Psychologist: You have to understand: Yes, I was his therapist for a time but he was very good at compartmentalizing. At no point was I advised of any illegal activity.
FBI Special Agent: We're not here to arrest or make any accusations, ma'am. This is a routine examination to complete our files.
Psychologist: But I don't know anything.
FBI Special Agent: That's for us to decide.
Psychologist: And he's dead...
FBI Special Agent: First, can you describe his overall psychological condition?
Psychologist: He was depressed with suicidal impulses, prone to rage. My impression at the time was that he was unstable and that instability was getting worse. There's more there in the notes.
FBI Special Agent: Thank you, but we'd rather hear it from you first and compare the notes later. Please continue.
Psychologist: Well, he was an interesting character in a way. It was almost as if...actually, I remember it being directly related to his personal life.
FBI Special Agent: "It" being what?
Psychologist: His career, the assassinations. Feeling he had nothing to offer from within he objectified himself into the most impersonal profession he could find. He was emotionally starved and that drove him to do what he did.
FBI Special Agent: Can you explain further? He shot people because he was lonely?
Psychologist: No, not like that. He kept trying and failing at personal relationships. His personal failures left him flailing for self-worth. From what I understood he was valued in his profession. The "hits" were his home. But that obviously gave him a hellish place to live. Thus, the increasing instability I observed. When I read of his suicide in the paper that seemed a logical end to me.
FBI Special Agent: Were any of his assassinations then personal?
Psychologist: Hard to say. My sense was he he did kill once for personal reasons. He could not stop punishing himself for it. I remember something like "after that I sabotaged every relationship. I deserve nothing." I do know on occasion he confessed his career, so it must be this illicit killing he felt was a permanent barrier.
FBI Special Agent: Interesting. Do you remember any other specifics he may have told you, even if he did not directly relate them to a crime?
Psychologist: What I remember most was the despair, a sense of doom, that regardless of any decision he made to "go straight" it was overridden by the mistakes of his past - and that he kept adding to those mistakes. I do know things changed after his trip to Russia. He wanted out but he had nowhere to go.
FBI Special Agent: What exactly drove him to see you? Was there a specific incident?
Psychologist: Oh, yes. It was the nude drive thru incident. He never fully recovered from the media exposure. He grasped onto many answers afterwards, I was but one, just like with the Mormonism.
FBI Special Agent: Mormonism? As in he joined the church?
Psychologist: More like he joined the outreach program going door to door. It didn't last long. He told me he could speak God's own truth but no one would believe him even if it cost them their life. I know it sounds crazy but it's all in the notes.
FBI Special Agent: Yes, ma'am. Thanks you for your time. We may have more questions after we more closely examine the notes.
Psychologist: Just one more thing, Agent Johnson. I've been ordered by courts to assess many types of criminals but Goupil was unique. Whatever he had wanted out of life he clearly did not get. It was as if he was on a mission to prove he couldn't have what he wanted, most likely in a need for self-justification for the path he'd taken. Whenever he got close to what he wanted, he either ran away or sabotaged it rather than face it and the totality of the errors of his ways. If you're trying to piece together his life, that was the logic of it as far as he was concerned. "Tragedy" was the word that kept coming to my mind.
NOTE: In the screenplay version of this the Agent is attracted to the Therapist (who happens to be smokin' hot). This makes the conversation about "getting what you want" have an undertone of placing the Agent (and thus the audience) in Goupil's shoes and whether or not he can believe he can have what he wants. She remains ambiguous throughout.
No comments:
Post a Comment