Several instances of implied violence were used in this movie, but the biggest moment is between the time when Dave leaves the bar and comes home covered in someone else's blood. We do not see what happens but we do know that in this period of time Jimmy's daughter is killed just after Dave sees her at the bar. All the facts seem to be adding up against Dave. The same blood type as Katie is found in his car, he lies about his hand, and he begins to act crazy and weird as time continues after her death. The mystery of Katie's death contributes to the biggest plot line of the movie. Who killed Katie?
The question of Katie's death warrants the audiences imaginations and also the characters imaginations to run wild with possibilities of what happened. Using dramatic irony to leave out shots of Katie's death contributes to the tense feeling of not knowing, that the movie characters are also feeling. All of the "facts" pointing to Dave makes everyone realize--or so they think-- that Dave killed her. Dave's past suggests he is mentally unstable. Although the choice to leave this scene out helps the story gain a deeper plot and more interesting conflict it loses the story's truth. The impact of this option to leave out the truth is gargantuan in furthering the main story and several other side stories including Dave's relationship with his wife. Allowing the imagination to piece together what happens to Katie creates a huge plot twist and moment of catharsis when we find it wasn't Dave (even though we and Jimmy found out a little bit late).
Dave coming home late at night with a stab wound and blood drenched all over his hands around the same time Katie was murdered left big questions marks everywhere. When Dave told his wife that he most likely killed a man, the movie placed situations and scenes to point towards Dave being the one with Katie’s blood on his hands. Not only the fact that he was acting crazy and kept lying/switching his story about his hand, ever time his wife looked in the newspapers or the news channels, there weren’t any reports of a man being murdered. The fact that nothing came up on the news also left us thinking Dave was indeed the murder and that killing a man was just another one of his lies.
ReplyDeleteDave is portrayed as a man who is mentally unstable and untrustworthy and this leads to the assumption that there must be a link between Dave's questionable stability and Katie's death. It is not surprising that Dave begins to look like a feasible culprit for Katie's murder due to the evidence that seems to be piling up against him. What is not shown the night of Katie's murder is essential to the formation of an opinion of Dave that causes us to question if he is telling the truth. Though he is not explicitly dubbed the murderer, because of what is unknown, he seems a plausible candidate. As you said, all the "facts" pointed to him: the presence of blood, the blood type, and his location that night. This instance of implied violence drives the events of the film and makes the outcome more surprising and tragic.
ReplyDelete