My posted comments on The Guardian online Blog on The Killing III
posted 23rd December 2012
just popped back in to ask a silly question: (i think i have this right)
So if Loke knew it was Rheinhardt all along(?or was it just at the end?)
Then why on earth didn’t he just kill him instead of tall the other people and kidnap Emilie and cause all this rather alarming kerfuffle?
I’m sure this has been discussed somewhere but not enough time to go through all the Blog. Realise i was distinctly disengaged with the plot at the time and just couldn’t be bothered..
Now it has been aerating my brain this rather pertinent question. Can somebody please explain? cheers:)
in reply to a poster:
@William1981 – Yes, thank you very much, very detailed and deep an explanation, makes sense. Good point about the confusion being the point and how a Detective would encounter it as patterns and such like. Does seem like she never had the time to just sit back and kick it like Clint and look at said pattern?
My personal take on it is that the screenwriters, bereft and desolate at being told that The Killing was to be peremptorily ended and naturally having a head full of dramatic ideas and denouements, stuffed the whole lot into The Killing III and kept pushing like an overfull suitcase on the bed until it finally snapped shut. After they sat on it..
Nb. i think its Clouseau:)
i guess its natural to pine for an all gathered in the library moment and a satisfactorily secure twirling of a carefully waxed moustache..
Or even a Mrs Marple moment, who would twirl and fix upon someone all of a sudden trembling with ill disguised guilt in the corner, with her obsidian and glacial blue eyes…