The Hunt (Jagten)

Consider first the setting. It may be quiet and idyllic, but merry laughter and droll humor open the scene. A group of middle-aged men are clowning around by the lake. They are old friends of The Hunt’s central character, Lucas — bespectacled 42 year old ex-professor, recently divorced, and too old to be waddling like a toddler in the water.

But the time is almost Christmas in this unknown Danish village and everyone is having a good time in yet another get-together. Friends have known each other for years, people know people on a first name basis, many have lived here for generations and Lucas, is just another face in this jolly, close-knit community — mellow, respected and well-liked.

We are told that Lucas (played with artful and refined precision by Mads Mikkelsen) has woes that come with contemporary, adult life. Living alone and seeking custody of teenage son Marcus (newcomer Lasse Fogelstrøm), he is an ordinary man trying to rebuild from ground up as a kindergarten teacher. Immediately you can see that he is kind and caring because Lucas walks young Klara home, and chats with her father, also his best friend, Theo (Thomas Bo Larsen). The two men share lasagna while fussing over pet dogs and hunting rifles. You acknowledge that Lucas has earned his place in this neighborhood and relationships are in complete accord.

Then the maiming of his middle-class existence begins.

Klara develops a schoolgirl crush on Lucas, and puerile gestures are sensibly rebuffed. Nothing unpredictable or startling at this point. You have heard of such awkward incidents before. But Lucas is then accused of something he did not commit because Klara said something to avenge an earlier rejection — here is where The Hunt succeeds with penetrating insights into the human condition. Soon after she causes harm, Klara attempts to recant the false accusation without success. By using this narrative technique, writer-director Thomas Vinterberg absolves young Klara from absolute blame, and sets the stage for unreasonable complications. With the realization that both Lucas and Klara, are victims of a larger social phenomenon, watching the film from there on out is an unforgettable and riveting experience.

It is natural to assume The Hunt simply alludes to the concept of Witch Hunt, and concerns itself with dramatizing an innocent man on the wrong end of false allegations. But if that were so — the brilliant scene where Klara was interviewed — would not have alarmed as much with disturbing methodology. Ole the counselor, ushered in from an unknown organization is scruffy and slightly unkempt. Characteristically unlikable, he wears an implicit stereotype on his face and contaminates Klara’s testimony by coaxing with a few hints, “Do you remember, if something white came out?”

She stares blankly, yet revulsion grows and collective hysteria spreads — allowing The Hunt to unveil itself as a carefully executed masterpiece. The clues match only because suggestive prompts are pushing the limits of reality. The narrative’s strategy embeds observer-effect with great accuracy — into one’s expectations of Klara, and her reaction in return. In doing so, Vinterberg denies us simple solutions in which adults are perceptive enough to decipher the truth.

The canvas is visually precise; casting is pitch-perfect (especially that of Annika Wedderkopp in her excellent portrayal of Klara) and the script is cautiously penned. Based on transcripts of police interrogations conducted on suspected pedophiles in Denmark, the US and other European countries — Vinterberg investigates cause-effect with chilling authenticity.

There is no doubt that The Hunt is antithesis to Festen (The Celebration), an earlier work depicting the same subject matter. But this film does not involve itself with controversial material for the sake of empty gestures. Relentless and intense plot is enriched by characters reacting with protective instincts that come naturally simply because they care for one another. We enter the internal worlds of Lucas, Theo, Marcus and Klara, and observe the impact of rotten dynamic unfolding before our very eyes. This forces us — spectators with an omniscient view to sit-up and question judgment using rational exactitude.

Short analysis of the ending >>

The HuntThe Hunt is a superb, penetrating study of human agency and ultimately, some mysteries remain unknowable. There are narratives attempting to interpret the final scene, and who the shooter really is. (This person may even be the same culprit who killed Fanny.) Is it Klara’s older brother, who has demonstrated protectiveness over her? Perhaps a disgruntled retail assistant from the grocery store? Maybe a figment of Lucas’s anxious imagination from knowing life can easily cast him from the status of a hunter, to that of the hunted?

These questions continue to linger because the film’s technical finish is open-form and resists finite closure. The image of an unknown rifleman, indistinct and in hiding is a conveyor of figurative conclusions — identifying disturbing attitudes as opposed to that of identifiable man. In doing so, Vinterberg employs artistic device to suggest that people may seem outwardly placid, but remain violent and embittered mentally.

Just as it is with real life, some hostility can’t be neutralized and a malevolent presence continues to loom over the horizon, willing to perpetuate an abyss of moral panic.

What do you think? Do you have a different theory on Jagten’s ending?






A Hijacking (Kapringen)

A Hijacking (Kapringen)

What Richard Did

What Richard Did

In the Bedroom

Elusive Movie Endings


44 responses to “The Hunt (Jagten)

  1. Great review.
    I don’t think it is Klara’s brother. What may be confused as protectiveness on his part is in fact guilt. One of the first scenes shows him and his friend exposing Klara to what became the source her lie. He realizes he is the origin of his sister’s confusion, but remains silent from fear of being exposed.


    • Interesting point. I did wonder about the grey area between guilt and protectiveness; but steered away from that conclusion (guilt) eventually due to a lack of emphasis on her brother’s reaction. Most tellingly, in the scene where Klara was first exposed to pornographic material.

      Out of curiosity, where in the film did this “realization that he’s the origin of his sister’s confusion” occur? I may have missed out on something subtle. Based on what the camera chose to show and omit, I don’t recall anything that points to Klara’s discomfort registering with him (or that he even noticed at all — at least, enough of an impression to make the association during the latter part of the film). She was practically ignored and isolated from a visual perspective.

      I’m a little puzzled why many voted for Klara’s brother as well. Maybe it has something to do with a YouTube interview. Apparently, director Vinterberg filmed a scene showing her brother as the shooter, but chose to leave it on the cutting room floor. Preferring ambiguity over anything concrete.

      Video here for anyone keen: Thomas Vinterberg Interview (The Hunt) – The Seventh Art


      • I just finished watching the film a few minutes ago, did a Google search, found this analysis, and now I’m leaving a comment while every shot is fresh in my mind. Here’s why I believe the shooter is Klara’s older brother, and why the poll reveals a majority feel the same way:

        1) In the scene at the table, just before the final scenes of the hunt, and just before Marcus is presented with the hunting rifle, the camera lingers on Klara’s brothers’s face for a second as Lucas is being called up, and his look is one of bitterness and menace (the best description I can come up with). Something about his look seems completely incongruous with the celebratory tone of the scene and the three other people next to him, and it grabbed my attention and left me wondering, “what was that about?” Obviously, we’re being shown this detail for a reason.

        2) Ok, the director has visually singled out Klara’s older brother. What might his motive be for shooting at Lucas? My take on this is that he knew all along that he was the guilty party when the initial accusations were blown out of proportion: He showed his little sister pornography while using the precise descriptive term she would later repeat to the adults, and the one that ultimately did the most damage. When she described a “penis,” and her confusion as to where and when she saw it, he knew full well that he was guilty. He could have spoken up right away, but he chose not to, and by not doing so, he must forever live with a greater burden of guilt than any other single character, far more than innocent Klara or the misguided adults ever will.

        He could do the right thing and confess, but when you’ve gotten away with something like that (and let’s also theorize that he is the film’s lone psychopath, and the killer of Fanny the dog), perhaps it’s easier to just kill again, and remove the only character who knows with absolute certainty that Lucas is truly innocent: Lucas himself.


    • Who the shooter is is far less important than what the shot gives the audience. We aren’t intended to know the shooter’s identity, as the figure is obscured by the sun. Lucas’ doesn’t know–we don’t know.

      Even after being absolved of the crime, we clearly get the sense that Lucas never feels completely comfortable around the community again. He portrays happiness and smiles, but at times he’s really unsure how both he and others feels–what’s still lurking as doubt in some of their minds. He’s uncomfortable at times when greeting people after parking the car; he’s uncomfortable as he looks around the room with people periodically glancing at him; he’s uncomfortable in his thoughts about their lasting perceptions that forever remain.

      The shooter and the shot may simply be an extension of his unrested feelings, his sense that he is still subtle being hunted and forever thought of as guilty on some level by some of those around him, specific individuals of which he can never be sure.


    • I don’t think it is Klara’s brother, either. But as you wrote so eloquently, I interpreted his protectiveness as guilt as well and related to the same scene you outlined, and again, he remains silent out of fear and goes with the crowd. The ending, I interpret as figurative. Powerful movie.

      Naturally we are all outraged at the injustice of Klara’s questioning and how it quickly became a witch hunt for Lucas. Children, once they’ve spoken a a real truth, rarely redact their statement–but know one was really listening to Klara until her father final heard her Christmas night.


    • I’m not so sure it is a lie. The fact that all the children described the same basement with the same sofa color was the critical aspect in my opinion. Clearly, Klara hasn’t been this thorough when she described her memories to the other children (if she ever did in the first place). So, there would actually be a molester in the community. Second, she keeps mentioning “The Others” a few times in the movie.

      Now, who the hell shows porn to a 4-5 year old sibling? Even that was a stupid thing to do, the fact that Klara never mention her brother in the whole movie got me thinking that there was a certain distance between the two. Also, the scene were we actually saw Torsten crying was very telling. Clearly, he feels guilty about what’s happening to her but when they actually go outside, you can see he’s not so sure how to comfort her (as if holding/hugging her was a problem for him). It felt like she was precious to him. Like more physical contact would make people suspicious. Someone also mentioned the scene at the end where Lucas look at all the people in the room and we can see Torsten weird facial expression. Finally, the silhouette at the end clearly shows either a very thin man or a teenager (suggesting once again Torsten). The message at the end would be that Torsten knows who Lucas is but not the opposite, that he basically needs to forget about this or something could happen to him.

      Anyway, some things I noticed. Of course, this type of movie will always be open to discussion :).


  2. great review

    the director shows four possible victims in the ending
    Klara’ brother
    Bruun by showing his basement
    and random guy was glaring at Lucas during Marcus party


    • Thanks man. I think you meant four possible culprits (rather than victims). I’m not sure about the basement-Bruun connection, it seems fairly remote. As for the random guy in Marcus’s party, I guess this possibility warrants a third viewing!


  3. Throughout the film much evidence points to Torsten as the culprit, but it is during the climactic gathering of family and friends, whereupon Marcus receives the passed-on rifle, that intentional hints portray Torsten, Klara’s older brother, as the shooter. As the speech is underway, Lucas carefully scans the room, and is met with subtle glances of various types from various guests. However, notice the disturbed and emotionally imbalanced expression Torsten wears on his face before he, unable to maintain eye-contact, looks away. If this instability in itself was not all-telling, why does he show resentment to cheer and sing along with the others and instead continues drinking alone?


    • Very good Alec, thank you. I watched the last scenes again and you are right. Also, the silhouette of the shooter is one of a kid, not a man. So it is either his son, or Torsten. It can’t be his son that would make no sense.. so..


  4. There is a scene where Klara is playing with her brother. there was suspicious camera focus on Klara’s brother on that scene, that’s where i was sure it was his fault and led me to the conclusion that he was the shooter. but what i don’t understand is the title and all the “hunt”. i would appreciate if someone explained to me the moral of the movie if there is one.


  5. The shooter’s identity in the last scene is not important. The point is that doubt will always be hanging around Lucas’ person. Once he is labeled a child abuser, he will never be able to escape that 100 percent, even though charges against him were dropped completely. This is shown clearly in the previous scene (to the ending one) when Lucas carries Klara over the mosaic tiled floor; here the viewer fears that someone might see him lift her, get the wrong idea and add fuel to the ever-simmering doubt that he was actually guilty…


    • Yes, Viggo, I think that is correct. The tension when he was deciding to lift Klara over the tiles was quite uncomfortable. I felt the shot was a “close call”; both a reminder of how close he had been when under suspicion and a foreboding of how close he is to danger in the future.


    • Agreed–the shooter is blurred purposely by the sun, very likely meant to be figurative–the sense that Lucas in the last scenes never really quite feels comfortable around his community.

      I also found it incredibly compelling that Lucas’ encounters with Klara AFTER the accusation were incredibly warm and tender: when she says “hi” from the hallway and they briefly dialogue at Theo’s house; when she comes over to walk “Fanny” and they dialogue for a bit before Lucas advises her to go home; and in the kitchen with the tiles. Never once does Lucas demand she tell the truth or yell at her for ruining his life–he’s much more understanding that both of them have become damaged. He’s been outcast from the community (and worse); she’s lost her friend (one we can see she still cares for).

      Beautifully done, how he thinks for just a moment when he sees her trepidation in crossing all of those lines in the tiled floor–how she needs help and how she’s been afraid (and still such a child) to reach back out and try to repair a relationship she inadvertently fractured. She even acknowledges she was also thinking/aware of the same dilemma, suggesting a deep connection between the joy and happiness the two once shared together (previously echoed in how much fun the school children seem to have with him).

      Lucas, despite the risk of being “caught” with Klara, despite the worry for what all would think/say, makes the more loving choice: he rescues Klara, carrying her across the kitchen floor. At first, she is tense and lacks embrace–but she soon recognizes that it’s now okay, and wraps her arms around him, lovingly reciprocating his embrace/rescue.


  6. Well, the first thought that ran my mind was “why did his son shoot him”, it did make sense as he just received the gun and was shady on target. But, than it made no sense to the whole story.

    Then I realized, the shooter is the most unimportant person in the movie. Although it does serve its purpose of startling the audience and putting them to a different level of confusion and thinking, it is significantly not important. The last scene basically portrays the rather unforgiving and illogical part of the society we live in. It throws in light to the aspect of the society in which Lucas lives in, It imparts to the fact that the only way he can escape the actual hatred of his society is by escaping it, although it is harder even so.

    This is one of the very very few movies that has actually made me think so much and interest me enough to search about it through the internet. Jagten is a really powerful movie. It successfully portrays the different ways of thinking in our society. The praise goes to the director for giving so much detailed emphasis on the looks each and every character bares throughout the movie and, specially towards the end of the movie. He has been able to create the uttermost connection to the character of Lucas throughout the movie, I could feel the pain and the anger he felt through out the movie, it was really a great emotional roller coaster. And I enjoyed every twist of it.


  7. What a brilliant movie with flawless acting.
    The shooter is not relevant but more so what the shooter signifies about the continuous nature of the ‘hunt’. It will never end. For a less intense view, the shooter I believe is the brother of Klara, for reasons of both guilt and protectiveness.


  8. I believe the last scene with the shooter represents the whole movie, summed up in 30 seconds. The shooter simply saw the figure (Lucas) in the woods, and decided based on what was around him that it must be a deer, so he took the shot. This represents the movie because the town people were all the shooter in the woods, hearing the accusations against Lucas. So the town people took the shot at Lucas, misinterpreting the situation and not thinking; poorly due to their surroundings guiding them wrongly. These interpretations were wrong and soon after people realized, they begin to let Lucas go and see they were wrong. The shooter in the woods does the same. He saw that Lucas was not a deer, so he turned away and left. In the end of both situations, Lucas was affected, but survived. He remembers, but forgives.


  9. moral: men, never work in a preschool…..if you must, always be with other adults when around children….keep your relationships professional….only play with your grand kids……..working in a preschool for an ex-professor should raise flags from the getgo…..


  10. I think there might be another possibility: Lucas is guilty. The shooter is his conscience: Theo, the father of Karla, tells him that if he is guilty, he will put a bullet in his head. So, knowing he is guilty, his conscience make him feel unsure about his safety … why do i think this: 1. If the shooter wants him dead, why doesn’t he/she shoots the second bullet? He was an easy target. 2. Even if he is continually looking to the shooter, this one disappear like David Blaine 🙂 … (there are many other script leads that lead to the point of his guiltiness – watch the movie again). I am sure that purposely the scenarist put many leads, but I think he left this door open too … please tell me your opinion about this …


    • Theodor: interesting speculation, but it seems a far, far stretch. We don’t ever get the sense that Lucas is guilty. He proclaims his innocence and mostly takes (except for the grocery store fight) the unjust punishments that come.

      We’re meant to share the knowledge of Lucas’ innocence along with him and feel for his plight throughout the film–upset and disturbed how he is treated and isolated.


  11. I’m surprised I haven’t read my interpretation yet. From an early reaction of his, I wondered if in fact Torsten hadn’t molested Klara in some way.

    It’s not at all an unusual occurrence with older brothers and Vinterberg was so thorough in his research I would think he would have discovered it. Just the fact that Torsten showed Klara the pornography could possibly be an indication that he had already crossed the sibling barrier with her.

    That could then explain the ending – the shooter’s silhouette did look just like Torsten to me – as him blaming Lucas for the spotlight that could at some point wind up being turned on himself. Or, perhaps his feelings of guilt at what he’d done being projected onto Lucas to ease his own pain. People are often irrational like that, especially teenagers.


    • SP: an interesting possibility. This MAY be plausible, but the filmmaker spends virtually NO time suggesting this–it’s a far, far stretch/conjecture based on one or two very, very brief scenes.


    • I totally agree with you–I felt the same exact way. The ending could be Torsten—or it could be a figurative metaphor summing up Lucas’ entire last year.


  12. I agree with Cody J. Attempting who is the shooter is fruitless. If the director has decided not to expose the shooter, that means it is not important. All what matters is what was the point he wanted to make. Great movie!


  13. I have a doubt about the movie.
    In the beggining, Lucas is talking to Theo and for some reason that I don’t really remember, Theo tells Lucas that he know when he’s lying because his eye flicks (I don’t know the word).
    Almost by the end, at the church, when Lucas looks at Theo, his eye “flicks”.
    If I got it right, it gives the possibility of doubt. Since nobody said anything close to it, I really am thinking I got it wrong.
    Sorry for gramatical mistakes, english isn’t my first language.


    • Hi, Heitor. I am commenting years later, but hopefully other readers will benefit. I went back to watch the church scene, and Lucas’ eye does not flicker. In fact, he does not blink the entire time he looks back at Theo. After several seconds of this eye contact, you can see Theo recoil as he realize his friend is honest. (In my opinion, it makes the confrontation during the children’s song unnecessary.) Lucas does blink when he turns to face the front of the church, but I don’t think that is the same kind of flicker.


  14. I’ve got a theory,but I don’t know if it’s a good and plausible one.I think that another hunter (maybe a random guy,maybe Torsten,I don’t know,could be anybody),tried to shoot the deer Lucas couldn’t (because he put himself in the wild animal’s position,so he hesitated) and missed.Thus,Vinterberg is trying to show that life can throw to you unexpected events without particular reason that could destroy yourself and the people near you.Just as Lucas narrowly avoided conviction and seemingly overcame universal condemnation,he was also threatened by the bullet,but eventually he wasn’t hurt.So,I take it as symbolic.That the bullet is a metaphor for the accusations Lucas faced due to some random events.I sense a glimmer of hope there too (how man can overcome all difficulties) but I’m not very sure about that.I came up with this theory just now though (I just finished watching the movie),so I haven’t put much thought in it.But if someone wanted to kill Lucas,wouldn’t he shoot again?As for the figure,I think he was in his imagination (just as Fanny was in Clara’s).

    As for the brother,I’m convinced that he was feeling guilty,but he didn’t have the guts (partly due to his age) to take responsibility.


  15. There was a scene in the movie where when Klara goes to Lucas’ house to walk Fanny after the accusation, she tells him there were others too? What did that mean? Might she really have been molested by someone? This was never explained or dealt with later on in the movie so it’s hard to say.


  16. Agree with Viggo about the ending. Actually, I think the scene’s ambiguity is dramatically significant: Did someone shoot AT Lucas or was it a stray shot? Did Lucas actually see a standing figure or was that a trick of the light? Are the apparent events in the scene actually a result of his own paranoid imagination, triggered by the sound of nearby rifle-fire? The point is, we don’t know – AND NEITHER DOES HE. I think what you see on his face at the end is the awful realisation that he will NEVER be sure of other people’s thoughts about his guilt/innocence and that therefore he can NEVER feel safe. In that sense, it is a truly bleak ending to the film.


  17. Excellent review – I enjoyed reading it. You hear about these cases and can only guess at the impact on people’s lives, knowing what we know about how these accusations can be misinterpreted. The alternate ending on the dvd was chilling.


  18. lucas looks him in the eye at the ceremony and also there are enough hints at beginning and only a child could be so immature n unreasonable


  19. lot many things are suggestive in this movie with multiple interpretations nice movie child was really good in this movie the way she plays with her nose to hide her guilt amazing child psy on dsplay


  20. I will respectfully disagree with everyone, i think he is actiually guilty in the beginning he mentions to klara that he used to work at her brothers school until it closed down, leading me to think there was some type of abuse with her brother as well. This would be the reason why the brother goes through this emotional rollercoaster throughout the movie, when the camera focuses on him while playing with his sister he maybe remembers what he went through….all the kids described the same basement and sofa…they never said anything about his house it couldve been anywhere else, he spent time in the woods “underground” maybe…when he rejected klaras gift she maybe connected what she had seen on her brothers ipad to what was happening to her and had a way to describe it now…..and finally the shooter at the end is klaras brother, lucas realizes this but doesnt confront him since he knows hes hurt him as well…..


    • I agree. But the director insists Luvas is innocent. I did think something happenen to the children. The mentioning of the basement and it’s specific wallpaper and sofa. Bruun stating that kids do usually tell the thruth, even with Lucas innocent, something happened. The big house Bruun lives in, the place they went drinking after the hunt, wasn’t that the basement? Next time I see it I will have to check the wals 🙂 I had a feeling that when Lucas looked around the room to all the faces, anyone could be the real molester. Or plural. The Others as Klara said on Lucas front porch. Often when domeinen is wrongfully accused of child abuse, the child was abused by another person or several in a small community. Like the one in this movie. Anybody agree?


      • Did Lucus do it or was involved? I don’t think so – but Karla definitely encountered some behaviour that only should occur between adults. Grethe and Mum were quick to judge and didn’t really want to listen to Karla or probe for the truth.. they wanted the story to be be true. People see things how they think, and it’s not normal for people to think children are abused. Often people who perpetrate crime are the ones who protest the loudest and the shooter could well have been the guilty person… because one year later, who really has an invested interest to still hold discourse for Lucus? This film shows a dark side of humanity and while the mob thrived on the drama of Lucus, while the truth and importance of what damage had occurred to Karla by was lost. A theme common in todays world of politics and media.


  21. A very good film. I have a couple of questions and observations about this movie that I can’t get my mind around aside from ones others have mentioned. I realize movies have their limits too with them trying to build up the story.

    1. The incident in the market where he tries to buy the pork chops seems a bit contrived in how it plays out. In a previous scene, the manager told the son he and his father were not welcome to shop there. Yet, there he is shopping in the store. Now, maybe the son never tells the Dad about this incident so he doesn’t know. But wouldn’t they have told him to leave once he entered the store as the whole town knows about it. Also, this is a small town where everybody knows everybody so it seems strange the butcher wouldn’t know him. Then, the confrontation itself seems odd. The butcher is ok with him picking up various groceries but the point of no return is when he asks for some meat. It seems strange if the butcher is aware of the manager not allowing him in the store. It would only make sense if the butcher was told it was ok for him to shop in the store or the butcher did know he could shop in the store or not and was simply drawing his line in the sand at his butcher’s station. That being said, this scene was one of the strongest in the movie especially when he goes back in the store to headbutt the guy. The only thing seemed very real with the battling of emotions of fight or flight and standing up for oneself.

    2. I felt the church scene was one of the strongest scenes of the movie. I have mixed feelings on what was his motivation to go to the church. I feel part of it was his stubbornness to prove publicly that he was not guilty of the claims and wanted to show he had every right to be there before God and everyone. However, another part of me feels he was simply going there to seek a healing and vindication from God and to a lesser extent maybe the community. For he would know that God knew the truth and felt hearing God’s words in the service would help him especially after having to bury his dog who is his real devoted companion in the movie. And everything goes fine as he looks back at his friend proving to himself that I belong here and hearing the words of the priest that all are welcome. But then the scene changes when the children come in to sing and he is forced to confront the injustice against him again. Suddenly, it is no longer enough to just be there and his healing is ruined and he feels the need to confront his friend and proclaim his innocence.

    3. I am having trouble with his acceptance of his friends and even Klara toward the end of the film after people start to believe he is innocent. I don’t believe one could be so forgiving. People have focused so much on how the committee will never be able to fully accept him but I think that would be a too way street because he would know these folks betrayed him. I don’t think you can get over that. It is like a broken vase that even though it is glued back together again it still knows it was broken and who broke it. The scene with Klara seems too unbelievable to me. I don’t think he would put himself in that situation where he was in a room alone with her again and certainly not pick her up without others present. I think it would be far more likely you would see some detachment on his part towards the folks and you saw non of it.

    4. Another interesting aspect to the film was he never chose to call on the police about the various incidents of them killing his dog and throwing a rock through his window nor to call the police about the incident at the market. I don’t know if this was part of the masculine theme of the hunt or maybe he would feel it would not help his situation. But throughout the film he played the civilized man yet chose to address these situations in a more primal way rather than calling on the police which would be arguably the more civilized approach. But perhaps this is a more Danish small town way of handling things like this.

    I would also add to see if others had a similar feeling about this film. I knew this film had received good reviews yet I put off watching it for a long time because of the subject matter. I was fearful that I would not like seeing the witch hunt. I wonder if I am alone on this.


  22. Why do I keep thinking that the shooter is Marcus? It’s because the shooter didn’t give the second shoot, and therefore, I count that the shooter didn’t really mean to shoot Lucas.

    My interpretation is that Marcus, finally got his own rifle, shot his father symbolically. It is the symbol that he would revenge the community who had “stolen” everything from Lucas, his own father. In other words, I think Marcus gave sign like “Don’t worry, Dad, I will kill them all”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.