Therefore, some friends said that Norton was actually acting in a "play within a play" - that is, Norton, who had a slight stutter in real life, showed that Roy was deliberately imitating stuttering in order to pretend to be Arron. Band stats act like a "layman" -- I don't think it's true -- at least not until Roy killed Arron. However, if Norton really had a slight stutter and could switch so freely in the play, it would indeed make people applaud.
In addition, regarding Linda's death, according to the above logic, it should be done in Roy's personality state: by the end of the film, no one except Roy knew that Linda was dead (if I remember correctly?). So when Roy's personality dominates, the second male is a high-IQ criminal. But when the bishop was killed, there should have been a "substitution": the first shot of the bishop's house is the bishop coming out of the bathroom. My guess is that Arron happened to go to the bishop's house to return the book. The bishop had just washed and saw Arron's color His heart aroused and wanted to do animal deeds. At the beginning, he was still persevering and enticing. Of course, Arron did not dare to refuse.
Of course, what is shown in the camera is that the murderer is hiding in the house, making a calm shot, and cutting off his left hand with the first knife, so my above speculation is completely invalid. But I would rather believe that the director did this for the sake of suspense: at the beginning of the story, arrange a plot that the director wants the audience to see (after all, the only witness in the film is standing outside the window and downstairs, and he only saw the window being smashed) , does not mean that the previous plot is the real case) This can drag the audience farther from the truth, giving the first impression that this is a long-planned action, making the case confusing until the answer is finally revealed. But usually in suspense films, this kind of routine should be returned to the crime scene at the end to reproduce the real scene of the case. This film does not. I don't know if this is an innocuous regret.
In the end, although I agree that Roy killed Arron to become the only character of the male second, when did this happen? The above logic remains unchanged, and the reasonable time range should be from after the incident (Roy will not be stupid enough to be arrested) to before the last trial to attack the plaintiff's lawyer (Roy explained at the end that he used the first male, and the first male took advantage of it. The female first, finally completed the outbreak in the court, that "substitution" was actually performed by Roy, indicating that Arron had disappeared at that time). There were two "substitutions" between them: the first time when the camera was about to run out of power, the second male suddenly lost his temper, and the second was when the first male questioned the second male after learning about the videotape. I personally prefer the second time, because the first time seems to be a regular "substitution" and there is no follow-up plot; while the second time involves the crux of the case, the cowardly Arron can't stand the lawyer's strong questioning and repeated repetitions about the videotape Tortured, Roy was summoned and furious, and with extreme disgust and contempt for Arron, completed the last "substitution" in the second male brain. Here, please note that the second male introduced himself seemingly nonchalantly. This is the first time in the whole film that he declares his name as ROY, just to give the lawyer an illusion: my client turned out to be a patient with split personality—in fact, at that time The split is over, the personality transformation is complete.
View more about Primal Fear reviews
