As I mentioned in another response, I've read an online article written by the author of one of the books this movie was based on -- he even served as a technical consultant on the film.
The author started off believing that Reeves' had been murdered, but after speaking to forensic experts and people who were truly close to Reeves, the author became utterly convinced that Reeves was a suicide. In the article, he mentions a lot of things which they did not include in the film, like an explanations for the extra bullet holes -- it is not uncommon for a suicidal person to make one or more "practice shots" in the days leading up to the fatal act, where they only turn the gun away from themselves at the last moment before pulling the trigger. The author goes on to explain that a lot of the other "discrepancies" at the death scene weren't really unusual for a suicide, despite what "common sense" may indicate. The author also learned that Reeves' family had a history of suicide & Reeves was extremely drunk the night of his death... both of which are high-risk factors for suicide. Additionally, the author discovered that the vast majority of people who claimed that Reeves showed no signs of depression were estranged friends and family members, many of whom had not spoken to Reeves in years. Those people who had worked closely with Reeves knew that Reeves was deeply depressed about being called back in to play Superman again; Reeves really felt that he was being typecast, and would never be taken seriously as an actor again.
I really think that the whole "framing sequence" was to show what this author uncovered, in the order that he uncovered it... and how the author originally believed one theory, but evidence eventually lead him to a completely different conclusion. For whatever reason, the movie didn't include all the facts that the author uncovered, either because of time constraints or for dramatic license... but after reading that article, I have a much better understanding and appreciation as to why the movie showed the investigation in the way that it did. And in the end, we can never be 100% sure of what happened that night; most of the suspects have died in the intervening decades. So I sort of liked the fact that they leave it up to the audience to decide what really happened the night that Reeves was killed.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2007-10-05 05:18 pm (UTC)The author started off believing that Reeves' had been murdered, but after speaking to forensic experts and people who were truly close to Reeves, the author became utterly convinced that Reeves was a suicide. In the article, he mentions a lot of things which they did not include in the film, like an explanations for the extra bullet holes -- it is not uncommon for a suicidal person to make one or more "practice shots" in the days leading up to the fatal act, where they only turn the gun away from themselves at the last moment before pulling the trigger. The author goes on to explain that a lot of the other "discrepancies" at the death scene weren't really unusual for a suicide, despite what "common sense" may indicate. The author also learned that Reeves' family had a history of suicide & Reeves was extremely drunk the night of his death... both of which are high-risk factors for suicide. Additionally, the author discovered that the vast majority of people who claimed that Reeves showed no signs of depression were estranged friends and family members, many of whom had not spoken to Reeves in years. Those people who had worked closely with Reeves knew that Reeves was deeply depressed about being called back in to play Superman again; Reeves really felt that he was being typecast, and would never be taken seriously as an actor again.
I really think that the whole "framing sequence" was to show what this author uncovered, in the order that he uncovered it... and how the author originally believed one theory, but evidence eventually lead him to a completely different conclusion. For whatever reason, the movie didn't include all the facts that the author uncovered, either because of time constraints or for dramatic license... but after reading that article, I have a much better understanding and appreciation as to why the movie showed the investigation in the way that it did. And in the end, we can never be 100% sure of what happened that night; most of the suspects have died in the intervening decades. So I sort of liked the fact that they leave it up to the audience to decide what really happened the night that Reeves was killed.
That's my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.
Edited to correct a *MAJOR* mistake.