the hunt, the ending

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.

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.