The Hunt : the hunt, the ending

]i am very curious what or rather who people thought took the last shot in last scene at LUCAS

Some say that it was all in his head
I don't buy it tho, and I don't think Vinterberg ever established that kind of narrative in the film
Its a very real and documentary feel like film, where subjective things like that never happen

Who? I don't know :[
Some say that it was the brother who supposedly was abusing Klara all along

I think Vinterberg left it open, as a reminder that in this kind of cases, we never really known it all, some things are always kept hidden, regretfully

C'mon guys!!
It was just his fear to be still not accepted
I think in the community the suspect will always snake in theri minds
Are u relly losing time trying to undertand who is the silhoutte? hahahaha
I can't believe it

I am not a native English speaker, so please be patient with me if there's something odd :)

English speaker, maybe not. Condescending ass? Yep.

then whoa, differences

yes i'am a little bit. better to be a simpleton

My signature: I'm not a native English speaker,so please be patient with me if there's something odd

It is symbolism that "The Hunt" is never over. Even if cleared of all charges, you'll likely never be free of it. That is why the shooter isn't shown, as it doesn't matter who he/she is, it captures the true ending for these stories in one dark moment.

I think the point is that it doesn't matter - that despite everything being superficially back to normal, the whole incident is still hanging over them and he's always going to be looking over his shoulder. So I wouldn't say "in his head", but I think it was more symbolic rather than literal.

I've always thought that it was the big, ogre looking guy that slaps up his son whenever his son tries to talk to Klara at her house. He just always seemed to have his mind made up about Lucas. In the end before the hunting ceremony you can see they shake hands but he is not too thrilled about it. But that's just my theory.

Like the above person said, I don't think it matters who took the shot. The implications of that shot is what's important.

I just assumed that it was someone who still doesn't believe Lucas' innocence.

For me it's hard to tell if it was a hallucination or if it was real. Nonetheless if it was real, the person could of easily killed him.

But his goal was just to scare Lucas.

---

could of easily killed him

---

could HAVE easily killed him

could easily have killed him, actually

No, it is either "could've easily killed him" or "could easily kill him". First one suits the situation better.

Why are you guys trying to correct each other if you are not good in that language yourself?

There was nothing wrong with my correction. The original quote was:

---

Nonetheless if it was real, the person could of easily killed him.

---

and my correction:
[Nonetheless, if it was real], the person could easily have killed him.
The "was" in the original sentence means that you cannot use your 2nd suggestion. Or you can by a stretch, but it doesn't sound good.

Your 1st suggestion, "could've easily killed him" is short for "could have easily killed him". But the adverb modifies the verb, so "easily" must go in front of the verb, hence: "could easily have".

Q.E.D. :)

I read that as "could easily killed him", I guess if you edited I would see it on the board. My bad, it seems i skipped "have".

Perhaps I'm just unimaginative, but I thought it was their way of highlighting the fact that these sorts of situations never truly end. I'm totally up for believing that it had a deeper symbolic meaning but I personally thought it was the viewers chance to share a very harsh realization with Lucas.

My interpretation was that the shot was obviously real, but that silhouette kind of represented anyone who thought he did.

With such a serious accusation, ones life would be forever changed and there will always be doubts of your character.

Hi,
I feel it is Torsten, Clara's brother.
In one of the scenes, just before the snowfall, Torsten shows empathy towards Clara while they were preparing for Xmas.

Hi,
I think that Klara's brother who shot the rifle
In the celebration ceremony scene, when Lucas looked around the room, the eyes contact with Clara's brother was odd.
I can't describe it more, I am sorry. I am not English native.
Just watch the scene again and you will see.

hey all, I really think its Klaras mom!
You know I kept thinking about this a lot.
And I figured when the Theo and the family was outside the grocery store waiting and looking at Lucas walk in pain, Klara asked "where is Fanny?" and the edit went straight to the mom as she said "I don't know." And it sounded a lost like guilt where maybe she possibly killed the dog or was involved somehow. And when Theo wanted to give Lucas food on Christmas she was clearly upset and hurt. She probably never forgave Lucas and still thinks he did it, and Grethe told her "children can't remember traumatic stuffor something"
And towards the end of the film, we never see her with the others, and she would be expected to be out hunting with the son and fathers so her appearance to Lucas may have just been her and a warning. Or something along that line.

I actually thought it was his own son! (Am I too cynical?) I really thought so, because the silhouette was small, seemingly belonging to a teenager. The boy, who stood by his father all along, maybe accumulated suspicion deep down and it was his way of secretly relieving that accumulation.

He seemed to be one defending him the most. I dont see it. He knew it wasn't true, so I dont understand why he would shoot him.

I agree. My first thought was the son. They even showed the action of the bolt in a scene before, was that foreshadowing? Maybe the son saw Lucas pick up Klara earlier and was firing a warning shot, so to speak.

Are you joking? The show is to show that he is never safe, at the 1 year later meeting people still believed he was the pedophile. His son would never shoot him you *beep* idiot. It's not a complex movie.

yes, loved the film's tension, and the proposition, because I have considered b4 how unthinkable and horrific it would be for anybody to be falsely accused of being a child molesterI think the film captures well the consequences and ramifications..

But the end hunt scene
(and I think the ending of the film was too hurried, period..instead of so much being made of the Scandinavian hunter's bar-mitzvar ritual, we needed to know how the town getting back to Lucas looked)

WTFwho put a bullet into the tree near his head, and what was this to convey?
that still maybe this long after Lucas' exonneration, some people still did not get with the program?

absolutly what I thought. The gap between christmas and next october would have been more interesting than this "hunter-bar-mitzwar". I would have loved to see
Grethe come to senses again. then anyway I think vinterberg did well by leaving us understand that the society will ever have doubts and nobody really apologizes.

It WAS NOT in his head. It happened. And it could be anybody - that's the point. What it's meant to show is that once you get the dirt on your name, you'll never clean it again, no matter what. His life, and practically his son's life too, is completely ruined for all time. And that's the power of one mean word - the deadliest weapon of all.

I'm not sure it's deadlier than a nuclear bomb.

Praise the God of all,drink the wineand let the world be the world.

Nuclear bombs are used in wars. Wars start with right words being used.

I subscribe to the theory others have posted here that the shot was real. It doesn't matter who the shooter was - the point being that for some people his name will never be cleared - he will always be guilty.

For your information, on the DVD version of "The Hunt", an alternate ending is included (similar to but obviously not the one used in the film). In the alternate, the shooter hits his mark, striking Lucas in the chest (in the heart). Lucas dies instantly collapsing to the leaf-covered forest floor where he lies motionless. The shooter flees as before and the woods remain silent. I think this alternate ending supports the fact that we too are viewing reality with the theatrical ending.

I believe Lucas was guilty and Marcus knew it. He found a pair of undies and asked his father about them. I think the undies belonged to the little girl and Marcus believe that too.

Here's hope you are trying to make a joke.





Can.You.Hear.Me?
Hell yes!

****

For me, it just means that it is never the same anymore.

For me it symbolises his role in the story. He may be participating in the hunt (a symbol of his life), but he is not the hunter. He has felt what it is like to be hunted and his life will never be the same again. He is now like the deer, always on the lookout, dreading what may surface, even if everything seems to be fine.

It might have been a misfire, but after what has passed he saw it as a direct hit on himself. Out of fear, he thought the culprit was standing right over him, but on a second look there was no one there.

He is the prey.

Quot homines, tot sententiae.

I interpret it simply as a way of saying, that such stories can not ever be earased out a persons history or even out of a towns history. Someone WILL not forget about it. And since the rest of the ending sequence was quite positive, that was a perfect way of describing the feeling of some people: "even if people say you didnt do it, we will never forget"

I agree with surajpnair. It was Klaras brother. The eye contact in the party was so odd.

The shot came from behind him opposed from in front of him where the shooter was shown. It's open to interpretation.

In my opinion, the movie is not about the incident or about Lucas fate, but about the social behaviour. The shot means that for a great deal of our society, there is always a need for someone to blame.

Please ignore what these over-analysing dopeheads are saying.

He was shot at. It was not in his head, there was nothing to analysed. That's just how it is in these cases. Some people can't let it go, they will keep believing he is guilty and that he got away with it, so they go vigilante.

If anything the ending was to tell the viewer, it will never end.

I think it was for symbolic purposes, similar to how we don't know who threw the rock or killed the dog. Basically, he became one of the deer. The deer represent innocence. It's not fair that people hunt deer, because they're innocent. Likewise, it's not fair that Lucas was "hunted" and shot at, because he was innocent. I think it ultimately conveys the message that life's not fair.

I thought the way it ended was the best way to do so to make the film have a message rather than just be a story. Throughout the film the portrayal of a society's blind, angry mob mentality (particularly the hateful one invoked, as in this case, by a potential paedophile) is shown to be a fast-growing entity which quickly grows out of control - all essentially because of the mere suggestion that Lucas committed the crime.

At the end when the shot is taken in his direction - despite being given the feeling that everyone is now okay with him again and it is widely regarded that he didn't do it - the story is elevated to a sort of modern parable. Once such a reputation-tarnishing suggestion is put out there, generally in spite of any admittance that the accusation was a mistake, the more bloodthirsty and/or unreasonable members of society will fail to wipe the hate from their minds.

This is what worries me about some of those facebook posts I sometimes see on my feed - the sort of vigilante ones which show a picture of a person with some kind of incriminating claim. The prime example which springs to mind is that of a post which circulated claiming that the pictured man was one of the now grown-up killers of James Bulger (a toddler who was killed by two boys in the UK in the early 90s). The quickly ensuing witch hunt ultimately led to the suicide of an innocent man who just couldn't take the barrage of hate and death threats wrongly coming his way any more.

But yeah, anyway, I think the ending was a great way of showing that it can be easier to spread hate than to undo it.

Well said. I agree with you on all points.
Alarming how fast hate can be incited in the masses, and how brutal the effects can be. All without warrant no less.

I don't think it's important to know who shot at him. I think that the it's more important to realise what it signifies, being that the accusation will be put against him for the rest of his life, despite the fact that it's been proven to be false.

because he's still being hunted.

I really think everybody's missing the point in here. I think the ending has something to do with two things (I'm not very clear with this, btw):

- The deers. In the first scenes, we see Lucas killing a deer. Deers are here a representation of innocence, just like any other animal in the movie (e.g. Luca's dog, etc.). The same innocence that we see in Lucas. Lucas (society) kills the deer (Lucas).

- The son. In the end, Lucas's son becomes a hunter. That is, a real man, part of society. Society, in this case, is essentialy a group of people ready to hunt, legitimated to do it.

So, what we see in the very end is something like this (I'm pretty sure somebody can explain this better than me): Lucas is not anymore a hunter, because he became the hunted when he's accused. Instead, his son becomes the hunter, as he becomes part of society. So, the shooter is a representation of society, the one that's legitimated to hunt. But having the guns doesn't make you the right to judge anyone, but instead, it does. That's what Lucas realises when he stands up.

Very good explanation I like it. Thinking about it now - well it's stupid since it's too obvious to say it, but the gun can also represent male sexuality.. also the male tendency to always solve things with direct force. The men in this movie are all portrayed as very weak and easily manipulated into anything. The women are very manipulative(even if unintentionally), and Lucas' best friend wants to trust him but he can't because the wife says so and so. That shows how the idea of morality can backfire when you have this herd mentality with ideas of punishment or women\man roles. It can kill friendships, kill people..

Watch the alternate ending on blu-ray.