From an public official in Moscow who had a lot of damaging information on the mayor. How that official came by the information (perhaps he was the mayor's accomplice in some of those things? a political rival?), or how Dima got him to share that info is not explained.

2. Related to question 1, who was paying Dima's bills?

I think it's pretty clear Dima is working for free. (By the way, critics and audiences seem to universally assume that he is a "slick", talented or high-priced lawyer, but I don't get that from the movie. He's from Moscow, sure, but that doesn't mean anything. Not every New York lawyer works for a white-shoe law firm, either. We don't see Dima do much legal work, anyway; and the only legal task he's charged with, he loses, though to be fair, it's a foregone conclusion. Blackmailing someone doesn't really take legal skill.) The mayor draws his own conclusions from Dima's presence, but this is not a Mamet thriller: the mayor may have his ear close to the ground, but he doesn't know everything. Dima does this as a favor to an old army buddy, who was also once his commanding officer, so there are multiple levels of loyalty there.

3. It looked like Vadim angled the gun away at the last minute, and therefore didn't shoot Dima. Is that correct? So they just drove away leaving Dima still alive, but assuming he would die from thirst or from exposure? Wasn't that kind of a stupid thing from Vadim's perspective considering that Dima could have left instructions to release all the information, in the event of Dima's death?

See below.

4. Did Lilya commit suicide, or was she killed by Vadim's henchmen? I don't think this was ever explained, was it?

It's purposefully left ambiguous, but it's fun to speculate, so I will. It's possible Vadim had her killed, but that doesn't really make sense. If Vadim could just arrange to have people killed, why not just kill Kolya? And if he wanted to make Kolya suffer, why not kill the kid? And why let Dima live? No, it seems to me, Vadim's modus operandi is abusing the legal system. With the local prosecutor and the chief judge in his pocket, he doesn't need to murder people. More likely, Lilya's death was fortuitous, and Vadim just used it as an opportunity to have Kolya railroaded.

How did she die? Again, this is not explained. It's possible she committed suicide, or even had an accident (and the evidence of rape and bludgeoning was falsified). One thought that kept occuring to me, though, is that she was indeed murdered -- by Roma. Roma clearly had a deep, enduring hatred of his stepmother that preceeded her infidelity. Roma liked to roam the cliffs alone, just like Lilya. And there is foreshadowing (of rape and murder by an adolescent) when her friend's little boy pretend-kills her and explains that he "killed" her because she is pretty. Roma's behavior after Lilya's disappearance and especially after the discovery of her body is weird, and, in my opinion, consistent with that of a perpetrator.

reply

[–] oktjabr 9 years ago

From an public official in Moscow who had a lot of damaging information on the mayor. How that official came by the information (perhaps he was the mayor's accomplice in some of those things? a political rival?), or how Dima got him to share that info is not explained.

What I understood is that the official in Moscow was mayors superior, and kept a file of dirt on him as a leash. Just in case.

reply

[–] mathew5000 9 years ago

I noticed on second viewing that in dialogue Dima mentions the name Ivan Kostrov, referred to as "head of the committee", as the source of the file on Vadim.

reply

[–] mathew5000 9 years ago

Thanks!

reply

[–] nyjack 9 years ago

The mayor did not plan to kill Dima, just scare the hell out of him, perhaps to frighten him off from releasing the dossier or for revenge for doing so. I don't think even in that situation he could have gotten away with murdering him in cold blood. He was in pretty close with the priest and I don't think the priest would have sanctioned the church being built due to a murder. And for Dima, he did get paid in a way for coming all the way up from Moscow, right? In the end, not so bright as he thought he was; mixing in a little adultery at a family picnic where the adults were all half-drunk and lock-and-loaded?

reply

[–] oktjabr 9 years ago

The mayor did not plan to kill Dima, just scare the hell out of him, perhaps to frighten him off from releasing the dossier or for revenge for doing so.

I agree, the show with the thugs and mock execution seemed like a last ditch effort. I was left with an impression that Dima would've gone through with the plan, had he not lost interest after getting bridges burnt with Kolya and Lilya not leaving with him to Moscow.

In the end, not so bright as he thought he was; mixing in a little adultery at a family picnic where the adults were all half-drunk and lock-and-loaded?

One of the greatest scenes in the film, that family picnic. I personally think that Dima simply couldn't handle his straight down vodka like the locals.

reply

[–] Tchernokeul 9 years ago

A lot of good things were already mentioned above by other members but it to my opinion it seems like two crucial things were overseen regarding question 2. and 3. I will not go into detail but maybe they can help you form your opinion about the events in the film.

2. I think Dima was working for free. Near the end of the movie, Kolya is seeing having a smoke in the living room and then walks away. The camera zooms in on some pictures on the will and on the left bottom you can see a picture of Dima and Kolya in the army which shows they are good mates and Dima is helping out his friend.

3. Crucial point to this question. After Vadim was confronted with the material gathered by Dima, he calls for a meeting with three of his nearest helpers. Two women and a man. The man is a cop, the woman in blue uniform is the prosecutor and there is also a lady in a grey suit who barely says anything. At the end of the film, this lady is the judge Ms. Tarasova who reads the verdict to Kolya! So the judge who convicted him, was in on the scheme from the very beginning. This is, accoridng to me, proof that Lilya was indeed killed by Vadim's henchmen. Ms Tarasova knew about it, as she was ordered by Vadim 'to come up with something'.

reply

[–] mathew5000 9 years ago

It was obvious the court was corrupt, but I hadn't noticed that the woman in that scene was the judge. Maybe I will watch the film again this weekend, it's playing at my local theatre.

When I first saw Leviathan, it was within a few days of seeing another Russian movie, The Fool, which I much preferred. But Leviathan may be more complex, of the two. It will be interesting to see whether it wins the Oscar; all five nominees are strong films.

reply

[–] leforcat 9 years ago

1. It's not important where. To find discriminating facts on Russian big-shots isn't difficult, the difficulty is to use it, you can't unless you have the muscle or backing, and Dima bluffed he had backing to make it possible.

2. No-one. They were friends.

3. Of course, he didn't shoot him, He didn't have to, it was enough to intimidate him and make him leave. And release of information in case of death doesn't work in Russia - for that you need free press and other things unheard of. Only way to use such info is, again, to have backing, and Dima bluffed on that.

4. Yes, she jumped. Didn't had to be explained because the point of the story is the struggle with the overwhelming power - they can crush you any way they like, such as fabricating/making up all the 'evidence' they need.

This message has not yet been deleted by an administrator

reply