Discussion: What Really Happens in Kill List? *SPOILERS*
Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, released this past Friday is a baffling cinematic experience. If one believes the critics, it’s one of the best films of the year. On a film forum I frequent, of those who attended the preview screening at the Prince Charles Cinema last week, everyone hated it, without exception. Even the film’s biggest supporters talk up the film without delving too deeply into why. Instead, many review appear to have been drawn from a template which includes “kitchen sink drama” and “It’s best to know as little as possible before viewing it”. Others claim it to be a brilliant film… well, except for that third act.
Neil Maskell and director Ben Wheatley at the Prince Charles Cinema
Personally, I appear to be one of the few whom falls somewhere in between. Upon my first viewing of it at the UK premiere at FrightFest, I was totally confused. From a technical standpoint, for everything that Wheatley does well, there are silly mistakes such as the dialogue between Gal and Jay often being indecipherable. The background noise was too loud and the Maskell and Smiley just did not deliver their lines clearly enough. The editing is interesting. Or is it just bad. I wasn’t sure.
There are things which I could say for sure after one viewing. Firstly, MyAnna Buring is excellent in this. Michael Smiley adds a lot of fun and lightens the mood, which is needed, as Kill List gets very dark. It’s brutally violent and little is left to the imagination when it comes to the violence inflicted upon Kill List’s many victims. The hammer scene is easily the most disturbing imagery, while the tunnel scene is incredibly effective and certainly made me feel claustrophobic, even in the massive surrounds of the Empire.
What I was at a loss for following the first viewing was as follows: what the hell any of that was about? There is so much that is left unexplained, such as what exactly happened in Kiev and why Fiona left the marking behind the mirror and took Jay’s bloodied tissue. Or why Jay’s victims thank him, confusing both Jay and the audience. Going back to Fiona, why was she visiting Shel and what gift did she bring Sam? How did she end up outside the hotel and what the hell was that with the waving- which was also done by the girl prior to being hanged? And of course, that ending? Why upon being shot at, would these people rush the shooters? Why the hell does Jay willingly fight the hunchback and more importantly, why the hell would Shel, who had been shooting the cult members who were breaking in, wilfully participate when she should have easily recognised that she was fighting her husband? It just made no sense at all.
There was a Q&A that followed the premiere and Wheatley briefly mentioned that some scenes came from recurring nightmares he’d had. I left wondering if that was the key to Kill List. Was it partially or all a dream? I thought about it for days and went into a second viewing determined to keep a look-out for clues.
What I found was enlightening, yet even more frustrating. There are two instances when Jay is told to “Wake up, wake up, wake up!” first by his son, Sam and later by his wife, Shel. Jay is seen taking his pills on three occasions. So is he dreaming? Is it all in his mind? The dream theory is supported by parallels and foreshadowing. The sword fight between Jay and Shel, with Sam on her back, directly telegraphs that final scene. Jay discovering the rabbit’s entrails left by the cat is similar to how he finds Gal in the cave. Gal himself is linked to the cat, as they both bring Jay rabbits. The play fight Jay and Gal have at the end of the dinner party later becomes a real fight in Jay’s home. The Christians at the hotel restaurant could be represented in a dream by the cult. While there are these connections, there is no clear way of determining what any of it means. The editing could have been means to show that it’s all a dream, as scenes start and end abruptly at times. The GP visit makes little sense in any context other than a dream, but still, the pieces simply do not add up. The clues seem to lead to dead ends. As the second viewing came to an end, I was even more confused. It’d be totally out of character for Shel to knowingly try to kill her husband and yet that’s what is presented. That remnants of one’s day are revisited in their dreams would make sense of Kill List. Unfortunately, if it is a dream, there’s no way of knowing when it begins.
There was another Q&A following the film with Wheatley, Maskell, Buring and Smiley. I asked the cast what their initial response was when they read the script. Both Buring and Smiley admitted that they read it incorrectly initially and got the tone totally wrong. Maskell said that he thought the end was the only way it could have finished. He saw it as the bad things Jay is responsible for coming back to get him. It was also discussed as Kill List being a sort of political allegory. None of this felt particularly satisfying to me. After the Q&A, I got a chance to speak to Wheatley about the film, and mentioned my dream theory. He didn’t shoot this down. Instead he said it was a version of Arthurian legend. He tried to explain this a bit but was being pulled in several directions at once.
When I arrived home, I scoured the internet for an explanation. I searched through loads of Arthurian legend (and there is a LOT of it) and came up empty-handed. I eventually gave up, but not before sending a few tweets Ben Wheatley’s way, asking if he could point me in the right direction. I’ve had no response.
MyAnna Burning, alongside Michael Smiley, discusses the filming process
What are we left with? Kill List is a good movie, despite its flaws. I surely wouldn’t say that it’s 5 star material or one of the year’s best. If I was going to say that, I’d certainly back up my argument, which I don’t see many reviewers doing. I’m all for intelligent movies that get stuck in one’s head and inspires discussion and thought. What I’m not for is films that leave so much unsaid and unexplained. Kill List makes the viewer really work for an understanding, yet I’m afraid that there is no understanding that can truly be had here. The clues end up feeling like misdirection. I really wanted to be able to piece this film together. I wanted to be blown away by Wheatley’s film like all the critics are. However, that is absolutely not possible after two attempts and I don’t feel that a third or fourth viewing would make matters any better.
For all that is good and all that is bad about Kill List, in the end, it doesn’t make any sense. If one accepts the film as a straightforward story, it makes no sense. If one approaches it as a dream, it still doesn’t make sense. If this is some Arthurian legend being re-told, akin to how O Brother Where Art Thou re-tells The Odyssey, someone please explain how this is so.
What do you think? I’m interested in getting different peoples’ interpretations and opinions on this. Have I missed the point? Did you miss the point too?
Edit 14 January 2012: This is from Ben Wheatley’s Twitter feed earlier today, regarding questions as to whether Shel is part of the cult or not.
So that is the final word on that argument then. Certainly the home release of Kill List in the UK has ramped up the debate over exactly what the hell it’s all about. Despite all the theories, it is becoming increasingly clear that only Ben Wheatley knows for certain. I’m still not sure that he has succeeded in making a great film, but there is no denying he has given cinema lovers a great deal to talk about with Kill List, and love it or hate it, it sticks with the viewer far longer than the latest Michael Bay shitfest does.
123 Responses to “Discussion: What Really Happens in Kill List? *SPOILERS*”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- - 21/09/2011
I saw Kill List on Friday. I enjoyed it but, like you, I really struggled to find any sort of coherent narrative to the film. It’s perhaps a bit unkind to suggest the film is deliberately designed to confuse, to actually be meaningless, but I don’t see what other conclusion can be reached.
Good performances though.
I suspected the woman killed the cat, he cooked it and ate it, but I also thought her leaving the bathroom with the bloodied tissues and assumed knife she had killed the kid, knowing she hadnt I then suspected that Gal was a fiddler who had agreed to the job and Maskell was mistaken for him by taking lead, hence them all thanking him. Then I thought perhaps she was double agenting them by setting them up for a previous violent act before suspecting the wife had it into him for maybe an act in her own country. Too much time wasted with no questions explained, did sort of enjoy the film but far too much with far too many maybe, maybe and maybe, if but when and possiblys? I suspect due to the so many misleads almost anyone could make a better film with a more followable story line, I mean….its not like we’re all so stupid we missed the point is it? I dont consider there was a point except to make such a fooray to entice people to watch…hang on, maybe we did?
How come nobody has mentioned that some of the people that were killed during the film reappeared alive during the final scene. Most notably the librarian who gets his face smashed in before being killed in shows up again looking completely fine and capable of holding a knife in a hand that was broken into a million pieces by a hammer. Its not a cult that involves killing people who do not want to commit suicide as the girl that waves at jay before being hung kicks the block of wood she is standing on out from underneath herself. There is definitely some kind of coming back from the dead element going on here, jay clearly serves a purpose in this and is even crowned at the end showing his significance in the whole thing.
I hate to sound like a prick Carwihan, but I had an easier time understanding the film than your dreadful use of the English grammar…..and I haven’t a clue about Kill List.
British schools have a lot to answer for.
I agree with this post entirely. I started to realise during the third act that there were going to be a lot of plot threads that need explaining and not a lot of time to do that in. I think I started giving up a little then on reading the plot and just enjoyed the intensity of the tunnel fights – which were very well shot.
I guess I also just needed a bit more from the story – initially I decided it was just lazy writing. I’ve kind of decided that the way I want to look at it is that we see Jay through the story, he makes it to the end understanding as little as we do about all the things that happened. We have just followed him on his ‘journey’ I guess. But that train of thought also renders the scenes with Fiona alone in the bathroom completely irrelevant. Its ok to have some red herrings if some of the clues actually lead somewhere, right?
Re the end scene – its possible that Shel didn’t know it was him, as he did have a mask on. Also, the ending is pretty much exactly the same as a Serbian Film, which is kind of odd.
Saying all that, I enjoyed the film minute-by-minute very much. I thought the end scene, and specifically the final shot were perfect. I just wish that when the title card came up we were all left saying ‘wow’, rather than ‘huh?’
I really enjoyed the film. It had an extremely bleak atmosphere that occasionally reminded me of the 1970′s Sidney Lumet film “The Offence”. Which is a similar film in that it leaves the viewer asking “a lot of questions”….and why exactly should everyone make a film that explains everything A to Z to the viewer? Why be so upset that things like ‘Kiev’ are not discussed in depth. To me it gave a view of a story outside of the confines of the film – something that the characters knew about but weren’t prepared to discuss even with each other. It lets your own imagination have free reign to consider what could have gone on there. I like that dark, mysterious aspect.
The commentator above who asked “why did the woman carve the symbol on the rear of the mirror? and why take the bloodstained tissue?”.
Man, please. Any slight research regarding witchcraft or folk beliefs would have uncovered this. To leave symbols on someones property essentially ‘marks them out’ – a bit like leaving a curse. It isn’t meant to be discovered but hidden without arousing the suspicion of the victim who would remove or negate it. Possessing hair, nailclippings etc (especially blood) was to ‘have control of an individual’. Voodoo dolls and the like were often accompanied by strands of the victims hair etc.
Anyone who doesn’t get this film should buy themselves the back catalog of Hammer Horror films, and come at this afresh. It certainly rates as highly as any of the classics of that genre in my opinion.
Your point about witchcraft is taken and in my opinion, would be more acceptable if there weren’t so many questions left unanswered. I also believe that with slight exception, a film needs to stand on it’s own. To say one needs to familiarise oneself with the Hammer back catalogue in order to understand this film is folly. To me, that suggests that Wheatley has relied too strongly on the groundwork of others. That’s disappointing, especially for a film touted as being so original.
I’m fine with some open-endedness in films, books, etc, but to leave so much open just seems lazy. It seems to me that many people who have seen this film are searching for answers and that’s because there is simply too many questions presented. Having seen it twice, I’m not convinced Wheatley even has the answers.
I’m with you on this one – can’t believe people can’t understand this, especially as the film leaves plenty of time to digest all the many cult references. That said, I was still totally shocked by the ending, but, in my opinion, it all ties up pretty well and there isn’t much left unanswered unless you try to look at it in a logical way (and a film about the occult isn’t really going to be logical is it?). When you think back to the beginning, the woman who leaves the mark on the mirror even explains she’s in ‘HR’, and is in charge of removing/replacing unwanted staff. This, quite simply, is actually an in-joke based on the occult membership. There is another reference from the ‘hirer’ about restructuring or something when he talks to the two hitmen. Again, this is a reference to wiping out members of the cult that have done what they need to do to pass over to, I assume, the reward of hell (thus the ‘thank yous’ from the victims). It’s like the initiation of the new order and the removal of the old. Whether Jay is aware of what is going on is questionable. Not sure whether he’s being controlled by the cult or has been in it all along – doesn’t really matter. I think it’s clear his wife isn’t involved though and the people who suggest she willingly fights him are obviously not watching the film – she’s tied up and covered in a fecking sheet and pushed towards him. Why does the girl go round to see his wife? They are preparing them. Is it a dream? Why would it be? As for the doctor, though confusing at first watch, I think the idea is that he too is mixed up the whole cult. Anyway, don’t know why it even needs explanation. Did people ask this stuff about Rosemary’s Baby, the Wicker Man etc? For me this is a modern horror classic and it ain’t rocket science. Now I know why people slate Sucker Punch so much, if you want to be confused, I suggest watching that.
where do you buy your witchcraft books from? is it the same place you get your smart books? no, because you are not smart. You only like to think so. I think that the dream theory is not real, but you are the one who should wake up. Its a joke stupid!
Or has anyone considered that Shel is bringing Jay into this or that she’s part of it? The picture of her in a uniform in the beginning, who is she speaking to on the phone and what was she saying? That when Gal offers to say grace at dinner she says ” not at my table”. That Fiona is at the house alone with her when Jay comes back unexpectedly, she seemed very surprised and yet very familiar with Fiona.
Or that the symbol that Fiona draws on the back of the mirror is incomplete, she doesn’t draw the circle around it?
Also, in the beginning she says to Fiona,”he’s the one”, Fiona says,”the love of your life?” And she says “no, the one that started all this….”. Started what??
I think you do miss the point because if its a dream, then a dream has its own logic and indeed will ‘not make sense’ in terms of conventional real life logic.
I hate to say it but you seem to wear proudly a lack of academic qualifications in terms of film. You write very well and would sharpen your critical faculties even more if you had some familiarity of the field of Film Studies, which you seem prone to dismiss.
I take issue with your apparent wish to have everything ‘explained’. Good film art isn’t about explaining everything away neatly and resolving things. If you want that, there are plenty of Hollywood formulas at the multiplex.
The point of films like Kill List and the pleasures they offer is they reflect the struggles, conundrums and frustrations of life itself which is without neat explanations, messy, full of loose ends and issues which often never properly are resolved, but which we have to continue to struggle with.
I’m profoundly impressed by this film which busts through genres and I ll write an extensive review on my website http://www.retrofilm.biz
For the moment my interpretation of Kill List is as: Genre piece of British horror about a death cult which manipulates a hit man to murder his own wife and child. On a deeper level, it could be read as reflecting the horrors lurking beneath the surface of the culture from which emerges…a country fighting wars in distant lands against obscure enemies, a society deeply ill at ease and anxious in social, economic terms, profound anxieties about children. In that sense the films maybe saying something about the nihilism of contemporary Britain through the death cult members. The ending seemed pretty clear to me – a suicide cult.
I just read your answer to a previous post in which you argue a film should stand on its own. Texts such as films, books, tv programmes never ‘stand on their own’ they always refer to one another. Google the term intertextuality.
I ll say it again, your already sharp observations would be even sharper were you to get some grounding in critical theory.
I appreciate your points. What I disagree with is the assertion that I want everything explained. That is not the case. My problem lies with the fact that so much goes unexplained and that there are so many hints that it’s not as straightforward as it may seem on the surface, yet those hints lead to dead ends.
You’re right about my lack of familiarity of film studies and lack of qualifications. It’s not so much that I am proud of this as it is the fact that it is what it is. The vast majority of cinema goers have not studied film. I’m definitely not alone in being confused and frustrated about Kill List, as my page and search stats show. The bigger issue I then take with film critics is that they are, in many cases, not recognising their audience and at least warning that this will not be a film for everyone. As a result, I know of many people who have gone into Kill List with high hopes based on the rave reviews and come out terribly disappointed. My goal on this blog is to approach films from the viewpoint of those without a degree in film theory, because like it or not, those people make up the majority of cinema audiences. I’m not interested in the snobbery that says valid criticism of art made for the many can only come from the few with whose degrees make them experts.
“For the moment my interpretation of Kill List is as: Genre piece of British horror about a death cult which manipulates a hit man to murder his own wife and child. ”
My thoughts exactly! Now my only question to debate is: Was Jay in on it or not?
There are so many clues in this film that seriously make me think that Jay was not manipulated but wanted to be part of the cult.
“My problem lies with the fact that so much goes unexplained and that there are so many hints that it’s not as straightforward as it may seem on the surface, yet those hints lead to dead ends.”
The fact that none of it is straightforward is what makes this film stand out. But you are right that some hints lead to a dead end and I definitely want to see this film again to find those possible leads.
“The bigger issue I then take with film critics is that they are, in many cases, not recognising their audience and at least warning that this will not be a film for everyone. As a result, I know of many people who have gone into Kill List with high hopes based on the rave reviews and come out terribly disappointed”
You made some great valid points in your review but have to disagree with the warning you mention above. This film has not been promoted as a film for everyone. Hell, even the poster reads ‘scariest film in years’ (highly overexaturated and my own personal issue is that this film should never have been classified as a horror film. It is a thriller.)
)
For people to go and see a film with high hopes is their own fault. Not the reviewers’. Don’t read too much about a film expect for one or maybe 2 good review and just go and watch the film in the theatre.
I learned from my own mistakes when I read review after review, went to see the film and came out completely disappointed! (Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland! Overhyped and I was expecting it to be so much better
I’m with you! What I try to do on my short courses, because few people have the time and means to undertake a degree in Film Studies or whatever, is to equip people with more critical tools so that they’re able to get more enjoyment from films which they find baffling or frustrating.
I think one should be prepared to take a risk. You can’t know, until you’ve been to see a film, whether you’ll like it or not and there’s much debate about the role of film reviewers. I ve now put a review of Kill List on the imdb in which I say a much better word for it is ‘noir’ rather than thriller or horror. Noir encompasses both genres actually its quite an overused term but I think Kill Lists pessimistic outlook, protagonists caught up in events over which they ve no control, the cinematography of gloomy interiors are solid noir tropes.
I quite accept your criticism film critics are in many cases not recognising their audience. But I ll reiterate, part of the fun in movie going is taking a risk and acccepting you might be disappointed.
Finally, can I point you in the direction of the book Film Art by Bordwell and Thompson, standard text book book for AS level or undergrad, has pretty much all the film theory you ll ever need also The Oxford History of World Cinema by Geoffrey Nowell Smith. Put em on your Christmas list, you ll find them very useful for referring to and can dip in and out. I use them constantly.
Nice site btw which I ve now bookmarked.
I was confused by the ending of this film, as I’m sure many others were. I have always considered myself a fairly film-literate person, but this film knocked me on my ass! I had not considered the theory that Jay was part of the suicide cult from the start. This certainly explains some things, such as his victims thanking him. However this does leave more questions about shel and gals involvement. But as many commenters have said, there is no need to understand everything in this film. I agree that perhaps this film raises questions just for the sake of provoking debate, however I can appreciate that an air of mystery certainly adds to the intrigue and appeal of the film. I, like others, watched this film with high expectations due to the favourable reviews. And although I was disappointed by the end, your intelligent comments have certainly put things in perspective and gave me a new appreciation for this film.
Aside from the films obvious plot holes, I would like to talk about the more cinematic qualities of the film, such as performance and cinematography. One of the things that impressed me the most about this film was the way you truly believe these characters. These are two middle aged, unremarkable men. However the films intelligent script and superb acting make you really believe that these characters are dangerous individuals. The films depictions of violence are shockingly graphic and realistic. The cameras unflinching depiction of a man having his fingers smashed with a hammer are both unwaveringly brutal, and cinematically brave.
Overall I enjoyed the film, perhaps not as much as I expected. It does not make much sense and it was not what many people were expecting, however as a pure expression of the emotive effects of cinema, it delivers.
I find your advice for the blogger to get a grounding in critical theory quite arrogant. You might think you sound enlightened and enlightening but you sound condescending – like you don’t agree with the direct opinion of the blogger about this film and instead of admit his/her opinion might be valid you prefer to suggest their opinion might change dramatically if they ‘understood’ more. I have a film background and am advanced in film analysis as well as coming from a filmmaking family and living with a filmmaker, but I prefer to blog in plain English about my opinion on films, and I agree with much of this review. Plus, there’s that detail – I blog about my perception, my opinion – not fact. This blogger is also commenting on their experience, their perception, their opinion. You shouldn’t insinuate that if they had a formal education in critical analysis they would think the film worked better. I understood the film but in my personal opinion everything this blogger has said is valid, in that it highlights that for many the choices made about how to convey the meaning and implications of the story was not done well, or perhaps more precisely was not executed well enough to make them feel it was a fulfilling cinematic experience for them. Personally I didn’t see any need to consider the possibility of a dream, but that was only because I found the choices made in conveying the story to be shallow, simplistic and underwhelming, with a lot of screentime willfully focussed on – the imperfect narrative choices seem to indicate just that – an imperfect narrative, that is what it is. I don’t feel the need to watch the film multiple times because I was not engaged enough to care about the characters much. That is my reason for rating this film as not very good. These are valid opinions even if yours is very different.
LondonFilmFanatiq, you make some excellent points. The story hasn’t been executed with envious perfection, take from it what you want – if you had an exhaustive education in how to pick apart films you may still think this film was not satisfying. Like myself, if you had background in film theory you might find yourself furnished with yet more reasons to feel underwhelmed.
I ll continue to argue for the value of education in enabling understanding, developing the ability to think critically. However, if I thought the bloggers opinion wasn’t valid, I wouldn’t be on this site responding to it and posting!
I m not trying to be condescending btw. I love film and I find I get even more enjoyment as a result of studying the subject as a mature student. I d like to see more people benefit from education.
Thanks to that education, I can situate Kill List in a much wider context of European art house cinema, as well as Film Noir. Film Noir is a much debated term but for our purposes Kill List has several of its attributes: a pessimistic world view, characters caught up in circumstances over which they’ve no control, and stylistically there’s the gloomy interiors.
The ‘imperfect narrative choices’ are quite deliberate on the part of the film maker and belong in that tradition of European art cinema which intends to elicit certain responses in the viewer.
Essentially, its about trying to reflect the reality of life itself, which is untidy, messy, doesn t have neat explanations.
I m sorry if you or other people find my posts arrogant or condescending. I m not arrogant in real life. Honest.
I like your interpretation of kill list, it has helped me to reach a conclusion along the lines, thanks
google intertextuality? that’s so funny. critical theory is so up itself. quite literally.
I think you should look up the word condescension
I have grounding in critical theory. I am critical of you critical thinking, As in. It is bad. See, i am the one with the smarts! only a stupid would ctiticise someone critisizing someone else. Cant you si the eyerony in this? In fact, i bet someone will criticice me for critizizing you for creetizising the film – kill lists.
@ Tom Pointon, you mention, “I hate to say it but you seem to wear proudly a lack of academic qualifications in terms of film. You write very well and would sharpen your critical faculties even more if you had some familiarity of the field of Film Studies, which you seem prone to dismiss.”
Sorry to burst your high superiority bubble but you don’t need a degree in Film Studies to make a judgement, analyse or form an opinion about a film.
It’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard – this isn’t rocket science or medicine, it’s just a film! Get over yourself and your poxy academic qualification in Film Studies.
Also, I think the blogger here mentions his reviews are based on the opinion of an everyday cinema-goer, not a pompous Film Studies graduate (actually, did you even get that far?). I highly doubt that the majority of cinema-goers whose money goes towards these films look at it from the angle that an almighty Film Studies graduate might.
LondonFilmFanatiq’s reviews are great and I very much agree with him on most accounts.
Oh and please do send us a link to your blog so we can sit and read Your Highness’s film reviews and what they should apparently look like.
I haven t said anyone needs a degree or other qualification to review a film or form a judgement. I said that film fanatiqs critical faculties would be sharpened by some grounding in film theory. Its like adding to a box of tools, it gives you more angles to come at it from and maybe be able to see a bit more.
‘I think the blogger here mentions his reviews are based on the opinion of an everyday cinema-goer, not a pompous Film Studies graduate (actually, did you even get that far?). I highly doubt that the majority of cinema-goers whose money goes towards these films look at it from the angle that an almighty Film Studies graduate might’.
I have an MA in Film and TV Studies from Warwick. At a time when the Humanities are under sustained assault, I will continue to argue for the value of education in teaching people how to think critically, how to analyse, how to make sense of the world.
One of the things I ve tried to do is share the benefits of my education by running short courses in community settings away from academic institutions so that more people can benefit.
My website is at http://www.retrofilm.biz where you can find out a bit more about what I do if you’re interested.
I got the chance to see this film with ShowFilmFirst and really liked the film. Mainly because I love films that are not easy to figure out, have good balance between violence and well-timed comedy but most of all I love films that make you talk about it for a while afterwards. Whether you liked the film or not.
And this film certainly does that.
So far this is what I think the storyline is (spoilers ahead of course!):
The cult takes money from people that want to die but can’t get themselves to commit suicide. So the cult hires hitmen like Jay to do the job.
His first 2 victims thanks Jay because they knew he was coming to kill them. They felt remorse to whatever sins they commited and choose to get killed rather than to commit suicide.
Also, the doctor might have been in on it as well. He reacted too casually towards Jay’s hand injury. As if he knew what caused it and by who.
Initially we are meant to believe that Jay thinks this is a ‘normal’ hit man job but I seriously think that Jay knew all along what was going on. I have a strong feeling that Jay took on the kill list to become a member of the cult.
I don’t know for sure if he saw the real Fiona through the window when he waved at her or if it was his conscience as a reminder of the pact he made with the cult.
Fiona marked the back of the mirror to symbolize the start of Jay’s journey to join the cult.
Why is he joining? Not sure but a big possibility is that it has to do with his past in Kiev. And perhaps is unhappy marriage to Shel.
The symbol was also drawn on a piece of paper that fell out of the manila folder that Gal was going through when he was sitting on the floor in the hotel.
The dead animals left in his backyard, what if the cult left it there for him? Eating the rabbit (was it really rabbit meat??) was part of the ritual of becoming a cult member.
For me, one deal he had to make to join this cult was to kill Shel. He did not seem very suprised or shocked when he saw it was her on the ground.
I don’t think his son was meant to be part of it. The way Fiona looked slightly shocked for a few secs after she took of her mask makes me think she was taken aback by this turn of events as well.
After that they simply crowned Jay as a member (or even a leader?)
Now some obvious questions as to why my thoughts above might not make sense:
Did Gal knew all along as well? Was he in on it? Or was his death not meant to happen?
Which also leads me to think why the cult group was following the guys through the tunnel if they knew Jay was about to join them as a new member?
Why was Shel laughing at the end? Because she knew and sacrificed herself or because this was a human reaction? She got stabbed to death, knew her son was tied to her back, could feel the knife killing her son as well, lying on the ground bleeding to death and seeing your husband’s face underneath the mask. (this is a weird example but at a recent funeral I also started laughing when people came up to me with their condolence because it was the only way I could express myself for some strange reason. it’s that feeling of not knowing what to do with yourself so all you can do is start laughing)
So the other theory could be:
Jay thought he was asigned a normal hitlist job. Cult has their eye on Jay for a very long time as they know of his past as a sharp shooter and the things that happened in Kiev.
These 3 people wanted to die and Jay has been picked out unknowingly to do the job on behalf of this cult. But why would they have involved Shel? What was their motivation.
If I really think of all the events throughout the film I truly think that Jay wanted to enter the cult and the entire film was a red haring in that respect.
Sorry for the long post
Was it me or did his shirt have the symbol in stitches and one point? Maybe I’m just going mad.
“Was it me or did his shirt have the symbol in stitches and one point? Maybe I’m just going mad.”
Good question! I didn’t even noticed that. Can you remember at what point in the film you might have seen this?
I am definitely going to watch this film again. Interesting to see if it all links up to the strange ending.
Is the strange symbol Fiona carves in the back of the mirror tattooed on Jay and Gal’s fore arms? You see a tattoo, but I couldn t make out the design of it.
I will see this film again because there’s lots of details I m sure are key.
My reading is it’s an allegory of contemporary Britain my full review is on imdb or retrofilm.biz I ll review it again soon.
Good theory about the suicide but where it doesn’t make sense is that The Librarian says thank you but also mentions something along the lines that Gal doesn’t know what Jay is but he knows, as if Jay is something that Gal isn’t.
From all the comments posted by others, my conclusions were similar to the one’s on your post.
The only difference I felt was that it could actually be his wife Shel who was in on it the whole time. My opinion is that Jay wasnt involved, that he actually thought he was assigned 3 hits, yet his wife was unhappy and paid a cult (thats where the 40 grand is gone when arguing at start of film) to end their lives instead of commiting suicide (just like the priest and the paedophile) – thats why they thanked him when he was killing them…..
The woman who waves calmly while hanging clearly shows us that this is a part of a suicide cult.
I also feel thats why Shel starts laughing at the end when she is dying – because she is finally relieved of her pain. Not sure why she is shooting people before that but sure its a suicide pact so maybe shes just killing others that want to die aswel…. Also Jay comes home early one day to find Fiona and Shel in their home, maybe this is the first indication to let us know that Shels in on it, and shes discussing with Fiona whats going to happen – (Is Fiona one of the cult leaders? People were asking why did she carve the sign into back of the mirror and takes Jay’s bloodied tissue – well just like the rabbit hanging from the front porch, these are rituals from the cult letting us know that it’s started and while Jay thinks he’s assigned to a job he’s actually the cults next victim (thats why its his bloodied tissue Fiona takes)
This film was made to shock people and make people come to their own conclusions, Wheatley has done a good job as he knew that by making the film so confusing it would get people talking!
While I mostly enjoyed the film I was really confused (and a more than a little disappointed) by the ending. Maybe it’s because I don’t have a Masters in film studies but why make a film that only 0.001% of people will understand and then release it to huge cinema chains where those people clearly do not gather. To me a good cliff hanger leaves small threads for viewers to chew on after the film. Things like “what was the motivation for a couple of actions” or “what would happen were the film to keep running” (ie. what does the film imply will happen to the characters?). This film seemed to just run to the most obscure and confusing ending it could and leave no basis for speculation as to what happened or what will happen. The film changes in meaning vastly based on the whole supernatural thing. I realise that blood manipulation and marks are classic witchcraft icons but that does not explain if the woman is actually a witch or if she is a mad cult member and thinks she is a witch. What was the significance of the story he told his son? Did that happen to him or was that a throwaway line to make the character seem more deep or to try to make the film more topical? Was it supposed to be some kind of social commentary? What was the significance of the animals? Did the cult leave them there for him to find? Was his eating of the rabbit some kind of witchcraft related stuff? What was on the TV that made him go mad? Did any of the second half actually happen? Was it real? A dream? I could have had a few of these left unanswered but nowhere near all of them. Half the people in my nearly empty screen laughed as they went out and a couple commented “that made no sense”. I feel that either the film was far too clever and subtle for most people (including myself) or it was trying to be much more clever than it actually was, and frankly I suspect the latter.
I don’t think only 0.001% of the people will understand the ending
But it is definitely a film that needs to be watched again to try and put all the pieces together and you are definitely asking some good questions!
i can definitely understand that a lot of people don’t want to see a film twice so that their questions might be answered.
But I liked the fact that this film at first seems quite ambigious and doesn’t have a straight forward ending that solves everything.
Not sure if my replies answer your questions as it is purely my personal view and pure speculation
“This film seemed to just run to the most obscure and confusing ending it could and leave no basis for speculation as to what happened or what will happen. ”
Actually, for me it left a huge basis for speculation as to what happened or what will happen. All I kept asking myself was why Jay ended up in this situation and what will happen next. Is he meant to be a new member or was he a target of the cult? How will he respond to his wife and son’s death depending whether he killed them on purpose or he really didn’t know that it was them?
“but that does not explain if the woman is actually a witch or if she is a mad cult member and thinks she is a witch.”
What I got from the film was that she was jut a mad cult member and the cult believed in human and animal sacrifices.
“What was the significance of the story he told his son? Did that happen to him or was that a throwaway line to make the character seem more deep or to try to make the film more topical? Was it supposed to be some kind of social commentary?”
Good question! I can’t even remember the conversation anymore. What scene was this again?
“What was the significance of the animals? Did the cult leave them there for
him to find? Was his eating of the rabbit some kind of witchcraft related stuff?”
I think it was the cult leaving it behind for him. These scenes also made me believe or wonder if Jay knew it wasn’t the cat who left it behind. It is possible that Jay wanted to be part of the cult (his wife not being aware of this) and he secretly ate the animals given by the cult as part of his list of things he had to do to become a member.
“What was on the TV that made him go mad?”
We can assume that it was a video of the guy who’s head he bashed in with a hammer abusing young children as he was a pedophile.
“Did any of the second half actually happen? Was it real? A dream?”
There are people who speculate it was a dream as Jay can be seen taking pain killers.
I think it was all real and Jay’s intention from the beginning of the film was to enter this cult. So the whole hitman-story is just a red haring about a man doing these things for this cult.
I thought it was really interesting when Jay was talking to the Librarian on his own. He was like “it’s such an honour to meet you”, which makes it seem like Jay wasn’t a typical member of the gang.
Due to Jay’s war background, the potential for post-war traumatic syndrome ties nicely into the way the movie is edited together. Jay sometimes seems lost in the world he inhabits.
I thought the movie was really shocking and a hugely emotional journey. It moves from suburban life through to killing and then tribal cult fighting. The intensity was insane.
Does anyone else remember the scene where Fiona asks Shel how old her son is? Shel has to think about it before she answers. On one level this is perfectly normal, I sometimes have to pause if someone asks me the same thing, but on another level does this reveal her lack of feelings/empathy for the child and explain why she could therefore be a part of the cult and prepared to sacrifice him at the end? Has the entire upbringing of the son been leading up to this final event?
That seems far-fetched now I’ve written it down, but if it wasn’t an important detail why write that pause into the script at all?
Having read LFF’s comments above, the 3 or 4 real life events that are re-created in “the dream” is quite a convincing argument, so i’m still not sure which side of the real/dream debate i fall.
If she can’t recall his age, does that indicate he is not her child but someone elses? Children are often really important in films and I have a feeling his character has some big significance. What effect would it have on the film if Sam was not present?
I’m liking the suicide cult idea, does help make sense of both the members reaction to the gunfire (running towards it) and why Jay and Gal’s employers would be performing a ritual where they’d paid for two psychotic hit men to be visiting.
My gut feeling is that the dream theory is a dead end, and the director would never admit to it anyway. And I doubt Jay was a willing volunteer. What I haven’t seen suggested is that Fiona recruited Shel and Shel decided to take Sam with her.
“What I haven’t seen suggested is that Fiona recruited Shel and Shel decided to take Sam with her.”
Good point. This probably hasn’t been suggested because nothing else, in my personal opinion
, in the film seems to imply this could be possible.
She and Jay do argue a lot and she does seem very unhappy with their marriage and financial state. But when I re-think this film again it really seemed as it Jay went through all the ‘necessary’ steps to become a cult-member.
One thing that I wondered about that might suggest that Jay was a willing participant is the fact that Gal wants to back out of the contract and Jay doesn’t. Jay goes so far as to say Gal is going soft, arguing with him in the garage and dismissing the fact that Gal found dossiers, with very recent pictures, on both of them. That would have raised a red flag with anyone , especially someone as paranoid as Jay. Also he doesn’t say a word when they meet with the client to arrange replacement hitmen and leaves it to Gal to talk their way out of it.
Jay also seemed surprised to see Fiona at his home when he came back early but it didn’t seem to be the “what’s my mate’s ex doing here?” kind of reaction but more of a “why are you here? you’re going to ruin everything”. Almost like she went there as a warning to make sure he followed through. He really didn’t seem too surprised at the end either when he saw he just killed his wife and son. No “oh my god what have I done?” reaction. Just stand and stare.
I think Gal represents Jay’s conscience, or his somewhat tenuous grasp on morality. I’m just remembering this off the top of my head but here goes…
Gal is never really present for the murders at first. He is hiding behind Jay in the dark closet when he shoots the priest, he is upstairs for the hammer scene, he’s in the car for the construction site, though he finally appears at the end for the second guy. It’s almost like he is protected from the violence until the M.P.
Gal isn’t sure about killing the priest, is troubled by the domestic issues, is upset with Jay’s increasing violence, tries to get them out of the contract, and counsels him not to shoot at the cultist. Jay finally puts Gal, and his conscience out of his misery after he is mortally wounded by the cultist in the tunnel, conveniently while he is abandoned by Jay.
To this end Gal seems to know or at least be aware that something larger is going on, but tries to protect and slow Jay’s decent, as we would our consciences to do, it’s not a separate part of us that is unaware of what we are thinking and doing. He knows about the cult, he knows about the domestic issues, and tries, as Jay’s conscience, to save him. In the end though, Jay’s conscience fails.
I’ve read a bit about it and this is what I think fits: there are very strong elements of the occult and perhaps Jay is being set up as the Anti-Christ, he is clearly guided by everyone around him along a path to the final scene, where he wears the crown. Interestingly and not often pointed out is that the real sacrifice is not his wife, whose knowing smile and meetings with Shel hint of her involvement, but rather the killing of his own son, the only real innocent in the movie. His wife actually presents her son to be killed, and attacks Jay to ensure the deed is done. The movie is filled with these culty bits like the sign on the mirror, dead animals, bloody rags and the blood contract.
All of this I think falls into place when you consider the film as a political allegory as stated by a previous poster. Indeed the three men on the list represent three pillars of our society; Priest (religion), Librarian (academia), and the MP (political leaders or systems). All three are clearly corrupted and are not only portrayed as deserving dead, but seem to be seeking it and are thankful for it. Throw in the PTSD references and Jay and Gals decent from British Military to contract killers and we have an image of a sick society on a downward spiral where our institutions are corrupted, our consciences are fighting a losing battle, and murder and death seems to be the answer.
Perhaps summed like this: we are unknowingly, or unwittingly destroying our own cherished institutions for reasons which are not really clear to us. Our consciences are weak, moldable, and somewhat complacent letting us down in the end. The slope is slippery, eventually ending up with us destroying the the very basic goodness in us (killing the innocent child, our offspring no less). The fact that Jay doesn’t seem to really know what he’s doing at all, serves to further illustrate that we are marching down this path blindfolded, but ignorance is no protection, Jay doesn’t know he’s stabbing his son, but the boy is no less dead for it. Perhaps the message is OPEN YOUR EYES.
I know this is all a bit discombobulated, but I’ve just finished watching the movie and putting it all together. I don’t have film study experience, but I am a student of critical thinking and this type of film is a gold mine of literary devices.
Through writing this I really like the movie a lot more than I did right after my viewing.
Skill – saw the movie last night; couldn’t understand a damn thing then read all the comments here. After reading your comment I am satisfied. Thank you!
Skill, I think you nailed it, and if you didn’t then you created a version of the truth that makes more sense than the movie ever could.
Like many others I was complety into this movie up to the final 15 minutes and after it ended I tried to make sense of it all and had to come to the web to for any type of “real” answers. Someone put it well when they said no one knows what was going on in this film, but for the one’s who thought they have it figured out I noticed they kept falling on the theory that he was chosen from the beginning by this cult which is why everyone was thanking him.
My question is chosen for what? This was a suicide cult best I could tell from the movie and everyone’s description, so what was he “chosen” for. There was no executioner, these people had no problem hanging themselves. The cult made no sense which is why the movie made no sense. I think before anyone can rightly claim to have figured out this movie they should be able to fully explain the point and agenda of this cult. What was going to be his role in it, and if finding someone with such a strong killing streak was required why did it matter as they clearly celebrated suicide and not sacrificing innocents.
This movie was great until the end which just sucked. I agree with others that they obviously just tried to sell shock in the end to increase the pay off, but without an real motivation by the cult it just left the entire movie out of whack.
I guess we will never know what it was all about, which was probably the plan anyway so everyone would debate it.
Thanks to all the commenters since it helps me get some color around this brain-wrenching movie…
Here’s my two pennies after reading all your posts…
The original post mentioned:
“The dream theory is supported by parallels and foreshadowing. The sword fight between Jay and Shel, with Sam on her back, directly telegraphs that final scene. Jay discovering the rabbit’s entrails left by the cat is similar to how he finds Gal in the cave. Gal himself is linked to the cat, as they both bring Jay rabbits. The play fight Jay and Gal have at the end of the dinner party later becomes a real fight in Jay’s home. The Christians at the hotel restaurant could be represented in a dream by the cult. ”
I feel that this is the “white rabbit” (so to speak) of the movie. The point was made in the movie that Jay was mentally disturbed from his previous job(s). So much so that he had not taken up work for 8 months. This could explain all scenes (delusions / dreams) that relate to his “Kill List” or job.
There were ‘real-life’ scenes that translated into the “job” scenes. As mentioned above it occurs repeatedly.
– Shel, Sam and Jay play sword-fighting = Jay dreaming / hallucinating the end-scene.
– Hanging cat (perhaps kids / gypsies) = Jay dreaming of the hanging female who comitted suicide
– Entrails of rabbit = Jay dreaming of Gal’s entrails.
– Shel insisting that no grace was necessary at the table = Jay dreaming the job to kill the priest (bit of a stretch)
– Sam perceiving his father as “lazy” = Jay going ABOVE AND BEYOND the job to kill the MP (pedophile?) by killing additional people not on the list
At the same time, I definitely have to appreciate the “suicide / assisted death cult” theory as well. This would help explain all the strange dialogue revolving around gratitude shown from the victims.
Now that I’m getting done with typing this post, I realize I have no more clarity of WTF I just saw than I did before coming to this blog…
GOODNIGHT!
Has anyone remembered that Jay tells his son that’ll he’ll have to get religious answers from Gal when he asks if the cat will go to heaven. As if he is letting us know that he has no belief in God, he eludes to that many times. Specifically again with the singers and how extreme he is with when and where their singing would be appropriate.;which was obviously never and nowhere. That he says he used to love to watch fire when he was a kid, but seems like he can’t quite remember why when they’re burning the bodies. It seems obvious that he has a history he cant or doesn’t want to remember of his involvement in the cult. It seems that they are bringing him back into the fold.
The “blood pact” with the man that hired them, but only with Jay. The fact that he eludes that they are bringing things back full circle when jay and Gal ask the reason for what they’re being hired for.
That he instinctivley fries up rabbit entrails and eats them, on the spot where that were left.
Did anyone notice what a good marksman Shel seemed to be? I think there was something to that as well.
It seems very clear that he is being reintegrated into the “family” after losing his way, likely in Kiev. I would have liked a little more explanation of that but otherwise it seems pretty clear
.
The most extreme way, his family sacrificed.
Kari is right… but I think jay left the Cult much earlier than Kiev. He was probably a teen at the latest, blocked most of those memories out, but it contributes to his violence, his lashing-out at the religious people, going overboard on hits/jobs. I think Jay was surprised to learn they were following him during Kiev, and I’m sure he thought he had escaped. Probably all that happened in Kiev is he lost his temper, fighting his inner-demons that remain because he had such a fucked-up childhood in this cult.
Shel was in the military, which is why she’s a good marksman, and also part of why her morals are skewed enough that she can be content with her husband being a hitman.
It does seem that people just aren’t used to paying attention to films anymore… except that you guys are mentioning foreshadowing and connections I hadn’t even grasped on one hand, and then missing key plot points that seemed obvious on the other…
I am actually bewildered at most of the confusion around this film. I feel that every single hole in the story is intentional and serves a purpose, like hinting at things that are scariest when left unexplained, but providing all the info you need to understand what’s going on.
SO MANY QUESTIONS!
After watching the film twice, reading reviews and these posts I still can’t get my head around a lot of it!
I think the suicide cult idea is correct, but other than that, I’m baffled…
This is just a few of things I’ve been pondering: Maybe Shel wanted to die? (unhappy marriage, secretly meeting Fiona, laughing at the end). Maybe they both wanted to die? Or even kill each other? Was Fiona manipulating them both? Jay and Gal have matching tattoos, surely that’s significant? Did Jay really want to be part of the cult, if so, why? It does seem that way (waving at Fiona, getting hand cut, eating rabbit) but still very confusing.
I think the sword fight in the garden reflecting the final scene and all of the other parallels previously mentioned are smart touches.
On the surface this film seems to be a simple hitman, thriller story and only becomes really clever when you begin to analyse events and scenes, so I can see why a lot of people are saying they were disappointed. Admittedly, when the film finished I felt disappointed, but the fact is this film left me thinking (so much so that I took time to read reviews and tried to interpret the story myself), for that reason I’d rate this film highly.
If Jay knew what was happening at the end and it was his wish to join the cult, and (as some are suggesting Shel knew of the cult as well) why did they both fire shots protecting the cottage from the cult at the end?
Maybe Gal and Shel wanted to be part of the cult, but at some point they regreted and tried to go out of it (explaining the shooting at the end), probably they wanted to end up with their son (as a sacrifice they needed to do) cause they were so frustrated with their marriage life as well. Probably their hate as a couple lead them to that. But what if they kind of once they re in, they had to follow that and couldn’t get out…
I don’t know if it makes sense, I’m trying to ensamble the puzzle but is difficult.
Anyway, if they were both in the cult, that would explain Shel’s smiles at the end, no?
The fact that Kill List made me come to this site to look for explanations is a testament to how a movie can get inside your head.
After reading all the previous posts from film goers and film boffins I’m still none the wiser.
Maybe a second view is in order? I found the film fascinating.
i think the cult and fiona and the person that paid jay and gale are supposed to be representatives of the devil. The people that they executed said thank you because they were people that were put through what Jay went through at the end and will eventually go through once he has lived through the guilt of killing his wife and his child. The people on his kill list were trying to atone for their sins, by becoming a priest or by hoarding child pornography. They were trying to do better to make themselves forget about what that cult had made them do. And after this experience, Jay will be another person that thanks his executioner because he’s lived with the guilt of what he’s done. The cult is I think, an arm of the devil. They live on the earth to inspire people to do bad things. Fiona is supposed to be one of the devil’s workers. She visits the home, marks it as a home that they can infect, and gradually creates an influence by making an appearance to Jay and by spending time with Shell. I don’t understand why shell would’ve shot at them right before she joined in their ritual, but somehow, I don’t fault the movie for the fact that this doesn’t make sense. There’s a backstory to this film that we’re all dying to know. And the fact that we can’t know it makes it a movie that we can respect and discuss and enjoy, so even if I don’t have all the answers, I’m happy to have seen a great piece of work.
I assumed that this all centred around some kind of death cult. Everyone in the cult was wanting to die – which is why the priest and the librarian said thank you, why the woman was happy to be hung and why the cult members all charged at the men with guns. Shel was taken over or brainwashed by Fiona – so was willing to die and take her son with her – and why she was shooting at other cult members – as they’re all fair game as in this death cult.
Because of the ending, Jay would now be happy to die himself – maybe that’s how they get new members – they make it so the person has no desire to live.
I think there’s a clue when Gal and Jay are talking to the client. Gal asks “what the bleep is this about?” and the answer he is given is “a reconstruction”. This refers to two senses of “reconstruction” which we hear: “reconstruction” of a country which has become a war zone, as in Iraq, and “reconstruction” of a company, as during downsizing and laying off jobs.
Remember that Fiona is an HR person – it is her job to sack people – in fact she is possibly doing exactly this role within the cult – they get rid of some of their older members in the process of recruiting Jay as a new member.
the other sense recalls that both Jay and Gal are returning soldiers. They are called “cogs” by the client. We’ve heard one of them express a wish to have been up against the nazis (i.e. to have fought a “just war”) rather, we might guess, than serving in morally ambiguous contemporary wars. Jay also talks about not feeling bad about his victims cos they are bad people. So he is a soldier who wants to fight bad people, but in the end he stumbles into killing his own wife and child. In fact he has been tricked into doing so by people who see him as a mere “cog”.
On carrying out their purpose he is “crowned” as an initiate or even as the new incumbent of a senior post in the “company” – so the message is possibly that to get ahead (in the “reconstructed” firm or the “reconstructed” country) you have to be able to survive committing atrocities, although doing this could leave you wanting to die, like the forcibly-retired members of the cult (the kill list victims) who seem grateful to be replaced?
i have just realised that in business they talk about corporate “restructuring” maybe, rather than “reconstruction”, but I still think this idea of “a reconstruction” is the key to the film. The HR concept is in there, even if its not an exact fit with the “clues”.
Also the client could be referring to a “reconstruction” of Jay, on a psychic level, i.e. the change that is affected in him by going through the initiation process. It is like a very macabre recruitment or induction into the corporate world of the cult.
Just seen this movie. No spoilers before, just heard it was good….
After viewing I thought it was worth looking online as I thought that there was something REALLY interesting about the movie but couldn’t put my finger on it..
I think this movie is smashing…..
Reading these posts, (and a few others) – THIS is what the movie is all about:
‘BIG THING IN THE FILM’ – Rune on the back of the mirror = It’s about YOU & OUR SOCIETY!
The rest is simple:
Killings:
The Priest
Implied paedophile (because?). He says ‘thank you’ for being allowed to turn away – at that point, everyone watching was prepared to think that he was and accepted this.
The Librarian
) but when the video that couldn’t be watched by Gal was shown, the Librarian had ‘passed some kind of boundary’ and so the audience thought, ‘OK, fair enough, he probably deserved to die if it was really that bad..’ strangely enough, Jay watches (did you want to see the unspeakable horrors that would drive a man to his actions at that point too? – back to the mirror……)
Jay deals with the Porno distributor (understatement) – not everyone watching would think this was an acceptable reason to be killed (
The MP
Well, he was part of a ceremony that had a young lady killing herself. Got to be a fair shout for the kill list, right?
So, I reckon most of the audience that has seen this, at the time, rationalised the Kill List killings made by Jay & Gal. And that’s a commentary on YOU and OUR society.
The other bits:
Jay
He wants out! (portrayed as a consequence of something that happened in Kiev) in simple terms, ‘he was getting soft’ as Gal would put it – his wife, and everything else in Jay’s world makes it easy to buy into the next contract kill. In fact, if he doesn’t do it, he loses all of his material possessions (and his wife & kids, remember what Shel says as she gets in the car to go to the cottage..)
note: Does you know exactly, where Kiev is and what atrocities have occurred there? Or are you more interested in what Kiev, in this moment, means to you…?
Everyone else
Bit players – excellently played but just like for you and I, bit players all allowing us to be a little bit like Jay (OK, we are not all contract killers but like Jay says when buying the swords for his kid – ‘Only 4 quid’ – even though, the economic situation (as a whole) and Jay’s current economic situation suggests he should be careful with cash he (we) still consumes)
Everything else
Just supports what it said here
The end
He’s the ‘king’ – the epitome of ‘Evil’ even though he’s just playing out what seems ‘right’ if you look at the media and ultimately the behaviour of todays society. Were you really appalled at the killing of son & wife at the end or did you just want it explained for your own benefit?
That’s all really, as I said at the top, I thought the movie was good….
Sex Poet Opinion ; ))
I have slightly different take, but I really like what you’ve done here.
I was totally appalled at the killing of his son, thats what I felt most dirturbed about! I didnt understand why the innocent child had to suffer. I think its a definite reflection on ou society these days, for sure!
She didn’t know it was her hubby she was fighting, I think. Great film on my opinion
She smiled at him, she knew.
Yeah I just saw it on DVD but there was a bug on it that meant i missed about 5 minutes in the middle (I think he went in and killed some people after he bludgeoned The Librarian to death). It kicked back in as they were burning the bodies I think. So I came searching for answers on the internet. I’m not sure if I’m happy that the film was mad as a box of frogs and that I didn’t miss anything or if I’m annoyed that it could have been so much better. I’m all for a cross genre film (From Dusk Til Dawn anyone?) but I think if you’re going to do that you need to use the building blocks from both genres.
My final suspicion though sadly is that I think quite a lot of the sense of the film was lost in a rather tragic editing exercise forced on the director in order to make it a palatable 90 minutes.
I think the fact that so many people are trying to make sense of the film deems it a failure. Was it intense? you bet… But the ending was ridiculous. You can justify it any way you want – look it into it whichever way you want… the ending made NO SENSE and had no connection with a pretty interesting story line up to the final 15 or so minutes. Just because a woman carves a symbol into the back of a mirror – which may have been a continuity shoot/edit – doesn’t mean there’s a hidden meaning we’re not getting and there’s some kind of story we weren’t clever enough to understand the first go ’round. It was a story that had A LOT of potential and the film maker let us down with the ending.
————————————————————————————————–
“The emperor marched in the procession under the beautiful canopy, and all who saw him in the street and out of the windows exclaimed: “Indeed, the emperor’s new suit is incomparable! What a long train he has! How well it fits him!” Nobody wished to let others know he saw nothing, for then he would have been unfit for his office or too stupid. Never emperor’s clothes were more admired.
“But he has nothing on at all,” said a little child at last.”
The Emperor’s New Suit – Hans Christian Anderson
Anyone who brings up The Emperor’s New Clothes in relation to a film is talking nonsense. Just because you didn’t enjoy ir, that doesn’t mean that everyone else is just pretending to like it in fear of looking stupid. That’s quite an arrogant view to hold. The ending makes enough sense without spoon feeding answers. It just requires a little thought. A second watch also benefits understanding enormously. The cult, for whatever reason, are obsessed with death and killing and manipulated Jay’s violent nature to make him one of their own. Fiona was the catalyst for this.
This is just mental laziness. rather than think a little about it, you decide to take it at face value, judge it, and move on. The funny thing is the meaning isn’t that hidden, it’s just that it’s not already processed for you. Classic literature used to require that you read something and thought about it, whereas most things now are created with easy consumption in mind. This is why you don’t get it, you’re not used to having to try.
see above…
Never use The Emperor’s New Clothes analogy just because a film doesn’t spell out everything for you. There are clues all through Kill List that show the ending is anything but unrelated or just out of nowhere. Only someone not paying attention would say such broad statements about the ending because he/she didn’t get it.
1. Gal brings him the job(their client is a big wig of the cult) and introduces him to Fiona. Fiona carves the symbol in the back of his mirror, gets the tissue with his blood on it, and says at dinner she’s in HR, sacks people and that there’s a bigger picture and a lot of dirty work to do.
2. Jay responds to her saying it’s nothing personal with, “except to them and their families.” Maybe showing reluctance of either a conscious or subconscious nature. I doubt he knew about the cult but sensed the foreshadowing evil. He’s the one who is cut at the meeting and has targets say thank you before he kills them.
3. He snaps when the librarian has the films of snuff, pedophilia, or whatever AND goes off the list. Then his cat is killed which pisses of him off more and they go to quit. They’re called cogs and told they’re doing reconstruction(clearly Fiona with HR hinted at this.)
4. His wife forces him to go to the doctor who is also in the cult. The doctor ignores the crazy rash that he developed and his infected hand saying he’s fine. He asks odd questions and gives him advice that the past is gone, the future is not yet here.
5. Wake up is something he is often told, and he’s sort of sleepwalking though everything being disaffected or losing his shit.
6. On the last target when they encounter the insane cult, Jay begins shooting even after Gal says there are too many of them.
7. The wife asks if she wants to lose her and his son, he says no so when they’re rushed by the cult and he gets knocked out while trying to kill as many as possible again, she’s left shooting but obviously gets taken captive along with his son. She laughs as she’s dying after he killed his family for many reasons. Everytime he goes off the list it’s something a good guy would do… and he wanted to take out every member of the cult as possible.
8. The ending shows the fact he’s now a high up member of the cult whether he likes it or not, and he wouldn’t fight anymore since he’s lost his family, closest friend and cat. It’s not a suicide cult, but you can’t leave the cult unless you kill yourself by ritual or end up on the Kill List. Maybe they get rid of the ones who do really bad stuff that could bring attention to them.
9. Jay loves his family and his cat(he eats the rabbit it kills to show he’s not ungrateful and has a bond with it.) In the book Pet Sematary the same symbolism is used with Louis and his cat that he brings back to life.
The best films aren’t disposable, forgettable pieces of shit with easy to follow plots and happy endings. They should aim to polarize and get strong reactions while opening up a discourse on different interpretations and opinions. Anyone who considers Kill List a failure because he got confused by the ambiguous ending and symbolism doesn’t like great films because they stick with you and often need to be rewatched for different reasons.
“Well, you go Uruguay and I’ll go mine.” — Groucho Marx
“The best films aren’t disposable, forgettable pieces of shit with easy to follow plots and happy endings. They should aim to polarize and get strong reactions while opening up a discourse on different interpretations and opinions. Anyone who considers Kill List a failure because he got confused by the ambiguous ending and symbolism doesn’t like great films because they stick with you and often need to be rewatched for different reasons.”
Well said sir.
I watched this film a few nights ago, and after initially feeling let down by it have found myself thinking about it more and more, eventually leading me to find discussions about it, just like this one.
I absolutely agree with your final comment here and think Kill List will actually become a cult classic. It gets you thinking so much more than the usual drivel studios punt out.
I have loads to say on this film but still have a lot of thinking to do about it. I feel that any film that can have you thinking about it and discussing it for days and weeks to come is by no means a failure and if anything, actually very successful. Unless of course you’re the kind of person who likes to be spoonfed every morsel of popcorn as you shut your brain off while watching the latest factory farmed action shite-fest.
Good game.
Legend. Spot on. It’s simple, signposted and no need for theories about dreams or anything else. I think maybe the problem people are having is that they are taking the initial thriller/gangster genre this movie pretends to be literally and failing to realise that, throughout, it is an extremely well crafted horror/occult movie. If you are familiar with any occult films (Rosemary’s Baby, Wicker Man, House of the Devil, Angel Heart etc etc) the pieces fit together really nicely and easily, although it is good enough for you not to realise until the very final moment. Brilliant film, not rocket science, but seems you are one of the few to get it. Nice post and I’m glad someone else picked up the HR references. As for the ‘thank yous’, I think this is because the people on the list are being ‘martyred’ having done all they were asked to do by the cult. Part of the restructuring – the replacement of old with new.
About: “…som Arthurian legend being re-told…”
Some scenes and dialogues seem to point to something Arthurian:
- The swordfight play in the garden. Sam is on the back of Shel (similair to the ending fighting scene). Sam was dressed as a knight.
- After their cat died, Jay suggested to Sam to have a puppy. Sam would’ve named it Arthur (or Gwinny – from Guinevere).
- Sam requested a bedtime story about King Arthur. Jay declined, told another wartime story (his own story?)
- Gal was looking at photographs taken of him and Jay during the recent kills (because Jay’s hand was still in bandage). Between those photographs, some pictures of a knightly tombe were present (as well as “the symbol”, whatever it means….)
- Jay is crowned at the end – maybe a link to King Arthur?
Some far-fetched ideas:
- Jay representing the diabolic dragon from the Arthurian Legends? A Diabolic creature.
- Gal is from Ireland. The Arthurian legend is supposed to be a Celt myth originally.
- The stone lodge in the end could represent a castle of some sort. Castle play an important role in the Arthurian Legends.
Then again, I could be totally off. I’m not completely fimilair with the Arthurian Legend. These passages are too obvious to rule out some Arthurian story.
However, the more I’m contemplating on this movie, the more questions arise….
over done, to many unanswered questions, some are O.K. thought provoking blah blah blah, figure out yourself blah blah blah, i would not tell others to watch this movie and will not, the only thing original about this movie is the multiple questions that never get resolved, some thinking for yourself is fine like that in movies but this was just way to many, flashes of the symbol blah blah blah, they knew about Kiev blah blah blah, open for interpretation is one thing this movie was a whole nother kind of choppy monster, what a waste of an hour and a half !!!!!!!
That’s just it, the questions are easily resolved if you put some critical analysis to work. I agree, the film is not for everyone, if you aren’t willing to think about what it all means, or more like what the creators vision was, then you probably won’t get it or enjoy it.
Wow. I think some people are taking the more ambiguous aspects of this film and running a little far with them.
I really, really don’t think that Jay was in on it. Why was he so appalled by the pornography and the death of his cat if that’s the case? I think the “reconstruction” referred to was almost certainly the reconstruction of Jay. Fiona saw his aggressive nature at the dinner party and saw the opportunity to break him down and turn him into a killing machine. To what end, we don’t really know. But we don’t need to know every last motivation and the meaning behind every little symbol.
Also, Ben Wheatley says on one of the DVD audio commentaries that Shel is laughing at the end because of the irony of it all, not because she’s “in on it”. So that clears that one up.
I do think there is some valid political undertones in the film. The way we can be manipulated to fight and kill for a cause. I thought that was dealt with interestingly.
I think the film’s faults lie in its mash up of genres.it makes everything hard to figure out and fathom and I’m a believer of the idea that a film should make sense on its own and not require the amount of discussion and head scratching to figure out that it does. I’m not ashamed to say that when the credits rolled I was utterly clueless and more than a bit frustrated. At the same time I welcome cinema that is challenging and different and I do think the film makes sense, but that certain things weren’t made clear enough and thus required many viewers to take to the internet for clarification.
Seemingly, like everyone else here, I spent the entire film engrossed but not really paying close attention, in the hope that the last third would tie up all the loose ends. The “reconstruction” idea was something that bugged me, so I’m glad a lot of people have been thinking about it.
There were a couple of things I did notice:
Jay makes use of magical phrases like “abracadabra” when he turns sams light off and, i think, when he pulls off the cloth from the dinner table. I figured this might foreshadow some link to the occult?
Did anybody else see the really properly creepy photo of sam on the fridge?? I saw it from the get-go and realised it appeared in a lot of the shots, often in focus. I found it incredibly unsettling…
Does anyone have any more thoughts on the relevance of the progress of the cut on Jays hand, and why he reopens the wound?
Hey all,
Found the film really engrossing and really enjoyed reading all of the comments here. I’m leaning towards the Suicide cult, with Jay being in on the entire process, his initiation so to speak.
While thinking about that thoery I started to think that there may be a political and more specifically anti-war undertone to the film.
Jay is a former soldier. I think the death/suicide cult may be a methaphor to the army, memebers volunterring to join in order to commit suicide. From a cynical viewpoint the army could be viewed as “cult” that accepts memebers who want to die, eg why else put yourself in siuations where you will be shot at etc
Couple of points that may back this up
-The clapping of the cult as the woman hung herself, could reflect the publics reaction to men going to war – full of admiration, congratulating them on putting their lives at risk.
-The way the cult members rush Gal and Jay is very reminiscent to how soldiers would rush over trenches in WW1 and before
-Jay’s acceptance to the cult is dependant of finishing the list, training so to speak just like the army. The eating of the rabbit maybe represents disgusting army rations? (stetch)
-The final challenge to his acceptance is the murder of his wife and child – mirrors the abondonment of the family by those men travelling to war?
These are just things that jumped out at me, hope their are some opinions!
I only watch films when I’m to tired to do anything else, thus more often than not I’m left dissapointed due to not being in the right frame of mind. This film was gripping and intense, The peak and dips were perfect. It’s caused me to search the web for answers..as did Donnie Darko. Books work on the readers imagination and so did this. The more views I read, the more I want to watch it again from their perspective. If you watch a film you come to your own conclusion that suits you, read these posts and and you find more possibilities ..thats art right? As someone previously mentioned, the mix of genres confuses the viewer, it’s not your typical format so doesn’t sit right..again that’s art right? Ben and partner have done a great job of providing great visual stimulas and thought provoking undertones. Lazy, someone wrote, I don’t think so, sometimes less more… Isn’t it interesting how our minds decypher things differently? The film exploits that. Love it or hate it, your all talking and creating a buzz about it. I loved it, but not as much as the writers do reading these posts and our interpretations.
Glad I found this site because it really did help me digest this film.
I do understand the frustration some people had with this film because its not an easy film by no stretch of the imagination and if you went in expecting a straight forward thriller/actioner then when presented with Kill List with little/no explanation I can understand people’s negative reaction.
Watching a film nowadays even before a movie starts the audience are looking for clues , trying to suss out the “twist” ending so its harder for a film to surprise the audience with and ending they very few people will see coming .
I can safely say Kill List did that for me (tho I did guess correctly the identity of the hunchback but again I was looking for clues and it occurred right at the end of the film so my mind was working overtime by that point trying to make sense of it). Ultimately once the film finished I had a hard time trying to understand what I had just seen.
However as I love movies I wanted some sort of closure on the movie and so I searched the internet and found this site which did give me what I was after (isnt that one of the boons of the internet).
Having read some of the posts on here its guided me to a explanation that fits (for the most part) . Some aspects of it I simply did not consider existing (death/suicide cults) obv I know there are cults in the world which are centred around very unpalatable acts but my brain simply did not make that connection.
As someone who has completed a tour of duty in one of the recent conflicts and has been in the military for some time I would definitely not consider myself naive but the suicide cult angle really caught me out.
I disagree completely with one of the posters comments” that the army could be viewed as “cult” that accepts members who want to die” because thats simply not the case but I dont think there was any malice to that comment it just irked me a tad.
Anyway having had my hand held with what was going on in retrospect I enjoyed this film more after reading some of the theories on this site. There is obviously some Arthurian angle of it which ive missed, I saw the references in the film (naming the puppy,the picture of the knight among the photos etc) but I cant tie them into the plot of the film (other than both protagonists were crowned) however now that Ive been spoonfed a plot that fits with what Ive just seen the movie really does deserve a 2nd watch.
Was nice to find a website that discusses films without reverting to the usual “this film sucked” style of posts but is also not filled with arrogant “film auteurs”
Hey Paul,
Not my own opinion of the army, but just one I thought could be possible. Your coming from a certain viewpoint having served in the forces, there are of course people coming at it from a completely different angle and thats someting you have to consider.
Its not that far fetched an idea, maybe not nowadays, but go back 100 years (even less) and joining the army came with a high probability of death.
No offense taken fella as I said I didnt think there was any malice to the comment it just caught me off guard not suprising given the film I had just watched definitely put me in a strange mood.
Hello, i also came here trying to find answers to the WTF just happened??? at the end of the movie. I love this kind of movie wich makes you think and wonder about all the questions it leaves open! There’s a lot of theories around that i find interesting, like the possibility that he was dreaming a lot of it ( the director even reffered that he got inspired to do some scenes by nightmares he had as a child), also the suicide cult is a plausible theory. But i think that whatever we’re missing as to do with something we have no clue about, and that’s “what happened in Kiev”!!! Something BIG happened there wich made a big impact on Jay, and somehow, the guy who signed the blood contract with him (same guy from the cult), knew about these events!!! He even tells Jay: “We know about Kiev!” So Jay got involved with something probably very horrible, and this guys have been involved, and they have been tracking him since then, so they probably found something “special” about him! So, they start a plan to draw Jay to them, sending Fiona to meet Cal, and pretend to have a relantionship with him, tell him about the “job”, so that he then brings them into Jay’s house, so she personally meets him, does the witchcraft thing and gets their plan in motion! At the end of the movie Jay is as lost by what’s happened as we are! He’s surely been manipulated into this, but it’s also in his nature to be like this! I think with the impact this movie is making, the director could make a prequel with the mysterious events of Kiev, possibly tying the loose ends and giving us some disclosure on the big picture behind the cult’s intentions…
The director was masturbating too much with LSD. The film is a mess and the director was too lazy to put any meaning to it.
I wanted to add a theory here that I did not see addressed thus far in the comments.
The theory is simply the first and only sensible connection I made upon watching the ending of the film, which I did rather enjoy if not just for its psychotic plotline.
For whatever reason I found one of the most impactful scenes to be the viewing of the disturbing films in the Librarian’s storage locker. I understand that many of you assumed this likely involved pediphilia but I actually think this assumption is too tame. My first and lasting impression was that these were snuff films involving everything under the sun, which of course includes pedophilia, but also extreme sadism, torture, and murder of children and even possiblly animals, elderly, handicapped, or anything else that would produce the reactions and subsequent response of the lead character on the perpetrators.
Given the magnitude of this event, I felt like it posessed a more enduring aspect to the overall plot. Simply put: I’m suggesting that the cult had begun to provoke the lead character in a manner where he began behaving like the individuals he likely observed in the video – that is to say, by the end of the film he had killed a woman and child in a kind of scenerio that had probably had a lot in commen with what was on those tapes in the librarian’s storage unit.
I appreciate this article and the plethora of comments it is helping me metabolize this very confusing but facinating film.
The video they watched in the storage locker was of gal and jay killing a toddler in kiev in my opinion,they asked who filmed this not who made it….
did you notice gal’s attitude change after the dinner party? the dinner was jay’s interview for becoming clan leader…fiona probably told gal after the dinner that jay was wanted by the clan and his attitude changed towards the job realising they were getting into something too big..
gal and jay had been working for the clan for a while with shel setting the job’s up,after the clan saw the video of kiev they wanted jay as new leader,all the leaders seem old they need new blood if the clan gonna continue..
i think all 3 main characters new they had been dealing with a wierd sect but were not bothered as long as they were being paid and deep down jay wanted into the order..eating the rabbit waving at fiona not backing gal up at the 2nd meeting,being happy to be cut..
Shel laughed at the end because she knew the risks they had been running but wanted the life style….things had caught up with them and she thought it funny jay was new leader….how rediculous he could not even do the shopping…lol
The killings served 2 purpose one part of jay’s initiation 2nd wiping out clan members bringing attention the the order
at the end is shel dead??? jay stabs mainly in the back the kid is dead but shel?? unlikely
also read the credita at the end in order of apperance the bride father of the bride?? news reader?? radio reprters?? who were they..
great film
I think Jay might actually be the founder of the cult. He founded the cult but then it might have got out of hand when he was away for long periods of time.
At the dinner party, Shel tells Fiona Jay was the one…who started it. Fiona, who hadn’t realised, then takes his bloodied tissue as a prized object and she gets closer to his wife to be around him. The preist and the librarian thank him, the librarian expressing his gratitude at meeting him and asking Jay if Gal knew who he was. Dont know why Jay shoots the cult though, or why Shel shoots a member of the cult at the house.
I like chopper’s theory about the video, I hadn’t thought about it that way. I never thought Shel was dead at the end either. I dont think Jay knew he was killing his son though, that’s why Shel is laughing.
The doctor scene is weird, the pills, the rabbits…there is heaps I dont get about this film but I quite like that
” Wheatley insists that the film should be open to interpretation. “With all the interviews I’ve done, I’ve tried not to pin it down to anything,” he says. “You can read it as a straight B-movie where a guy does get tangled up with a cult and it all goes too far. Or you can read it that he’s just fucking nuts. Which isn’t really satisfying, I know! But we decided to leave it open. Not everything has to be explained. Some things are inexplicable, and the mystery is much more interesting than the reality. I think that’s the case with this.” “
Although the Kiev situation is never explained, I interpreted the ending (as increasingly acknowledged by his psychopathic killings throughout the film) to mean that this murderous cult – who has ‘The Kiev File and knows what happened – had found its perfect weapon. Whatever bugnuts shit went down in Kiev, I’m guessing he did something despicably brutal. The Kill List is designed to test his willingness to go back to that darkest place of his fragile psyche (and it’s pretty clear as the film progresses, he’s hanging onto sanity by a thin fucking thread), and by taking away everything he has – his best friend, wife and son – he would truly be pushed over the edge, have nothing else to live for, and be primed to be what he is: a death bringer. Tipped over into insanity, and ready to serve his true purpose as a killer, for the purposes of this weird fucked up cult. He, essentially, becomes Death. The Death he has always wrought, but no longer for money. Simply to justify his existence. The one he always had, but now without monetary payoff. The payoff, instead, is now simply doing what he was created to do. Kill.
Or, y’know, maybe i’m just over thinking things
And that, by the way, is why his victims keep saying ‘Thank you’. Because they know what he’s destined to become.
These are the best comments on any website I have ever read. Really picked up on some very interesting stuff. Nice work all.
I think that the cut on his hand represents the first truly evil act that opens the the soul to subsequent evil. That’s why the old guy in the cult cuts his hand at the very beginning and tells him “It is necessary.” At various points throughout the movie, his cut is reopened by himself at one point and by a cult member at another point, and I think at least one or two other times. The timing and who is doing it have to be significant, but I need to go back and re-watch it to figure out how.
Very gruesome and disturbing movie, but obviously complex and intelligent based on this discussion here.
I also noticed the news reader/radio reporters credited as the last characters to feature in the film. Was a final section cut from the film? Any ideas?
My theory:
Jay was given the Kill List by the death cult to execute three existing cult members (the priest, the librarian, the MP). This was Jay’s initiation in order to become the new cult leader.
Gal did not know about and was not involved in the cult and was killed in the tunnel when he was no longer needed to assist Jay with the murders.
Shel was brainwashed by Fiona into joining the cult. Jay’s final trial was to kill Shel in order to complete his initiation and become the new cult leader.
Shel knew Jay was in the process of becoming the new cult leader but did not know she was chosen to be the forth victim to be killed by Jay and so defended herself from the house intruders thinking they were seeking revenge for Jay’s previous victims – and maybe something to do with the Kiev job. Hence the reason Shel laughed when she saw it was Jay who had killed her.
Jay’s son was chosen to die also so with all of Jay’s loved ones dead (Shel, Gal, his son) Jay would have nothing to live for outside of the cult and would have no choice but to dedicate the rest of his life to it.
I think that’s pretty spot on. The whole thing makes a lot more sense if you watch it assuming Jay knows what he’s being lined up for (i.e. cult leader) from the off. He says “It’s alright..” after having his hand cut – which is a pact for the role? – and actually seems quite happy, as per his laughing comment about bleeding all over the carpet.
Interesting conversations include the one between Shel and Fiona after the dinner –
Shel: “He was the one though”
Fiona: “What, the love of your life?”
Shel: “No, the one who started it”
i.e. The one who started the cult?? But because of Kiev or maybe another reason didn’t get the chance to, or want to, become leader at that time?
The Librarian (to all intents a complete stranger to Jay) says he’s glad to have met Jay, and asks if Gal knows who Jay *really* is. Clearly the Librarian knows *exactly* who Jay is.
And the one between Shel and Jay, as Shel’s packing to leave with Sam for the cottage -
Shel: “You know you’re in serious danger of losing this. Is that what you want?”
i.e. Throwing away the cult leadership if he messes up the executions/initiation?
So Shel knows all about Jay’s current ‘job’ being his initiation for cult leader but doesn’t know what else is (ultimately) in store. Shel knows about the cult, Jay’s part in it, and knows/guesses Fiona is also in it, but not what Fiona’s role is in the whole thing. Fiona uses Gal to befriend Shel, and does so to keep an eye on things and help make sure events move towards the final outcome. Gal doesn’t know anything about the cult or the others’ knowledge/involvement in it.
All IMHO of course! What a great film anyway!!! Extremely thought provoking. Thanks to all the posters above who have provided explanations and opinions!
Some more really interesting information here:
http://circleofquality.blogspot.com/2011/07/kill-list-behind-mask-massive-spoilers.html
The director said she isn’t involved… and that’s not enough for you?!?!
“The one who started it” is repeated a few times in that Jay and Fiona have very poor conflict resolution skills. They talk like pre-teens when they fight “she started it”.
The film does not support the idea that Jay started the cult. It has been going longer than he has been alive, but he was definitely born into it and was supposed to be an heir apparent or a leader, but “escaped” at a young age (or thought he escaped… but the cult was just following him waiting for the right time to bring him back in). He must’ve left late enough in his childhood for people like the Librarian to recognize him, or else they all just study him.
You’re right that Fiona uses Gal and Shel to keep an eye on things, and correct that Gal knows nothing of the cult. But the rest of these interpretations are WAY OFF. Shel knows Jay is a hitman, but has no clue of the cult. She probably knows he had a fucked-up childhood, but I think Jay blocked almost all of it out and barely even remembers it himself. He’s not playing along, he’s just trying to figure it out and that’s very clear by his going beyond what the job is and beyond what Gal would want him to do.
Shel was absolutely not brainwashed by Fiona. Shel was not involved in any way. The director does know, he just wants to leave it open to interpretation, but there was an intention.
I find the suggestions that Jay was being “scouted” as the next leader interesting, but while watching, I felt it obvious that he had been born into the cult, had escaped at a very young age, but was being followed until the right time to pull him back in.
I also loved the foreshadowing in the film, but I don’t feel that indicates any “dreams”. All of it is about the psychology of the people involved. Jays reactions all make sense in the light of someone who, at some early age (maybe a teenager) had tried to escape his place in this cult.
Ian, thanks for the link. Kinda validates my thoughts (above, posted 28/1), or at least makes me glad i’m not the only one who saw it that way.
Fucking superb movie. Watched it since with the girlfriend. She didn’t speak to me for a week (kidding, but she was freaked out by it).
Despite the director’s lack of explanation (one has to start to wonder if even HE knows…in one interview he said he started with the images of the cult in the woods and came up with the rest to get that scene into the movie) I still feel like it was about the devil. Too many little details (the signing in blood, the sacrificed animal, the bizzare symbol marking him, 3 three targets (starting with a priest) who thanked him, and the huge ceremony at the end. But like everyone else, the film was just missing something, just enough to give you a push in the right direction. It was brilliant up until the end. The hunchback was painfully forced, but I still could have dealt with that if the ending just had a little more finality to it. Even if it was just a glimpse of something to let you know what it was all about. I’m fine with ambiguity, if there really is an explanation somewhere in there.
Now i haven’t read all the posts so someone might have said this before, but no harm in saying it again, so try on these pair of glasses when you watch it again.
There’s a ton of references to Jay being the second coming. The most obvious is when he comes back from the supermarket with only fish and wine.
So Jay is Jesus trying to make it in “our” time.
I think the truth is there is more than one explanation for the movie…diffrent people will come to diffrent conclusions and i agree that the director probably does not have all the answers,there are so many contradictions throughout….every time i think i have the film cracked and seems ordered i think back and “hold on that don’t fit”,even now i have 2-3 diffrent reasons for what happened and why…surely that makes it a great film on it’s own…also the acting is superb the opening scene was like being in someones house it was so real..
agreed the majority of the answers are there , you can adjust it to fit what you believe e.g shels part of it or shels not part of it but ultimately there is enough there.
On a side note never thought about the idea being of the cultist being killed as a way of sending them to hell for their reward , it doesnt quite fit with my take on it but definitely viable
As for sucker punch whilst I liked the idea behind the film and is very simple compared to films like kill list/vanilla sky/memento etc , i loved the soundtrack and the film had good imagery but ultimately the action scenes were dull because there was never any real threat but thats a whole nother thread
Can I just say that, as a simple occult/horror film, it does make sense and there is, in my opinion, no important loose ends to tie up or, in fact, many elements that are open to interpretation. In my opinion, the director definitely understands what he’s doing here and, yes, the ending does make sense and isn’t a mess at all – it’s as well crafted as the rest of the film. And, in terms of dialogue, I think people need to hold back slightly on over analysing some of the things that are said – a lot of the dialogue is unscripted and improvised. Yes, things like the ‘thank yous’ and obvious dialogue clues are clearly scripted and fit with the occult theme, but throw away statements or responses/conversations are, in my opinion, often the actors just bouncing off one another.
Just thought I’d cut and paste the previous post to the end of the list by the way so people don’t miss it, as I think of all the posts on here it really explains all that needs to be explained about this film in a nice, point by point way. Everything is there on screen and pretty black and white. Yes, the people in the film don’t act 100% logical, but this is a film about a satanic cult remember, it is NOT a gangster film where the director got bored and tagged a random ending on because he couldn’t think of anything else. Everything is carefully structured from the very beginning.
Kyle says : 07/01/2012 at 18:11
There are clues all through Kill List that show the ending is anything but unrelated or just out of nowhere. Only someone not paying attention would say such broad statements about the ending because he/she didn’t get it.
1. Gal brings him the job(their client is a big wig of the cult) and introduces him to Fiona. Fiona carves the symbol in the back of his mirror, gets the tissue with his blood on it, and says at dinner she’s in HR, sacks people and that there’s a bigger picture and a lot of dirty work to do.
2. Jay responds to her saying it’s nothing personal with, “except to them and their families.” Maybe showing reluctance of either a conscious or subconscious nature. I doubt he knew about the cult but sensed the foreshadowing evil. He’s the one who is cut at the meeting and has targets say thank you before he kills them.
3. He snaps when the librarian has the films of snuff, pedophilia, or whatever AND goes off the list. Then his cat is killed which pisses of him off more and they go to quit. They’re called cogs and told they’re doing reconstruction(clearly Fiona with HR hinted at this.)
4. His wife forces him to go to the doctor who is also in the cult. The doctor ignores the crazy rash that he developed and his infected hand saying he’s fine. He asks odd questions and gives him advice that the past is gone, the future is not yet here.
5. Wake up is something he is often told, and he’s sort of sleepwalking though everything being disaffected or losing his shit.
6. On the last target when they encounter the insane cult, Jay begins shooting even after Gal says there are too many of them.
7. The wife asks if she wants to lose her and his son, he says no so when they’re rushed by the cult and he gets knocked out while trying to kill as many as possible again, she’s left shooting but obviously gets taken captive along with his son. She laughs as she’s dying after he killed his family for many reasons. Everytime he goes off the list it’s something a good guy would do… and he wanted to take out every member of the cult as possible.
8. The ending shows the fact he’s now a high up member of the cult whether he likes it or not, and he wouldn’t fight anymore since he’s lost his family, closest friend and cat. It’s not a suicide cult, but you can’t leave the cult unless you kill yourself by ritual or end up on the Kill List. Maybe they get rid of the ones who do really bad stuff that could bring attention to them.
9. Jay loves his family and his cat(he eats the rabbit it kills to show he’s not ungrateful and has a bond with it.) In the book Pet Sematary the same symbolism is used with Louis and his cat that he brings back to life.
The best films aren’t disposable, forgettable pieces of shit with easy to follow plots and happy endings. They should aim to polarize and get strong reactions while opening up a discourse on different interpretations and opinions. Anyone who considers Kill List a failure because he got confused by the ambiguous ending and symbolism doesn’t like great films because they stick with you and often need to be rewatched for different reasons.
One final thing – I think you have to be careful about over analysing a film of this kind. You can’t expect characters in a cult, or perhaps controlled by a cult, to act logically. I know it is unusual for normal sane individuals to hang themselves, run around naked in the forest, eat rabbit entrails (or were they really from a rabbit?) and say ‘thanks’ when they are about to be killed, but this is a film about fairly extreme people operating behind a veil of normality, so a bit of suspension of disbelief is required I think. A love of horror and particularly 70s horror helps in the understanding of this film I think, as I really don’t see where the ambiguity comes in.
I think the ending to the film should be looked at as more of a metaphor, than a ‘dream’.
If some of the ‘cult type’ people who appear at the end of the film, are the people that he’s killed throughout story. Then they’re presumably a representation of his haunted conscience. Perhaps they represent everyone he’s killed throughout his entire career as a hitman.
The reveal that he’s killed his wife and child at the end, is a metaphor for the detrimental effects that his career has had on his family life.
I CAN TELL YOU ALL EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS FILM!!!!
I watched this film and was baffled; so i watched it again and again and about a thousand more times – and then spent the last week reading this blog – its huge and love everyones ideas and i think i’ve peaced together what went on!!!
The main guys kid has been abused by this priest and librarian – that what on the tv screen that h watches and makes him cry – also why he hurts the librarian so much more violently than the preist.
Also after this point he slowly descends into a mad man.
I’m suggesting something obviosuly went on with this suicide cult and the two guys in Kiev, and then that gals bird who carves stuff in the mirror she works in HR for the cult (in joke) she decides who going to get killed – you dont ever see whoose blood it is on the tissue.
Shel spent 40 grand on cult to kill her son and herselves coz cant handle what went on with priest and librarian.
She killed those guys because she didnt know who was coming to get them
She laughs becuse she probably didnt expect it to be the way they’d kill her and her son but it was too late it had happened. So she luahgs coz she got what see wanted.
Gal not in on it – no idea about what was going on as confused as rest of us
Jay also had no idea – but kinda thoght there was more to it when he sees dvd on tv screen and starts crying – then goes psycho killing spree
The wake up stuff and dreams are the red herring – the jay guys just seriously depressed becuase he probably got discharged for being a sick puppy in kiev.
At the end it probably dawns on him when they crown him and clap and stuff what all the faces he sees are in his minds eye – it clicks;
His wife spent money to join cult to kill her and her son after she knows what has happened to him. she doesnt tell jay coz he a pyshco and he’d do something crazy and if he went prison and stuff would ujust make stuf worse.
he then knows why the guys choose him they thank him coz they members of the cult. so hes kinda restored balance – killed the two eveil pedos, and “purified” the innocent and her (lady macbeth esque) guilt ridden mother.
They crown him coz he obviously the “hero” of the cult.
he in shock at who hes killed.
So thats how I leave it – my head not going round and round – makes perfect sense and anyone want to challenge my theoy please bring it on – i’ll will clear up all confusion with quotes and reference to the film
I am king of the castle
?A
Hey man, I’m sorry but i dont agree with that angle…..too many things IMO dont fit!
Why no reference from Gal or Jay that it was his son in the film?
Why did the librarian say “he doesn’t know who you are does he?” to Jay?
Is just too random that the priest and the librarian would abuse Jay’s son? When did this happen and how? Jay didn’t recognise them they they were not known too the family….a massive stretch imo
No indication at all the Shell wanted to kill Sam to save him from the world, she defeded him when the cult came to the Cottage….
There was reference when gal said dont watch it and then jay did watch it crying.
Need to watch it again to see about librarian bit.
Cant tell you much about the pedo stuff apart from it being on the tv that the two guys watch
Shell doesnt know whose after them – he just gives her a gun and says go upstairs and protect – she might think its some andom killers or gangster her hit man ex army sharp shooter might hav pis##d off
I only speculating – it was a good film and hard to figure out – you like this watch MULLHOLLAND DRIVE – that will keep you guessing
Shell didnt know it was the cult coming to the cottage
Plus its all about your vision – its what you take from it to make sese in your mind – some peeps on here think its a dream, others occult crazyness – i think suicide cult and pedo ring.
you say potato i say pot-tar-toe
Good film, good discussion, good times!!!
Also this film in a biazarre way reminded me alot about Serbian Film
Not saying copied – but wierd similar themes
changed ex army to ex pornstar
and suicide cult with snuff industry film guys
mesh?
?A
sorry avenger i think your wrong..the 40k went on living for the 6months that no money was coming in the house.also why would she pay the cult then they give some of the money back for the hit job’s….makes no sense to me but nice try mate.
disagree with that – 40k doesnt suddenly disappear (even if they were living a lavish lifestyle) and the fact they had an argument about the money vanishing suggests that it was there recently and then gone.
thats only my opinion tho
loving the opinion paul!
here, i have to admit my definition is a streetch mr.chopper, but thats what all these films are about – if you read this blog see how many different interpretations there are of it!
At first watch i was too keen on this film – i was left thinking what the hell, because of the shabby filming and editing – but after more and more watches it really gets under your skin and into your head
kudos to the whole cast crew and gansters!!
Would love to hear other ideas serious – chopper and paul mac and that neil and the guy below – erm… mark?
seriously the more peoples interpretations the more info we all can add to our own interpretations.
so please peeps keep blogging!!!
Yep – this film does stay with you and it was only until I found this site which explained a few things that I hadnt thought about that the film finally made sense to the point where I could put my mind to rest that I had a “reasonable” explanation to what was going on. Im still undecided about whether the arthurian angle was a red herring of had a significant contribution to the final outcome but i am happy that most of it made sense (ish lol)
Kiev is home to the renowned Hagia Sophia or Cathedral of Sophia also known as the Black Virgin who guards the Grail and the secrets of the grail. The Holy Grail is the vessel that held the blood of the messiah or his bloodline. Hence the eventual killing of his own son represents the grail itself.
His earlier battles with the church and corruption in the killings of the priest and librarian could be seen in the context of the grail quest.
Be interested to hear any other thoughts on this.
so you thinking this is a DARK SIDE version of the da vinci code?
you can easily spend 40k in 6months without being lavish…look at the cars they had for a start…what is shel saying in swedish ? i got the impression she was speaking to her mum but is she ?
i think all the central characters knew a little of the plot but not the whole,that’s why the contradictions come in,it’s like real life really no one knows 100% what’s going on
example i think after fiona’s 2nd visit shel knew the clan were involved but think about it your gonna have doubts plus human instint is to live so she fought for her life,they came to capture her not kill her
2nd thought…..
the hunchback scene was replayed which makes you think they knew from the start…..was it all a big role play from the beginning?? instead of having people die (like at the end) in the usual way why not play it out…..the whole film could been some big role play with all the characters involved…that would explain shel laughing at the end not believing at all came together…;) lol who know’s
I CANT WAIT FOR THE SEQUEL!!!
unlikely to get a sequel the director never seems to do them be good though
or they could do a prequel…what happened in kiev and there end time in the army.
I feel like I understood this entire movie, and I did not think there was any dreaming going on. I’ll try to explain each of your questions one-by-one below.
You keep going back to Shel willingly trying to kill her husband… She was gagged and they were both wearing masks. She is in shock, wants to protect her child, is given a weapon and is put in front of another scary person with a weapon. Both parties had to feel they were defending themselves, and both surely felt under attack (since they were under attack from everyone else).
Kiev was just a botched hit, and the important piece is that the cult was following (maybe even watching out for) them for his entire life.
Fiona’s symbol behind the mirror is mostly for the audience to see that something is awry, but its not something we’re entirely supposed to understand. That cult has some weird beliefs and that symbol has some supernatural function. Many cults and black-magic-types will put symbols around their environment because they believe it helps them in some way.
Jay’s victims thanking him is because they know he is heir to the cult. Again, there are some mental perspectives of these cult members that sane people like you and me aren’t entirely supposed to understand. In this cult, it is an honor to be around Jay, and an honor to be killed by him. If they actually explained that their death meant they would “ascend to the next level” or “earn them a free ride on a comet”, it would’ve been lame… you don’t need to fully understand it, you just need to know that Jay was raised in this cult, is clearly the heir apparent, had tried to escape the cult a VERY long time ago, and they’re pulling him back in.
You ask why Fiona was visiting Shel… because she’s a cult member and is working to get Jay back into the cult… gathering evidence. I don’t get why this would confuse you. Of course she’d ingratiate herself. Ditto for her relationship with sam, her following them at the hotel.
The girl waving before being hanged was to freak us out and acknowledge that they knew they were there. Again, its an honor for this girl to be killed, and for the “prince” or whatever Jay is to her to be there watching… also an honor.
You ask “Why upon being shot at, would these people rush the shooters?” Again, did you miss that these people are crazy cult members? Did you ask that question when the Heaven’s Gate people killed themselves? Did you ask it when David Koresh’s followers burnt themselves up? Well these cult members in this movie are 10X crazier than those real people, and NONE of them are afraid of death, and NONE of them have any earthly motivations that compare with the supernatural motivations of their cult. Again, if they had tried to explain these motivations, some afterlife reward or whatever… it would’ve been cheesy and lame.
good sum up tony,bout the best explain i have heard
Well I think the visit to the doctors is a clue. could be that this guy has a psychiatric illness. Hens the inability to separate the reality from what as real.
Read all the comments here after watching the film tonight. I think there is much to be understood in the film if it seen in the context of arthurian legend, as Wheatley indeed suggests. More specifically the ideas behind the fisher king myth, the ideas of Frazer in the Golden Bough, and Joseph Campbell in the Hero with a thousand faces. The ending of the film – when Jay looks about him and down at his dead son in dazed resignation, is very similar to the ending of Apocalypse Now (probably my favourite film) when Sheen looks about the village and into the eyes of the villagers having slaughtered Brando. Running through these texts, and in my view through this film, is the idea that a man replaces the king, by killing the king. He then becomes king to reign until he is himself slaughtered and replaced. Fertility myth I should say at its base. This in my view is the symbolic meaning – the narrative is then something like this; Jay is selected to be the killer by the cult leaders for the cultists. Probably he is selected and recruited in Kiev on account of his ability to kill, his latent psychosis and his pliability. Each person that he kills is part of the cult They thank him because he is delivering to them what they desire above all else – deliverance from this realm, the mortal realm, to the next, in the cultists eyes, the eternal. Then he is brought before the cult and in submitting to the ultimate test (killing his own child) takes his place at its core. There are many red herrings along the way, and not everything fits in neat boxes. Jay certainly goes off ‘list’ and kills people that aren’t part of the cult. But this is important because it shows that he is a damaged man, and it keeps the film rooted in realism/verite and keeps the high falutin myth aspect in check. There is also a lot of elliptical film making on display but in my view this adds rather than takes away from the film.
really like your thoughts here and just wanted to add some ideas.
I believe that the film as a whole is a mediation on evil and Jay’s story is thematically designed to reflect this. Your notes on the replacement theory ala Apocalypse Now focused on Kill List’s ending offers a new reading. In nature and life, a son replaces his father, becoming the new king. In Kill List, evil dictates a father must replace his son. This symmetry is consistent with Wheatley’s impression of the film and his reference to The Shining as the perfect horror film. The Overlook hotel is an idol to symmetry and its evil connotations.
With all the literal loose ends and inconsistencies it seems clear to me that Kill List is an art piece emphasizing theme and subtext, completely served by it’s narrative pieces, much like Tree Of Life.
He’s the anti-christ! Or at least he’s been selected as the anti-christ. His wife joins the cult half way through the movie having been visited by Fiona. They’re all devil worshippers readying themselves for hell and they believe him to be the anti-christ. It’s quite straightforward really.