brother being involved in one form or another part.

brother being involved in one form or another part.

It was left up in the air as to whether or not Adrian was involved in the invisible man stalking business at all, with quite a bit of evidence pointing to his brother being the culprit all along. This creates a dual problem when attempting to resolve the morality of the entire thing at the end. Either he wasn't involved, and Cecilia gets away with murdering a guy whose crime was earlier domestic abuse, with a police officer friend letting her get away with it, while also letting her walk out with a suit that renders her invisible, which would most likely be used for further crime..

OR.... He did mastermind the entire thing, which sends cracks through the entire narrative, making it heavily reliant on a bunch of plot devices and random things happening at just the right time to make it all work out like he had planned. How long had he been walled up in his basement? Did his brother let him in and out every time he went out, just in case he got caught? With Cecilia locked up in a mental ward, how did he know she would engineer a plan to escape so soon, while also overpowering and killing her brother, and on and on...

If it's the first option, the whole film was a faux-woke dressing down of alleged toxic masculinity, with a sly wink-wink, nudge-nudge smile from Liz Moss at the end of the film, indicating murder is OK, as long as men are the victims. If it's the second option, it;s a house-of-cards-script that tumbles to the ground under the least bit of scrutiny...

It was left up in the air as to whether or not Adrian was involved in the invisible man stalking business at all, with quite a bit of evidence pointing to his brother being the culprit all along. This creates a dual problem when attempting to resolve the morality of the entire thing at the end. Either he wasn't involved, and Cecilia gets away with murdering a guy whose crime was earlier domestic abuse, with a police officer friend letting her get away with it, while also letting her walk out with a suit that renders her invisible, which would most likely be used for further crime..

OR.... He did mastermind the entire thing, which sends cracks through the entire narrative, making it heavily reliant on a bunch of plot devices and random things happening at just the right time to make it all work out like he had planned. How long had he been walled up in his basement? Did his brother let him in and out every time he went out, just in case he got caught? With Cecilia locked up in a mental ward, how did he know she would engineer a plan to escape so soon, while also overpowering and killing her brother, and on and on...

If it's the first option, the whole film was a faux-woke dressing down of alleged toxic masculinity, with a sly wink-wink, nudge-nudge smile from Liz Moss at the end of the film, indicating murder is OK, as long as men are the victims. If it's the second option, it;s a house-of-cards-script that tumbles to the ground under the least bit of scrutiny...

I never thought it was ambiguous because in the scene where Cecilia's first institutionalised and locked in her cell, you can hear Adrian whisper "Surprise" as a taunt to drive home that, yes, they're stuck together. Then when they're having dinner at his house at the end, he says "surprise" in the same tone of voice with this knowing look in his eyes - he's smart enough to know that she's shown up trying to get a confession out of him and doesn't say anything that would be admissible as evidence, but he does say enough to subtly let her know that he did plan the whole thing and there's nothing she can do about it (and it's only then that she goes through with murdering him). Cecilia only keeps the suit as a means of disposing of the evidence since nobody else knew there was a second suit.

As for the plan with the brother, it doesn't surprise me that they'd practically have to work in shifts to keep an eye on her. If anything, I'm thinking that Adrian wears the suit during the scene where the brother visits Cecilia in the institution and notices that she takes the pen while the brother isn't looking, hence why he sends the brother to go after her later that night so he can still have that plausible deniability if something goes wrong.

I never thought it was ambiguous because in the scene where Cecilia's first institutionalised and locked in her cell, you can hear Adrian whisper "Surprise" as a taunt to drive home that, yes, they're stuck together. Then when they're having dinner at his house at the end, he says "surprise" in the same tone of voice with this knowing look in his eyes - he's smart enough to know that she's shown up trying to get a confession out of him and doesn't say anything that would be admissible as evidence, but he does say enough to subtly let her know that he did plan the whole thing and there's nothing she can do about it (and it's only then that she goes through with murdering him). Cecilia only keeps the suit as a means of disposing of the evidence since nobody else knew there was a second suit.

As for the plan with the brother, it doesn't surprise me that they'd practically have to work in shifts to keep an eye on her. If anything, I'm thinking that Adrian wears the suit during the scene where the brother visits Cecilia in the institution and notices that she takes the pen while the brother isn't looking, hence why he sends the brother to go after her later that night so he can still have that plausible deniability if something goes wrong.

Then people would have had different theories. Whether it was Adrian or his brother, and that would have led to more theories.

Now we know for certain.

Then people would have had different theories. Whether it was Adrian or his brother, and that would have led to more theories.

Now we know for certain.

Not every film needs to be ambiguous enough to spawn different theories, especially if ambiguity would interfere with the handling of its thematic content. The film already hammered home how much of a violent, gaslighting abuser Adrian was before the whole invisible man thing even comes up so it would be inconsistent (if not irresponsible) to suggest that he was ultimately innocent and that Cecilia kills him because she's crazy with paranoia.

Not every film needs to be ambiguous enough to spawn different theories, especially if ambiguity would interfere with the handling of its thematic content. The film already hammered home how much of a violent, gaslighting abuser Adrian was before the whole invisible man thing even comes up so it would be inconsistent (if not irresponsible) to suggest that he was ultimately innocent and that Cecilia kills him because she's crazy with paranoia.