I didn't love the ending either, but I see what they were trying to do. One struggle throughout the film is to understand who the main protagonist(s) are...I think perhaps the ending answers that in a subtle way. A decent film, but I'm surprised it's currently rated at 79%.

Ending was fine with me. It's clear Keller was found alive. He'd then be able to explain what Mrs. Jones had said to him, as well as what he did and why. It would align with what Loki saw of her before he shot her, as well as the drugged drink they'd find in her fridge. Whether he'd have had to stand trying for unlawful confinement is immaterial, another story (and I doubt any jury would fault him, given the gut-wrenching circumstances anyway).

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Ending was fine with me. It's clear Keller was found alive. He'd then be able to explain what Mrs. Jones had said to him, as well as what he did and why. It would align with what Loki saw of her before he shot her, as well as the drugged drink they'd find in her fridge. Whether he'd have had to stand trying for unlawful confinement is immaterial, another story (and I doubt any jury would fault him, given the gut-wrenching circumstances anyway).

Really? You doubt any jury would fault him? Dont get me wrong I sympathise with his character, and Im definitely no expert of the law. But I would imagine people would still understand that he kidnapped and brutally tortured a man he didnt truly know for sure was guilty of anything- he knew that he was possibly just a mentally disabled man who may only be someone who witnessed or had information that could help him find his daughter, but not necessarily guilty of the kidnapping itself. Not to mention the jury at that point would know (I think?) that the man he tortured is mentally disabled and a victim himself of kidnapping and abuse? Genuinely curious if this case happened in real life do you think a jury would not convict him of something/find him at fault?

@softpillow said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Ending was fine with me. It's clear Keller was found alive. He'd then be able to explain what Mrs. Jones had said to him, as well as what he did and why. It would align with what Loki saw of her before he shot her, as well as the drugged drink they'd find in her fridge. Whether he'd have had to stand trying for unlawful confinement is immaterial, another story (and I doubt any jury would fault him, given the gut-wrenching circumstances anyway).

Really? You doubt any jury would fault him? Dont get me wrong I sympathise with his character, and Im definitely no expert of the law.

Me neither!

But I would imagine people would still understand that he kidnapped and brutally tortured a man he didnt truly know for sure was guilty of anything

But what would they weigh more in their deliberations? Every dude would want to puff out their macho chests and huff, with as much testosterone as they could, say "I'd have done the same damn thing if it was my daughter." Murica loves its vigilantes, its frontier justice.

he knew that he was possibly just a mentally disabled man who may only be someone who witnessed or had information that could help him find his daughter, but not necessarily guilty of the kidnapping itself.

In Murica, empathy for the vulnerable has fallen out of fashion. That country criminilizes homelessness for crying out loud.

Genuinely curious if this case happened in real life do you think a jury would not convict him of something/find him at fault?

We saw a jury acquit Kyle Rittenhouse; this situation would, in my opinion, be far easier for a jury to dismiss.

A case recently sentenced a man who raped his friend's 11 year old daughter to 30 days in jail. Yes, read that again.

Rape.

11 year old child.

30 days in jail.

Some people in Murica get away with pretty much anything. I have very low expectations for balanced scales of justice in that country.

I saw "Prisoners" during its initial theatrical release. I found it-- not just plot-wise but from a stylistic standpoint --intriguing. In those respects I very much enjoyed it. I'm not sure such a film could be made in the present socio-cultural moment. Not enough outright moral evangelizing. Interpretations are very much left up to the viewer.

I'm not sure I could watch it again, though. Not just because it depicts a depressing chain of events, but because everything is told in darkness, and rain. I don't think there was a single sunny day in this film, or a room that wasn't filled with shadows. Another fantastic job by Villeneuve.

For the record, I do think Keller survives. But that's just my particular take.

!!! SPOILER !!!

I do find it telling that many viewers seemed more bothered by Alex's choking of the dog than by the mistreatment suffered by the kidnapped girls.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@softpillow said:

Genuinely curious if this case happened in real life do you think a jury would not convict him of something/find him at fault?

We saw a jury acquit Kyle Rittenhouse; this situation would, in my opinion, be far easier for a jury to dismiss.

Well I think the situation with Rittenhouse is very different to the situation with Keller. Keller decisions were to take justice into his own hands and torture someone that he thought was a bad person. Rittenhouse put himself in high conflict scenario where he justifiably defended his own life in direct response to a mob of people activeitly trying to kill him. So I think thats a bad comparison to make.

@softpillow said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@softpillow said:

Genuinely curious if this case happened in real life do you think a jury would not convict him of something/find him at fault?

We saw a jury acquit Kyle Rittenhouse; this situation would, in my opinion, be far easier for a jury to dismiss.

Well I think the situation with Rittenhouse is very different to the situation with Keller. Keller decisions were to take justice into his own hands

Rittenhouse went far out of his way, armed, to defend property he did not own. How is that not "taking justice into his own hands"? Keller's kid had been taken - he had far more stake in the loss than Rittenhouse did.

So I think thats a bad comparison to make.

Sure, but I made that comparison specifically to make my point - all people are biased and will interpret facts as closely to and through their bias as they can. YOU think it's a bad comparison to make because you agree with the ruling that his actions were justified. But that still doesn't make the ruling right, in and of itself. A lot of people were not happy OJ was acquitted, but that was a ruling, too. We don't all automatically agree, or dieagree with a ruling juet because it's a ruling - it's more often a matter of bias, and I think people would give Keller the benefit of the doubt even moreso than OJ, or Rittenhouse, or that scumbag who raped an 11 year old child.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Rittenhouse went far out of his way, armed, to defend property he did not own. How is that not "taking justice into his own hands"? Keller's kid had been taken - he had far more stake in the loss than Rittenhouse did.

So I think thats a bad comparison to make.

Sure, but I made that comparison specifically to make my point - all people are biased and will interpret facts as closely to and through their bias as they can. YOU think it's a bad comparison to make because you agree with the ruling that his actions were justified. But that still doesn't make the ruling right, in and of itself. A lot of people were not happy OJ was acquitted, but that was a ruling, too. We don't all automatically agree, or dieagree with a ruling juet because it's a ruling - it's more often a matter of bias, and I think people would give Keller the benefit of the doubt even moreso than OJ, or Rittenhouse, or that scumbag who raped an 11 year old child.

Well no, just because people can have different opinions about something and different biases, doesnt mean there isnt a logically correct opinion about the morality of a situation, and doesnt mean the truth of what happened doesnt exist. Just because people can have different opinions doesnt mean everyones opinion is equally correct or wrong- and that there isnt a right answer.

There is nothing wrong with defending property not your own, you can defend property on the behalf of other people you know. I dont see that as morally relevant. Rittenhouse had WAY more at stake- his own life. He was 100 percent sure if he did not defend himself, he most likely would be dead or severely injured. In comparison, Keller was not defending his own life when he tied Alex up for several days (weeks?) brutally battered his body every day, locked him in a dark confined space and burned his skin with hot water. What he was doing was not necessary for the protection of his own life, or of anyone he knew, even if torturing Alex could save his daughter he doesnt know that for sure and Im sure he knows that impeding with a suspect instead of letting police deal with the situation can actually lead to the death of his daughter. He doesnt know for sure that torture actually will lead to the safety of his daughter, wheras Rittenhouse knows that defending himself will lead to the saving of his own life. And so what Rittenhouse did was a necessary evil, while what Keller did was an unecessary evil.

I didnt say that because of the ruling on Rittenhouse, that people ought to automatically agree that the ruling is correct. Who said that cause I certainly didnt say that?? Rittenhouse being aquitted is not an example of a bad person getting away with it, its an example of someone innocent not being unjustly punished. So it wouldnt be something that would logically make Keller be aquitted more likely, since what Keller did was actually morally wrong (or at least there is some complexity about the morality of what Keller did- unlike the Rittenhouse situation).

(Im only speaking on a moral level, I by no means am a legal expert)

@softpillow said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

Rittenhouse went far out of his way, armed, to defend property he did not own. How is that not "taking justice into his own hands"? Keller's kid had been taken - he had far more stake in the loss than Rittenhouse did.

So I think thats a bad comparison to make.

Sure, but I made that comparison specifically to make my point - all people are biased and will interpret facts as closely to and through their bias as they can. YOU think it's a bad comparison to make because you agree with the ruling that his actions were justified. But that still doesn't make the ruling right, in and of itself. A lot of people were not happy OJ was acquitted, but that was a ruling, too. We don't all automatically agree, or dieagree with a ruling juet because it's a ruling - it's more often a matter of bias, and I think people would give Keller the benefit of the doubt even moreso than OJ, or Rittenhouse, or that scumbag who raped an 11 year old child.

Well no, just because people can have different opinions about something and different biases, doesnt mean there isnt a logically correct opinion about the morality of a situation, and doesnt mean the truth of what happened doesnt exist. Just because people can have different opinions doesnt mean everyones opinion is equally correct or wrong- and that there isnt a right answer.

There is nothing wrong with defending property not your own, you can defend property on the behalf of other people you know. I dont see that as morally relevant. Rittenhouse had WAY more at stake- his own life. He was 100 percent sure if he did not defend himself, he most likely would be dead or severely injured. In comparison, Keller was not defending his own life when he tied Alex up for several days (weeks?) brutally battered his body every day, locked him in a dark confined space and burned his skin with hot water. What he was doing was not necessary for the protection of his own life, or of anyone he knew, even if torturing Alex could save his daughter he doesnt know that for sure and Im sure he knows that impeding with a suspect instead of letting police deal with the situation can actually lead to the death of his daughter. He doesnt know for sure that torture actually will lead to the safety of his daughter, wheras Rittenhouse knows that defending himself will lead to the saving of his own life. And so what Rittenhouse did was a necessary evil, while what Keller did was an unecessary evil.

I didnt say that because of the ruling on Rittenhouse, that people ought to automatically agree that the ruling is correct. Who said that cause I certainly didnt say that?? Rittenhouse being aquitted is not an example of a bad person getting away with it, its an example of someone innocent not being unjustly punished. So it wouldnt be something that would logically make Keller be aquitted more likely, since what Keller did was actually morally wrong (or at least there is some complexity about the morality of what Keller did- unlike the Rittenhouse situation).

(Im only speaking on a moral level, I by no means am a legal expert)

You originally genuinely asked me if I think a jury would not convict Keller of something.

So, first off, this isn't a question of morality. It's a question of legal proceeding.

Second, you asked, I've answered. We've exchanged ideas, we don't agree, that's fine.

Third, relitigating the Rittenhouse situation is beside the point. Whether or not I agree or disagree with that verdict or any other verdict is more a matter of my bias than any weighing of facts. Why do people who were "not there" have such strong opinions of any verdict? It's because of their bias, and it's okay to acknowledge it.

Shucks, an accused person is told straight up, "you have the right to remain silent because anything you say can - and will - be used against you in a court of law." If a person is innocent until proven guilty, why has it already been decided that their words WILL BE used against them? Because the prosecution admits its bias. And the defence will admit its bias. "We will show blah blah blah a verdict of not guilty is the correct verdict." They'll weigh evidence, argue their cases, and leave it for the jury to decide which interpretation best paints a truer picture.

So, morality and any presumption of incontrovertibility of facts aside, it is my opinion that a jury looking at Keller's case would be more likely to acquit him that convict him.

I could be wrong, but that's currently how I see it, for whatever it's worth.

You are welcome to disagree. Such is the nature of discourse across a spectrum of diverse viewpoints. The primary win is if we can engage discourse civily.

Cheers.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@softpillow said:

@DRDMovieMusings said:

You originally genuinely asked me if I think a jury would not convict Keller of something.

So, first off, this isn't a question of morality. It's a question of legal proceeding.

No we are talking about morality. I asked you if you actually think a jury would convict Keller, and your response wasnt about specific laws it was about your assessment of certain social observations you have made, so your reasoning is not about laws its about peoples morals and peoples way of thinking. And thats why I engaged in the conversation further about a discussion on the morality of the situation- I gave my understanding of why people are likely to forgive Kyle but not Keller on a moral level. You said Kyle was aquitted because people in America love vigilanteism and that they lack empathy and I rebutted your assessment by saying no the reason why he was aquitted was because it wasnt vigilanteism it was self defense. And further went on to how Kellers situation is not a case of self defense. So yes because of your response this is now currently a discussion more about morality.

Second, you asked, I've answered. We've exchanged ideas, we don't agree, that's fine.

Third, relitigating the Rittenhouse situation is beside the point. Whether or not I agree or disagree with that verdict or any other verdict is more a matter of my bias than any weighing of facts. Why do people who were "not there" have such strong opinions of any verdict? It's because of their bias, and it's okay to acknowledge it.

"Its strange that people have such strong opinions of any verdict?" (thats such a weird thing to say lol) Its not about having strong opinions on a verdict. Its about discussing the information we have about a situation and discussing the morality of the situation. And opinions may be strong, not because of bias, but because morality and the discussion of how we understand information in the world and how we discuss and make arguments and use rationale, is important in all areas of life. Your line of reasoning here, its almost like youre arguing no one should ever have an opinion about anything ever unless they were directly involved in a situation. Which is a wild idea, especially since you obviously dont believe in that yourself in the way youve already given strong opinions about the Rittenhouse verdict and about the verdict with that man who raped a child.

Shucks, an accused person is told straight up, "you have the right to remain silent because anything you say can - and will - be used against you in a court of law." If a person is innocent until proven guilty, why has it already been decided that their words WILL BE used against them? Because the prosecution admits its bias. And the defence will admit its bias. "We will show blah blah blah a verdict of not guilty is the correct verdict." They'll weigh evidence, argue their cases, and leave it for the jury to decide which interpretation best paints a truer picture.

Huh? Youre saying the prosecution is biased? Yeah...thats kinda their job, theyre literally not allowed to be not biased their job is to present their side as best as possible. The issue isnt whether or not the prosecution is biased, its whether or not the jury is biased. People in a jury and people of the public are not employed as defendants or prosecutors, and youre right they will leave it for the jury to decide which side has a more compelling argument. Im not even sure why you bring this up youre basically arguing against yourself saying that we can assess what the truth is without it being about bias (unless youre claiming that you and I in this cnoversation are basically the same as a defence lawyer or as prosecutor lol).

So, morality and any presumption of incontrovertibility of facts aside, it is my opinion that a jury looking at Keller's case would be more likely to acquit him that convict him.

I could be wrong, but that's currently how I see it, for whatever it's worth.

You are welcome to disagree. Such is the nature of discourse across a spectrum of diverse viewpoints. The primary win is if we can engage discourse civily.

Are you suggesting I havent been engaging in discourse civilly? Why? Im not sure whether or not a jury would aquit Keller. But certainly I would disagree that Rittenhouse's aquittal would be reason to think he is likely to be aquitted, not on a moral analysis of the situation anyway. Rittenhouse was a fairly clear case of self defense, so you really cant use his aquittal to point to anything imo to do with what would happen with Keller imo.

@softpillow said:

Are you suggesting I havent been engaging in discourse civilly?

Nope! Rather celebrating that we could remain as such :-)