Unraveling the Chessboard: Deciphering the Strategic Intricacies of "The Invisible Guest"

Having completed an in-depth analysis of "The Invisible Guest," I delved into its intricacies from three perspectives: structure, props and character settings, and character backgrounds. Of course, our analysis extends beyond merely understanding the plot; we also aim to grasp the director's creative approach, which truly encapsulates the joy of watching movies.

Without further ado, let's delve into the structure:

I. Film Structure

I divided the film into four parts:

Introduction (Approximately 10 minutes)

Protagonist's (Adrian) Story Version (Approximately 50 minutes)

Lawyer's (Goodman) Story Version (Approximately 20 minutes)

Truth and Ending (Approximately 20 minutes)

To provide a macroscopic understanding of each part's significance, it's essential to reiterate the twist at the end: the lawyer Goodman is actually an impostor, the mother of the victim "Daniel"; her intention in approaching the protagonist (Adrian) isn't to aid in his appeal but to make him confess and face legal consequences.

Understanding this, let's revisit the four-part structure:

In the first part (Introduction), the director, through Adrian,

provides a brief overview of the case, lasting about 10 minutes (standard duration for commercial films' introductions). This summary is directed at the "audience" and holds no value for the "lawyer Goodman" within the narrative, as this information is already known. Subsequently, Goodman launches the first attack on Adrian, questioning whether he knows who killed Laura (Adrian's lover) and casting doubt on the possibility of the killer entering and leaving the room without leaving traces. This attack serves as a transition to the second part of the film, leading to a more comprehensive examination of the case.

It's important to note: What purpose does the first part serve for the audience? Firstly, it provides a basic understanding of the case. Secondly, and significantly, it directs the audience's attention to "how the killer entered and exited the crime scene (Laura's room) without leaving a trace." This is a common trap in suspense films because merely pondering this question subconsciously leads to assumptions about another "killer." This sets the audience off in the wrong direction. Additionally, Adrian's shedding a tear after narrating serves to further mislead the audience. Furthermore, Goodman's presenting a "missing young man" bulletin complicates the case further. Let's move on to the second part.

The second part Is titled "Adrian's Story Version"

to remind viewers that this nearly 50-minute narrative is entirely subjective, both true and false. As it mostly stems from the protagonist's perspective, his narrative is undoubtedly aimed at exonerating himself! The brain-teasing aspect lies in how to discern the authenticity of Adrian's story, which we'll delve into later. First, let's look at the function of this part: Is Adrian's narrative not credible? Certainly not. Structurally, it provides an exposition of all the relevant characters and elements involved in the case: We learn that Adrian had been meeting Laura privately three months before the incident; they were involved in a car accident after one of their meetings, resulting in the death of a young man (Daniel); Adrian was subsequently harassed by Daniel's parents (due to the exposure of his lover and his BMW license plate);

Adrian and Laura were briefly entangled in the aftermath (collaborating in crime)... Adrian's narrative leads up to the opening scene of the film (Laura's murder and Adrian's arrest). Throughout this part, it seems as though we inadvertently link two somewhat unrelated cases: "Laura's murder" and "Daniel's disappearance." At least, the correlation is something Adrian doesn't want to acknowledge because he covered up the accident, motivated by his desire to prevent his wife and child from leaving him (more on this in the character background later). So far, the police are unaware of the car accident and whether Daniel is alive or dead. Who planted this association (including Adrian)? Correct, it's Goodman. Why did she go to such lengths? Right, she wants to help Adrian find the "invisible guest," the person who killed Laura and framed Adrian! But why find this "invisible guest"? Don't rush; the third part of the film answers this question!

As the film transitions to the third part, Goodman poses three questions to Adrian:

Why would the killer use Laura's phone to send a text message (to leave evidence)?

Why didn't the killer take the money from the scene (but instead scattered it)?

How did the killer leave the room (with no traces at the crime scene)?

Adrian needs help answering these questions. Failing to answer equates to admitting he's the killer (because only he could have committed the crime at the scene). Okay! Now, even Adrian wants to hear Goodman's story version (how Goodman helped him address these three questions). From this point, he begins to fall for Goodman's tactics. Not only does he fall for it, but many viewers also do.

The third part: The story version told by the lawyer (Goodman). It's not that others are too dumb; it's just that Goodman's story is too meticulous. Through Goodman's analysis, we learn that the killer is none other than the parents of the deceased Daniel. Daniel's mother works at the hotel where the incident occurred; the couple conspired to frame Adrian. (When Daniel's father first appeared at the scene of the incident, many viewers in the cinema exclaimed with sudden realization.)

At this point, many might ask, did this couple really need to go to such lengths (even to the extent of killing someone)? Just because they suspected Adrian's involvement in their son's disappearance?! This isn't sufficient to convince a jury and judge. Unless... unless the couple knew their son was already dead, and it was Adrian who pushed the body into the water. Their motive for the crime was revenge.

So far, the case seems clear: If Adrian admits to pushing Daniel's body into the water and locates Daniel's body, the case is essentially closed, and Adrian can evade a murder charge (at most, he might be charged with complicity or something similar). Speaking of which, even if we know Goodman is an imposter posing as Daniel's mother, it seems plausible: they only wanted to clear their son's name of the accusation of fleeing with money and find his body for burial. (Something doesn't quite add up though; if Goodman is impersonating Daniel's wife, did she sacrifice her husband to find their son's body?)

Of course, the story is more complex than this; if it were, this movie wouldn't be considered unique! All the shocking twists occur in the fourth part.

The fourth part: Truth and Ending

This part lasts less than 20 minutes, and the pace gradually accelerates. Indeed, Adrian is thoroughly convinced by Goodman's earlier story (the perfect exoneration narrative) and impressed by the lawyer's intellect. He even reveals his ultimate secret: Daniel was still alive before being pushed into the water!

This bombshell stuns the audience and leaves the character "Goodman" in the story speechless. All their previous defense strategies are instantly overturned. The plot undergoes rapid reversals: first, a reversal in the nature of the case (from complicity to murder); then, a reversal in the narrative of the case (Adrian's story contradicts reality; his lover is the actual accomplice); finally, a reversal in Goodman's identity (she's Daniel's mother posing as a lawyer). Scene after scene of climax unfolds until the protagonist (Adrian) is completely captured, ready for the slaughter. Throughout the film's four parts, you realize it's akin to a "game" between two people in a room—a game of chess. Hence, I prefer the translation of the Taiwanese title of the film: "Layout." However, this "layout" is limited to the first three parts of the film.

In summary, the first three parts are the layout meticulously arranged by the Thomas couple (the parents of the victim, Daniel), mostly under the control of "Lawyer Goodman." However, by the fourth part, the situation spirals out of control, and the truth is entirely beyond Goodman's expectations (referring to his son being alive before being pushed into the water). At this point, Goodman and Adrian are back on the same starting line; their victory or defeat becomes almost like a dice-throwing gamble, wagering on what? Correct, Adrian's trust in the imposter Goodman. In other words, Goodman spent an hour (the first three parts of the film) not to gain strategic approval but merely to earn Adrian's trust. Only trust can make Adrian relinquish everything to Goodman.

Once we've unraveled the entire structure of the film, understanding the storyline isn't a problem anymore. However, the pleasure of interpreting an excellent crime thriller extends beyond this. We must attempt to challenge the logical coherence of the film's concept, hidden within the visual language of the film itself. Next, we'll delve further into some props, plot setups, and filming techniques.

II. Key Elements in the Film

"Laura's Phone and That Text Message": The Engine that Drives the Story Forward

Many viewers have been puzzled by Laura's (the male protagonist's lover) phone and the text message received on it. However, both the phone and the message are crucial to the entire film; they are the engine that propels the story forward.

In the concluding part of the film's fourth segment, we learn that the text message was actually sent by Laura herself, with a delayed timer. Why did she do this? Because it wasn't Dennis's father or the eyewitness who tricked the male protagonist into the hotel, but Laura herself. She needed to persuade the male protagonist to turn himself in, which ultimately led to his downfall. It's likely that Laura anticipated this possibility in advance and edited the text message as a precautionary measure. After killing Laura, the male protagonist cleverly used this text message to concoct a story about someone attempting to blackmail him (indicating that the male protagonist, Adrian, is not foolish but rather quite intelligent).

Furthermore, Goodman, the lawyer, also exploits this phone message to fabricate a version of the story in which Thomas (Daniel's father) frames the male protagonist. Without this phone and text message, the story would likely come to a halt.

"The Photo Received by the Male Protagonist": Laura's Bait

How did Laura convince the male protagonist to meet her? The male protagonist is not a fool nor blindly in love, so he wouldn't easily fall into a trap. It was this photo—sent by a stranger named "Daniel"—that did the trick. We can infer that this photo and the envelope might be what Laura was doing when watching the film. Remember the scene where Laura and the male protagonist leave the countryside villa, and Laura sits in the passenger seat admiring the lake view while taking photos? In other words, Laura exploited the male protagonist's suspicions and created this bait.

“Car Navigation, Deer, and Driving Route Reveal Another Major Reason Why the Male Protagonist Didn't Report the Accident”

The male protagonist's reason for not reporting the accident after it happened is usually interpreted as his desire to keep his wife and child unaware of his affair. This seems plausible. However, considering the male protagonist's ability to have his criminal record erased by the police, was it really necessary for him to go to such lengths to destroy Daniel's body, especially since it was an accidental occurrence (blame it on the deer that darted out of the woods)? Let's assume, hypothetically, that there was no deer causing the disturbance! At least in the film, there's no shot of a deer being hit or a deer carcass. As for the blood on Laura's hands, it's doubtful to be from a deer (since both were inside the car, any blood splatter should have been on the window).

So, if this assumption holds, could the accident have been staged? With this assumption in mind, let's examine the scene where the male protagonist and Laura reach a fork in the road. The car navigation indicates the shoulder to the right, leading me to speculate that the left side might actually be "oncoming traffic" (which could be a violation for someone as distracted as the male protagonist, who arrived late due to a flight delay).

If the navigation isn't enough evidence, consider the subsequent crash scene. Note that the director employs a lot of "cross-axis" shooting (you can look up the concept of "cross-axis shooting" online), which completely disorients the audience. If you look closely, you'll notice that the crash causes the BMW to make a 180-degree turn and, after stalling, aligns with Daniel's oncoming car, which is then hit by the subsequent car.

The direction of the witness's travel aligns with Daniel's travel direction.

This once again proves that this lane is a one-way street, and the male protagonist violated traffic rules first (note that the police can easily investigate the direction of the accident). As for why Thomas's car came from the opposite direction later, I interpret it as a "narrative loophole" in the male protagonist's story (which the police cannot investigate).

The Roles of Two Characters (the eyewitness and Daniel's mother working at the hotel)

These two characters do exist and do witness events, and Daniel's mother does work at the hotel. However, what they do—testifying as witnesses and Daniel's mother helping her husband, Thomas, commit the crime and flee—is pure fiction. But Goodman, the lawyer, using them to deceive the male protagonist seems entirely reasonable because the male protagonist is suspicious.

The Male Protagonist's Phone Helps Goodman's Act Without Being Detected

We can't help but wonder during the lengthy hour-long conversation, how the fake Goodman was so lucky: if the male protagonist's personal lawyer, Felix, had called and inquired carefully, or if the real Goodman had arrived earlier, wouldn't it have been a dead giveaway? Pay attention to one detail: the male protagonist once had a phone call with Felix, and he even let Goodman answer the phone. And it's precisely at this moment that Goodman has the opportunity to turn off the male protagonist's phone. (We can find out at the end that the male protagonist did turn off his phone, which led Felix to complain.)

We can deduce that Goodman conducted precise research before coming. However, personally, I do not find this part of the film very rigorous: how could it be so coincidental that when the male protagonist made the call, Felix had just landed, and the noise from the airport helped Goodman narrowly avoid detection?

Goodman's "Non-Standard Thinking" Metaphor

Goodman tells a story: an empty shed, a person hanging themselves; the rope is 3 meters long, and the person's feet are less than 30 centimeters off the ground, with the nearest wall about 6 meters away.

What does it mean? In short, the existing conditions in the shed are insufficient for the person to successfully hang themselves (they can't reach). Unless the person stands on a large ice block. Goodman's metaphor is exceptionally clever! Imagine: what does it feel like for a person to stand on an ice block while hanging themselves? They would have to wait for the ice block to melt little by little, with the rope tightening around their neck, suffocating them.

Goodman then tells the male protagonist, "This is your shed." The unfortunate male protagonist only thinks about quickly finding an ice block to stand on but doesn't realize that death awaits him after standing on it. From the moment Goodman, the lawyer, enters the male protagonist's room, he repeatedly emphasizes one concept: pay attention to details. Yes, this is not only directed at the male protagonist but also a reminder to the audience: to understand this type of film, one must pay attention to every detail.

III. Character’s Background

In conclusion, let's discuss the background of the characters in this film. This is also a key point in explaining the theme of the film.

First, our male protagonist, Adrian, once said: "It took me ten years to achieve what I have now." What can we infer from this statement? The male protagonist was not wealthy ten years ago; he wasn't born into a wealthy family. Therefore, he is so afraid of losing everything; why is Adrian so afraid of losing his family? I personally don't think he truly loves his family, which doesn't fit his character (responsible people wouldn't cheat). Adrian probably achieved his current status with the help of his wife. Note: his wife is always present at high-society events.=

Secondly, the Thomas couple: one is a former senior engineer at BMW, and the other is a literature professor. This naturally places them in the intellectual category. However, economically, they are quite poor, as evidenced by Thomas's car and their conversations. This is beyond doubt. Thus, the Thomas couple doesn't just oppose the male protagonist Adrian; they face the entire upper class and even state power.

Clearly, this is a film that exposes corruption and hypocrisy, and calling it a black film is quite appropriate.