MovieChat Forums > Gongbeom (2013) Discussion > So who was the killer? Spoilers

So who was the killer? Spoilers


The brother in law helped but the father took care of the money and location. It was most likely the brother in laws voice that's why it didn't match. But who did the actual killing? And why didn't he just return the kid?





- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

reply

The dad did it. I don't really understand why.

reply

Yeah, that really didn't make much sense. He was this protective, loving father, working whatever crap job came along to take care of his "daughter," but he cruelly drowns a small child? I mean, I could see if he later said it was an accident and seemed ashamed, but he just started laughing creepily. I understand it was supposed to be a twist, but you can't portray a character as a gentle, devoted dad and lover of children, then show him as a deranged psychopath in the last two minutes.

Also, this may be a cultural thing, but the way he and his adult daughter were holding hands, cuddling and stroking each other's hair seemed more romantic than paternal to me.

They're coming to get you, Barbara!

reply

Actually this totally makes sense. The ending wasn't the first and only time he broke away from his sociopathic persona. It was just the first time the overwhelming emotion that broke the persona was happiness. Multiple other times in the movie he broke away from his sociopathic persona due to overwhelming emotions of anger, threat, or sadness. I'll detail these later, but the clue is overwhelming emotion; he was so relieved at the end of the movie to finally be free that it was the last time, not first time, he revealed his true sociopathic self. The protective, loving father character is totally consistent with him being a sociopath. We've seen this same sociopathic character in practically every crime thriller in the United States, and in real life trials. So I think you're just blocking out that reality because the twist at the end made it seem like this was the first time you witnessed the sociopath. That's the whole point of a sociopath: never reveal your true self...unless you're overcome by emotion and snap. Think O.J. Simpson. This character revealed his true self several times in this movie during moments of extreme emotion, including at the end when he realizes time had expired and he finally got away with murder. Sociopaths only regard the personas they create and so only act like the way they want the world to view them.

He denied constantly throughout the movie, even until the end, that he was guilty knowing that he's guilty. "Don't worry; Daddy didn't do it." Always hiding his true self. Again, no difference than O.J. Simpson. It makes NO sense for a sociopath to act evil like they do in American movies; however, for the "father" to remain in character as his persona until the end or other moments of overcoming emotion, IS the sensical way that true sociopaths act. That was consistent throughout the movie. We saw glimpses of his true self when he first meets with her boyfriend and he coldly says "No thanks, I'll protect my daughter," as an emotional result of his primary motivation being threatened by this boy. But then he catches himself and plays it off as a joke to return to his sociopathic persona. He laughs, which is a hint of the similarity of the laughter on the abduction tape. We also saw his true self when he punched the brother-in-law in an emotional reaction, again because his persona was being threatened. You could see the fierce intensity in his eyes and his murderous anger. He even threatens the brother-in-law that he could die. Classic sociopath. I suspect they consulted with a clinical psychologist on this movie to best portray how a true sociopath acts--contrary to you saying it doesn't make sense for him to act loving throughout the movie and then deranged in a moment of emotion. Think O.J. again. The public persona always hides the true self. Sociopaths don't walk around kicking dogs in front of people. They live for their persona, and his persona was of a loving father. This is only achieved by way of a daughter--so he kidnapped one. This is why he fawns over her; races to find her in the rain; why everyone says that he would be lost without her; why they show the conversation between him and friend talking about how she is going to be reporter one day, and is beautiful, and has a great body, and is smart etc. He defines himself through her. She is the very foundation of his sociopathic loving father persona.

Sociopaths do whatever it takes to maintain their persona. Paying money, buying gifts, etc. They are slaves to being perceived by the world as loving and only care about feeding it to the selfish exclusion of other motivations. This is exactly the kind of behavior a sociopath would do: kidnap and kill the child. The reason for selfishly and sociopathically killing the child is simple; same as in every other movie: so as not to be later identified by the boy, and deeper because he didn't care about anything other than preserving his loving persona, much like he didn't care at all about "killing" the daughter he stole from the parents. Sociopaths so deeply exist in their persona that they can pass lie detecter tests and even begin to believe they didn't commit crimes. The true self becomes almost another person that did a crime, while their loving persona remains innocent. Again, O.J. remains a great real-life example of this. To kidnap a second time is well within reason to a sociopath. And to murder a kid is totally within the scope of a sociopath because he can't think of anyone outside of persona and his selfish motives and his desires. Being loving to others is an external act of selfishness because doing so allows others to feed that desire to be perceived as loving. This is why all the kids think he's so great in this movie; asking strangers not to drink and drive; buying teachers gifts; loving his "daughter." His true self however is always revealed when confronted with an attack on his persona and the overwhelming of emotion. This is why he cries "What are you doing to me?" when the daughter first asks him directly if he is the killer. He's not crying and asking this because he's wrongly accused. He's doing this because she is confronting his true self that he wants to keep hidden. His true self is begging her not to force it outside of his persona. This slip is once again brought out by emotion.

reply

Maybe he was waiting for the clock to run out so he could use the money from the crime.

reply

The voice was the father's, not the brother-in-law's. EVERYONE thought it sounded like the father. The daughter never heard the brother-in-law's voice before meeting him. The movie clearly explains why the voices didn't match. The two cops discussed earlier in the film that voice matches are difficult to achieve because the crime was so old that the voice would have likely changed and be difficult to attain. Once you add the sociopath's capabilities of adopting varying vocal characteristics to suit whatever need, the voice matches become even more susceptible to being altered or slighted to the point of degrading the quality of the recording. The cop even yells at him to speak louder when capturing the voice for matching.

reply

The brother in law was not involved. Notice how surprised he was when she played the recording for him.

His blackmail was about the first kidnapping - the kidnapping of the girl as an infant. He had no idea about the boy. He didn't know where the money was coming from.

reply