After clearing his name, he should have left. How could he be able to live among the people who judged him so easily (which makes the movie so realistic). Great movie though.
I think he would be worse off anywhere else. The rumour that he'd escaped pedophilia charges would follow him, but the rumour that the little girl had lied wouldn't. Most people would assume him guilty in other towns, once someone discovered his past. Here, at least most people now know that he isn't. And as Daniel said, home is not always so easily left behind.
Ashiquality Rampage That he will never be fully accepted in the community as he had been labeled a "pedophile" and though people may have learned that he wasn't one, they are still not comfortable around him because of the emotional pain they went through believing that their children had been abused by him.
I know it's not the point of the film, but I find it somewhat disappointing that they just skipped over the whole period where Lucas's innocence was proven. It would have been so worthwhile to have seen how ashamed Agnes and all the other townsfolk were of their behavior towards him in the immediate aftermath.
Men can be as weak as women. And they were. Look at all the people who hit him in the store justifying their actions based on the possibility that Lucas could be a "pedophile".
I guess thats not the point of the movie. Though they gave lucas a bit of justice by showing him having been apparantly forgiven by most of the community. The director didnt want to emphasize too much on that. The whole point of the movie is to show the worse things that can happen to a person due to a single lie or accusation and its long term effect to his or her life moving forward. That has always been the focus of the movie. If they showed a little more of the redemption side it might overpower the real message of the story because of the audience natural tedency to cling more to the positive side rather than the negative.
I don't think it would be a cathartic moment full of apologies and shame from the townspeople... They would just shrug their shoulders and perhaps bring it up behind his back around a campfire occasionally while drunk, if the movie keeps up to it's realism.
GamingCentral what i mean't by that is when that scene happened, (the scene that involves him almost getting shot) im talking about the action that is best to describe the scene so if someone reads my comment they have a better understanding of what i meant.
This whole movie was such an emotional rollercoaster, I excepted a drama but not this. The acting, the realism of the deer that got shot, the dead dog's limp body, the behaviors of the villagers. Truly worthy of the term masterpiece imo.
It was very sad to see how much Lucas loved his people. They completely screwed him up, and yet, he still had the desire of being with them. On the other hand, I think the similarity of him to deer is obvious. Just as deer are animals, let's call them tender and helpless, he was like that. An easy prey for the people. And like the deers, he's always going to be in danger being so kind in a hunter's land. Seriously, this movie is a masterpiece.
Just watched this movie recently and while it's good, it doesn't provide adequate resolution for some of the things that transpire and that was really the most disappointing thing about it. Such as who killed Fanny, Lucas's dog. Then again it was possibly hinted at that Theo killed Fanny considering during one of the later scenes Agnes, his wife, asks him if he is going to Lucas' house "again". As for who took the shot at Lucas at the end, it could have been quite a few people, which is really scary when you think about it.... I think it was either Theo, who still may be harboring conflicting thoughts about Lucas due to Agnes' influence, and because near the end when Klara attempts to accept the fault for the lies she said and what is happening to Lucas as a result, he said "No. No." and just told her to rest. Theo and Agnes' son could have also done it due to his mother's influence. Grete's friend who interviewed Klara and asked questions to try and find out if Lucas had done or attempted anything sexual with her, could have also done it, as he would probably be motivated to do it for Grete's piece of mind, or to protect the children, since Grete was convinced Lucas was a predator without adequate proof because she believes kids don't lie. The butcher from the store whom Lucas head butted to pay him back for assaulting him earlier when he was trying to buy groceries. Really sad there wasn't more of a decisive ending for this movie.
I think that would detract from the purpose of the story, the story would have then a focus on vengeance, as you say, the most scary thing about the shot at Lucas is that ANYBODY could have done it, is that he still lives with that stain.
I think Theo is the only one who has really forgiven Lucas, when everyone is at the table you can see how everyone looks back at Lucas like they are scared or angry at him, Theo is the only one that the camera focuses and doesn't look at Lucas, i think that is trying to show how he truly believes in his friend and isn't angry or scared at him.
Theo seemed deeply conflicted and full of doubts about the situation from the beginning. He showed visible remorse and he was the one who reconciliated with Lucas after the church scene, so it doesn't make sense that he would turn around and try to kill him afterwards. Also he seemed to be a decent and reasonable person (f.e. he protected Marcus from the other members of his family when they tried to beat him) and he had a close friendship to Lucas before the accusations, so I really don't estimate him to be the kind of guy who would kill his former friends innocent pet and leave it in front of their door as some sadistic form of revenge. His son is a more likely suspect in both cases, he isn't well behaved and clearly harbors a lot of resentment and seems to blame Lucas even at the end of the movie. It was probably him and/or some of the other townsfolk who acted especially hostile
Hey guys, watch this ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zZ7bXc9OcVw.html He has a theory that Lucas was actually guilty and that makes the movie a whole new experience when you watch it a second time.
yup more evidence couldve been done. the guy kept trying to push klara to say he did physical things [including the jerking off accusation scene] but thats the part that pissed me off the most. they were spoon feeding klara words. almost forcing her to answer in a way that would satisfy themselves. questioning in a way like "he showed you this right? he made you touch his penis right?" and as children behavior goes, when their answer doesnt please an adult, then they'll just wing it in a way that'll make the adults stop pressuring her [if you can recall she said no at first then yes later on cause she wanted to go out and play]
@@sagarsaxena6318 This is most likely due to overhearing adults, or their parents, talking about it. The film mentions aswell that the majority of the children's statements about the basement is false
Lucas's eye twitches at the end, before the missed shot. I'm not questioning his innocence but I wonder what others are thinking. Very good film. Gut wrenching and difficult to watch though.
Counterfeit000 could you be so kind to put Mona´s Verden full movie subtitles in english to enjoy it?, is with Mads too, but I did´nt be able to find it. I´ll be happy with you if you do it. Thanks a lot.
The ending is: although superficially the village accepted the protagonist's innocence, the truth is that the suspicion and resentment they felt toward him never really went away. There would always be someone who thought that he was guilty, and they wanted him to feel that - without showing their face, of course. I believe the idea was to show how an accusation like the one in the movie, even when proven false, is like a stain that will never wash off.
I'm pretty sure there are two options for the shooter: Klara's brother or the Director in both cases representing any person who still believe Lucas is guilty. In the IMDb cast list appears that the film director, Thomas Vinterberg, played himself in the movie; but, I do not recall seeing him in any particular scene, so I think it was him there.
My interpretation is that anyone can come under fire from unexpected sources, even when you aren't at fault for anything, just as a deer is shot at simply because it is there. A single extreme instance can come out of the blue and turn your world upside down, so value what you have/are capable of now. The face isn't shown because the shooter represents a non-human entity, life. That's just how I saw it.
+SelvesteSand It's normal a certain amount of countries, in Germany and Poland for instance they just leave the normal audio, and have German or Polish voices over the original audio, in Holland, Belgium and quite more, they subtitle it in their language :).
"I'm trying to eat this potato salad, but it tastes bad because I don't like potatoes" - "Then don't eat it; no one's forcing you" - valid argument. "Why are you putting gravel in my potato salad? That makes it inedible" - "Then don't eat it; no one's forcing you" - totally misses the point.
The thing is I want to watch the clip. That's what I came here for. But it's really hard when there's multiple layers of voices. Why are there multiple layers of voices? Makes the clip difficult to enjoy. It's the gravel in the food I'm complaining about, not the food itself. I bet if I put gravel in the food you were eating, you wouldn't just go "oh well, no one's forcing me to eat it".
What if I tell you he actually did it? If someone is interested, i can give some other evidences, but here are the majors: 1. He didn't know which kid the teacher was talking about until she told him, which was kinda obvious it was klara and he didn't mentioned she kissed him, gave him letters or anything; 2. He used to also abuse her brother. You can see it everytime they meet, specially on that christmas scene that he cries talking to her, as if he is sorry that it happened to her either. In the beginning, lucas tells klara he used to be a teacher in her brothers school; 3. Still about the brother, the scene they are celebrating marcus's hunting license, the brother is shown purposedly frame under a deer's antlers, showing he is the 'pray' and Lucas the 'predator'. He is the one who shot lucas and purposedly missed, showing him he knows who he is and he won't let it happen any longer; 4. The basement the kids talk about is actually on marcus's rich godfather house, which probably was envolved in all the abuses. I believe on the last interaction between klara and lucas, she is framed perfectly centered in the basement's door; 5. Klara never said she lied; I'm brazilian and some subtitles are translated to her saying she lied, but apparently in danish she said something related to 'I said wrong things'; 6. Above all, it always bothered me his lack of self defense. His expression were ambiguous through the whole film, potentialized by mikkelsen's stunning performance. Basically Vintenberg trolled us all. I recommend everyone to watch it again with a different perspective. Everything makes even more sense. This movie is truly a piece of art.
I’ll bite. This actually makes more sense than him just being mysteriously framed/innocent. An interesting result of this is that the movie gets the audience to root for the pedophile and be irritated by the townspeople for turning against him.
@@RayAFlanagan yea man, and even if is not hard to track down why klara 'lied', those other kids telling the same things is hard to swallow. He used to attract his victims using fanny, the dog. She was his weapon. Thats why klara felt so bad for the things she said, cause she couldnt hang out with fanny anymore. Well, until her brother killed fanny, for obvious reasons.
