I'm pretty sure that she poisoned her husband, but I think she figured she'd get away with it. I think the death should not have been scrutinized by the police; it seemed so cut-and-dry; why the police thought otherwise isn't really explained well in the movie. As for the wife being poisoned, I don't think he knew it was going to happen.
But there's that scene where he attempts to have her accidentally fall off the ladder.
There are many possibilities. Here's my take:
-- The husband's death was accidental. (BTW, I believe it's implied that it was only scrutinized after the fact, after the wife was murdered, and that the body was exhumed to determine whether he was poisoned.)
-- Both Esther and her mother-in-law poisoned the jam, independently. I know that sounds crazy, but that's what makes it a great story. The mother-in-law's brief testimony was definitely played as if she were lying about having not opened the box, and she claims that she believed her son had been poisoned and that she thought at the time that the wife "would be next." That's kind of an odd thing to admit. So I think we are being led to believe that she framed her daughter-in-law, whom she clearly always hated, for the murder.
I also absolutely think that Almaric plays the scene as if his character believes this.
Now, I'm less certain that Esther also poisoned the jam, in rather too neat and ironic a coincidence. Her apparent comfort with being convicted is more credible, though, if she believes she's guilty.
You have to admit that a story about someone who frames someone for a murder that they commit anyway is really cool, and that a story where one of the perpetrators barely appears (entirely because they are completely overlooked by the police) is also cool. I've never read any Simenon, but that level of coolness would be consistent with his reputation.
Prepare your minds for a new scale of physical, scientific values, gentlemen.share
This helps me make sense of it all: thanks! I remember the mother-in-law's testimony hitting Julien like a revelation, but was unable to see whatever it was he saw.
As to Esther's comfort with being convicted--well, she seems pretty much unhinged anyway, and her line about not being separated from him now (after the sentencing)clinches that. She admits she wanted the husband dead, and so maybe she accepts a certain degree of guilt in that.
Julien's uncertainty about the degree of his own guilt is what really makes this a powerful story, though. His performance is so good-- the character is almost too dazed by it all even to recognize his own rage, except for that one outburst of it, directed at Esther.
You almost nailed it dear Watson....
Julien has a "revelation" moment as he's hit by the true identity of the murderer...being the red haired mother. She disapproved her son's marriage to Delphine claiming she's after his money. Living in the same building, the mother was also aware of what was going on between Delphine and Julien.
Don't forget that the mother also "reconciled" with Delphine shortly after the passing of her son and that she worked in the pharmacy as well. She's also the one receiving the jelly jars. Finally, on a lesser note, she must have feared what was to happen to her if the lovers were to move in together and leave the region[as Julien states at a certain moment in his deposition].
They're totally doomed by the time the trial starts.
At that point Julien believes Delphine did the killings. As for Delphine, she's totally blinded by her romanticized love for Julien. It's at the very end of the trial with the camera emphasizing the eye locking between Julien and Delphine's mother in law that we're revealed who set up the trap they fell in.
I was confused by the sequence where Julien sneaks away from the cinema to pay the minibar tab, and the clerk tells him that the bill for the drinks on the terrace was already paid. I think I missed the point of that. Did it mean that earlier, when Julien saw Nicolas out the window, that Esther had specifically told Nicolas to come there (hoping to be caught)? And why did Julien go to such lengths to pay that bill? Was it just to get information?
shareAha! Your explanation makes perfect sense of a movie that had originally left us feeling unsatisfied. It certainly seemed to me that the evidence against Julien was pretty flimsy, and he was certainly not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We had been expecting a "Perry Mason" conclusion in which the real murderer gets revealed by a clever defense attorney, but instead, it's up to us, the audience to realize that the mother-in-law is actually the murderer (and gets away with it). Or.... did all three of them poison the jam (independently of each other)? That might explain why Esther died so fast, getting a triple dose!
shareI think the explanation is straight forward (sorta).
1) Esther's husband died of natural causes, remember he was ill and the police and doctors suspected no fowl play.
2) The pharmacist mother-in-law (red haired lady) who never liked Esther and likely knew about the affair (early on thus also resenting Julien) poisoned the jam in order to frame Esther and Julien. Even if Julien hated his wife he would not risk killing his daughter. Same for Esther, she truly loved Julien and would feel the same. The ladder and ocean dunking scenes were red herrings.
What surprised me was that Julien was convicted. He had no access to the toxin (digitalis) so the burden of proof was on the court that he spiked the jam or knew it was spiked.
He killed sixteen Czechoslovakians. Guy was an interior decorator.
Yeah, for me, the problem of the film is not the ambiguity of who really did it, it's that the jury was so stupid. The mother in law was as subtle as a sledge hammer and no one called her out on it? Julien was literally convicted on circumstantial evidence alone.
"Your anger is frightening the sand!"
Circumstantial evidence convicts people every day. Google "Aaron Hernandez" for a recent, high-profile example. Likewise, lawyer incompetence is far from rare. Even professionals are flawed. (What do you call a lawyer who graduates last in his class? An attorney.) This movie was plausible.
shareAnd the fact that the mother in law confirmed the seal on the box of jams was not broken, but the scene with Julien in his car staring at the box in the front seat shows the seal had already been broken and put back on...
shareIt thought it was rather obvious that Nicolas's mother was responsible for poisoning the jam. Two reasons come to mind:
(i) Julian's look of realization as she testified in court.
(ii) The brief (maybe five seconds) scene in which the mother is shown putting the box of jam a shelf in the pharmacy and then immediately removing the pair of rubber gloves she'd been wearing while handling it.
I haven't seen any mention of the latter scene in this thread so I thought I'd point it out.
Adam
Thank you, Adam! I missed that part with the gloves. I have 3 foxglove (where digitalis comes from) plants in my garden & I wash my hands with an OC frenzy after I touch them.
Here is my point... digitalis in the past was used as a poisoning agent, now it is used on a regular basis in heart medications. Thus, digitalis would be readily on hand in a pharmacy. I'm not sure why digitalis was prescribed for seizures.
I think all of this points to that red-headed mother. She poisoned her own son and Delphine. Was Nicolas a mercy killing or as an attempt to gain control of the pharmacy?
Thank goodness for this string. Although I am familiar with ambiguous endings in French films, I was left feeling puzzled.
The "seizures" part is just the wrong translation in the English subtitles. In French, they say "malaise" which means feeling ill, not having a seizure.
The "explanation" about the mother being the killer is neat, but it is not what is in the novel. In the novel the mistress is the one who kills both the husband and the lover's wife.
In the novel there are more scenes with the mother and it is better understood why she lied in the trial but she wasn't the murderer.
[deleted]