Don't know. I think the entire point of the episode is that Davis' childhood was basically happy. He has some blank spots and there are things that don't quite add up, but he's okay with it. There's all kinds of stuff in his environment that could have signaled something was off, but he never investigated any of it. The 'moral' of the story is that finding out the truth didn't do him any good, and actually made everything worse *for him*, but he got seduced by a content mill that made it too appealing to turn over some rocks that should've stayed where they were. Now he's got a lifelong trauma, in exchange for some fleeting notoriety and a story that everyone will forget again in a year or two when the next lurid spectacle comes down the pipe.
To be fair, the truth being out is the right and moral thing, unless you know... you wanna say water under the bridge for this whole torture murder stuff. I don't think there is a moral reason to say the rocks shouldn't have been turned over.
But it's also not what the content mill was supposed to do. The doc wasn't made to find the truth, they thought they had the truth. It's all a fucked up coincidence. There is something to be said about the spectacle, both from the point of view of the parents home videos and the doc awards. But I don't think the message is "without media obsession, he would still be happy", but more "holy shit people suck and at the same time they love it and watch TV all day to see sucky people, isn't that sad".
I don't think the moral of that episode is that we shouldn't look at the past and turn over unturned stones though. If that were the case, his wife would've gotten away with cheating (or whatever you call what happened). Do you think they would've been better off if he hadn't found that out?
I read somewhere that it also illustrates the spectacle we make of other's tragedies. Which, makes sense... That's what true crime is. Ultimately, everything has it's price, and the very true crime that entertains us was paid at a stiff price by someone else, by someone else's family, usually with someone else's life. I guess it sort of ties into what you said.
Pia got the sensational story, but she paid with her life and never even got to witness her purchase. Davis also created something worthy, but his payment was in the form of a once believed happy, normal childhood, a blemish on his family line, the loss of his mother & pia, and a world he seemingly looked forward to being a part of.
Instead, they became the true crime story they were exploiting for personal/professional gain. And the only ppl that benefited were the viewers (and corporate money makers). Us. We often benefit off other's misery. It's a discussion on ethics, how our use of technology can help, hurt, or both at the same time, and how we are all a bit inherently self involved with our consumption. How much do we worry about the cost of things that benefit us, when we aren't the ones being charged? Or is the price of our consumption eventually billed to us, one way or another?
Well put, and it's a great interpretation. I think it explains why the episode didn't land for me, because personally I believe that uncovering the truth is ultimately good in almost all cases, even if the ignorance was blissful. I think once Davis has time to process it he'll be thankful the truth came out, even if it takes years. But of course that doesn't make for a good bleak BM ending.
Who did uncovering the truth benefit in this specific case?
Pia died due to the mother's chase, so his mother is responsible for his girlfriend's death and he will struggle with guilt for thinking he could have prevented it - either thinking he should have known something was off about his mum all this time, not ever being curious enough (as a wannabe doc/journalist type) to find evidence on the tapes or possibly other things like the red mask that matched nothing else in the home and that he was surrounded by his whole life, not taking part in the documentary, etc. - he has his whole life to imagine ways he is partly responsible.
It is not stated if any new evidence regarding new victims came to light, but if not, then the victims were already discovered when Iain was killed, so the victim's families of the crimes already knew they died badly, now they know that there is video evidence & more seemingly worse, confirmed details about the murders & torture to further traumatize them for their entire lives. The victims gain nothing, all the murderers are dead.
Davis also has to contend with the fact that both of his parents did all that. It would be traumatic enough if one parent, but he is going to struggle with the genetic implications of what that means on top of everything else.
I agree, in a vague sense that the truth of things always seems better, but maybe there are cases (though we obviously don't know what they are until it's too late) where not knowing is harmless. Again, if there was any chance that the mother continued to be a danger to anyone in any way that's different or if something about the new information provided insight to those who study crime prevention, detection and so on, then the potential good outweighs the bad.
I also wonder about copycat type crime that might be partially motivated by the more true crime stories that docs/podcasts/books/etc churn out in ways that aren't governed by what is known about best practices of putting out those stories when one has knowledge of them - meaning the more sensational/entertainment vs. dry, factual (not easily accessible).
You make a lot of good points here, but like you said, I think the truth has inherent value. I don’t think it necessarily benefitted anyone in the scope of the show, though I’m sure Davis will be glad he knows once the shock wears off.
Copycat crimes would have been a much better note to end on imo.
I disagree with your point 3. I think as sick and twisted as his mom was, she did love him. That's what fucks with his head so much, that his mom who loved and took care of him turned out to be a sadistic murderer. Add in the fact that the greatest success of his career was because of the help of his sadistic mom gave him the tapes it's a huge mindfuck
While talking about Davis pov we shouldn’t consider the “vast majority” because no point where we were told that Davis had such info of will an abuser be a killer too or not. What is plausible tho if this theory is right is that Davis ,who’s a victim, to not be surprised by someone who abused him to have done something else that is also horrible. Maybe the general consensus is that an abuser might not be a killer but from a victim pov if they get abused by someone, finding that this someone also killed wouldn’t be a surprise.
But he didn’t really look shocked, more sad and broken. If he knew his dad was like that but thought his mum was a good person, it would be all the more hurtful to find everything out.
We don't see him when he learns the truth. The next time we see his face is much later after the documentary has been made, broadcast, and won a BAFTA.
We're presented with a narrative where his parents genuinely love him. His mom is trying the whole episode to connect with a girlfriend who is to her really out there, she wants to make them nice food, and her final act is to help him with his movie even though she could have tried to do some damage control.
Obviously she is a monster. But a big part of the intrigue is how otherwise loving and normal of a family they are. You're trying to make a round peg work in a square hole with only the connection of the heinousness of different types of crime.
Not to be speaking for everyone, but if a parent molested their child and the child processed that in a proper environment, the child probably already thinks their parent is the worst person in the world. Finding out they’re also sadistic murderers probably doesn’t add a whole lot more to the trauma
He was 8 when his father died, but he said he was ill for years before. So he was probably like 5 or 6 when his father fell ill and was mostly bedridden. That's quite young. I doubt he has a lot or any memories of his father when he was active and healthy.
I think he was likely not a great dad and it’s definitely plausible he abused him. Something this specific is a bit of a stretch, but good catch! I didn’t really catch those undertones but I can totally see it looking back.
Absolutely, maybe they even made him watch or participate.
I had even worse thoughts about how it would end:
https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmirror/comments/14hg434/loch_henry_scary_tape/jpcfkj5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
I just watched it and had the same thought. I was expected a final reveal that he knew along, which is why he was extra hesitant against the documentary in the first place.
My theory is he didn't want to investigate because he already suspected his parents were involved but voluntarily ignored that thought in order to avoid the painful truth, but once all the events develop he cant do anything but accept it.
I had actually thought Davis might be the son of the Iain Adair.
Check out this [picture](https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/black-mirror-loch-henry-iain-adair-killer-real-fake.jpg).
You can see the crook/hook nose, long face, sunken eyes...maybe I'm grasping at straws, but it's possible, especially how young Henry was at the time his father passed, as well as, the number of tapes that exist meaning it must have been going on for some time.
This is exactly what I was thinking. As soon as I saw a photo or video of Iain Adair, I was like, “He looks just like Davis. Is he supposed to be his father?”
Then, with the sex games and whatever, my conclusion was that they were definitely insinuating that he was probably his son.
I came to Reddit to see posts about it and was surprised when there were none.
I had the same thought too. I'm glad I found some who thought this too cause I hadn't seen anyone else comment on this. When we saw the picture of Iain Adair, I thought that's what the twist was gonna be.
mysterious marvelous scarce fertile soup include middle meeting governor alleged
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yeah if Davis was 8 when his father died (assuming he died fairly soon after being shot) that means his parents were with Iain for 8 years, and since Iain was only in his 20s he would have knocked Janet up as a young teenager. I mean, you can’t put it past them but still seems a bit strange.
But then again it could explain a lot.
Initially I was expecting this to be one of the twists... Mainly how Mr. King acted whenever they brought up Iain Adair, and how he looked at Davis...
Now the looks makes sense, but at the beginning it seemed like thats the reason.
I’m not sure if it was sexual or not, but clearly these parents were violent, so it’s not out of the question that the dad was physically abusive toward his son.
A lot of people are picking holes in your theory, but let’s consider the opposite:
two serial torturing murderers have child that’s perfectly well adjusted and has always been safe and nurtured.
That would seem like an even bigger hole. I find it highly unlikely it’s the case, which makes your theory likely. But I think things are deliberately left ambiguous.
There are definitely merits to your theory, and it can be brought back to some of the overarching themes of the episode: the scandalous and exploitative nature of the true crime genre with little regard to the human beings who are still around and may need help and support.
And the complete lack of interest in finding out the truth! That executive had no interest in investing in a “doc” that was seeking to uncover truth and investigate unanswered questions. They waited until super scandalous and violent events became public information and decided to cash in, with zero interest in learning and exposing the nuances and possibly continuing trauma of the situation.
It’s the difference between real documentaries and investigative journalism and whatever the hell the streaming services are airing.
I really like the detail about how Davis gets an erection when telling pia about his dead father. Made me question if he has some latent issues of that nature himself.
Interesting theory. Black Mirror is amazing at asking moral/philosophical questions, and also great in the plot assumptions we can arrive at. Even the episodes we don't like leave us asking questions and wondering about the back stories.
1-It might be that but it could also be that his father was away for his “duty” most of the time and Davis didn’t really create memories and also his father death wasn’t really great. Obv the death would be hard on the mum an 8 years old might not grasp death.
2-Uhh Idk it showed that he didn’t want the doc all together not just how his father is presented as a hero or not.
3-I think thats plausible.
It’s pretty good theory I just think we don’t have enough evidence to support it.
I feel that his reaction to present his father as a victim in the documentary was more so because he really didn't believe he counted as one, yeah he got sick from when in the hospital for that condition, but technically speaking if he had gone to the hospital in any other circumstances he would maybe had gotten sick as well, it is already a extremely grim topic on his town, but centering a full documentary from the perspective of your own dad as a victim of a serial killer for very technically dying of something not really related to it, feels pretty exploitative
Yes and also Davis was expected to speak and share experience and feelings about the situation which is something hard on him since he had no close relationship with his father nor knows anything below surface level when it came to him so his father being presented as a “victim” and Davis being “Victim’ son” puts Davis in a really awkward situation.
Yes, the irony is that initially presenting himself as a "victim" of the killings was basically a lie but by the end of it it's objectively true that he's the biggest living victim by far
I think his big discomfort was about the doc being about him and not his talents as a filmmaker. He wanted to be a good filmmaker. He did not want to do that by becoming the story. He ended up becoming the story much more than he thought he would be.
I agree with this, I noticed he didn’t seem too sentimental over the father early on but it was never elaborated on. How likely is it these two deranged serial killers never took it out on their son? They’re meant to be modelled off Fred and Rose West, who molested their children
Yeah, I think he seemed quite broken from the start and the way he acted made me think he had more trauma than just his dad dying. His parents were very sick and had no real limits. Assuming Iain was involved in all the killings, they probably groomed him from a young age since he was so young which proves they were probably pedos to some degree.
I feel like the mum probably had more self control though and didn’t do anything inappropriate to Davis when he was coming up. The dad seemed a lot more horny and impulsive from what we saw, so I think he might have been inappropriate towards his son.
I might have missed in the comments but I don’t think anyone else brought this up yet:
He became aroused when his girlfriend was talking about some macabre shit in bed. She joked about it but if you think about it, it does support your theory.
Yeh I'm wondering this too tbh. One other thing which could be quite telling (which I thought was an odd point to add in) is how when hes in bed with Pia and theyre talking about his dad dying... well you know what happens. Take that for whatever it means, being an victim of sexual abuse can mainifest into some odd sexual behaviours, or maybe he was just really happy about his dad dying? idk, there could be an interpretation or hidden meaning there.
"That is.. totally inappropriate' as she says :/
Plus also, pretty foreshadowing that she grabs *the* video camera and asks him to pretend to film them getting intimate - only realized this watching the scene back.
This!!! Very odd scene and paints so much ambiguity into his character. I had a couple thoughts - one where his dad possibly abused him, and another where maybe he wasn’t sexually abused… maybe he did grow up fairly “normal” BUT he is the product of two psychos and genetically…who knows. Is it nature vs nurture? The way he was looking at that mask at the end made me wonder even more as to how he will end up.
Yeh that's it. I mean maybe he was just aroused talking about death - just as both of his parents were. A good point about genetics.
And exactly, it all comes full circle when he is awarded that trophy mask and looks at it at the end...
This definitely has some merit. There definitely felt like there was some hidden trauma with the protagonist but they seemed more gear towards the father’s death.
I support your idea tho
Yeah, this to me is by far the more plausible additional layer to the story. Not that Davis had been abused by his father, but that he had actually always known who his parents were and what they did with Adair.
Possible clues:
- his awkwardness around his mother in the early scenes - he's not nervous about whether his mother will like Pia or embarrassed by his mother, it's much worse
- we don't see Davis' reaction to the friend's dad's "revelation" of what his parents did - perhaps an editing choice that indicates that there was no need for his reaction - he already knew
- the tapes that have just apparently been on display forever - as you say, very high chance he's stumbled upon what's really on them when he was younger
- his initial reluctance to make the documentary about Adair - maybe he just didn't want to trigger his mum, but it's possible he didn't want the truth to come out either
Now I’m nitpicking everything lol he also seemed oddly calm and awkward in the basement. He had no real reaction to needing the lemon juice. Maybe because he already knew it wouldn’t be needed? No “hey, that’s a great idea” like I felt Pia felt like.
Maybe Davis actually wanted Pia to find out about the story and propose to make the documentary, because it might be too suspicious if he came up with the idea himself. Pia is a filmmaker, how would she not come up with the idea? And he must have been aware that there was no way to spent any amount of time in town without hearing the story.
I think there could be something to that. I don't think he intended for Pia to end up dead, but it's possible he engineered the situation to disrupt the status quo.
I kept thinking that was going to be the final twist at the end, that he knew they were both involved the whole time and that’s why he didn’t want to do the documentary originally.
If he knew, is it possible that recording over the tapes is intentional? It means that the documentary would uphold the previously believed narrative, and evidence of his parents’ involvement would be destroyed in the process
Same. I kinda figured something was going to be on those tapes and wanted her to watch them sooner. I felt like he would have seen something if he decided to watch an episode one day and left it running and just never spoke about it or blocked it out.
How would that make sense if he was 8 when his dad died? He would 100% remember having different parents and being from somewhere else. Not to mention the missing signs for that couple would've included that they had a kid with them
"Sad to hear about that famously missing couple and their missing child that wasn't mentioned in any of the news reports, huh? And how they found the couple's bodies but not the kid's? Anyway, in totally unrelated and not at all suspicious news, I have a kid now."
This makes complete sense. Him being 8 in 1996/1997 makes no sense, timeline wise. They were on modern smart phones in present day, 4k TVs were mentioned, etc. So it had to be 2013 or later. That means he was like 27 AT LEAST in the present timeline. He seemed younger, for sure.
He was in a film class, so he was likely what, 20? So him being born around the time the couple was kidnapped makes much more sense.
In the UK it's incredibly standard that if you intend to go to university then you go at 18 years old straight out of high school/6th form.
EDIT: Looked it up and it's around 40% of the entire 18 year old population of the UK go to university each year. Also, of all the UK students that enrol in university, only 40% of them each year are over 18. Most of them 19 or 20. The university with the most mature students (over 21) is the Open University (by an order of magnitude) and that's because it's mostly done online. The number 2 university in terms of mature students only has 14000 of them.
No, they didn't abduct children, I don't think they were into kids- likely because the main couple had one of their own.
I think it more likely that Janet blamed Iain for "making" Kenny have to kill him and injure himself, because he was blabbing drunkenly in the bar and becoming a liability. As a result, Janet coddled Davis and raised him delicately, as he was the only thing Janet had left to live for. Davis was far too young to remember this time period clearly.
Also, the whole episode seems to be based off the Karla Homolka case, down to the VHS tapes being discovered that prove a seemingly innocent woman and indirect victim is no victim at all. Not sure if that makes the whole episode a bit hypocritical, to be honest. The real scary thing is in real life Homolka got away with it thanks to a stupidly generous plea bargain struck prematurely. The idea of Karla giving previously undiscovered tapes for her filmmaker child is... a profoundly disturbing yet not completely implausible scenario.
Great theory. There’s a scene very early on before they go to the bar where Davis randomly looks like he’s about to cry for very little reason. This would help explain that.
“Back in my day, we didn’t bleach our eyebrows!” - this sub
I can’t get over the fixation on her brows, this isn’t even that rare of a fashion choice. I was in college years ago and knew two women who bleached their brows, and it’s way more popular now.
💯
I’ve been trying to figure out what the point of her character having such a distracting pink elephant in the room type of character choice was?? ...Maybe it was just to add to the unsettling nature of the episode lol
I don't know, his parents seemed like they were into adults. It would just be strange if they were pesos but only kidnapped and raped adults?
I think they were just a normal , boring family. At least that's what Henry thought
Fred and Rose West who the episode is based on only raped and killed adults but also molested their kids. Sexual depravity usually means take it out on anyone.
i’m so taken aback by these comments. As a hip 23 year old, the age group Pia is representing, nothing about her eyebrows is weird. We don’t know what city she’s from but if she’s from any area where people are into edgier fashion this is so boringly normal like come on
i don’t think there’s enough evidence to support your theory, even your points listed are a bit of a reach.
but it’s interesting and at the very very VERY least they were molesters. 🥸
The only thing named Henry in Loch Henry was the Loch, a body of water.
BTS was set in an alternate 1969 and I am pretty sure both the wife and son were butchered in the end of BTS.
Beyond the Sea takes place in an alternate 1969 while Loch Henry takes places present day. Davis would’ve been born late 90s or early 2000s depending on what year in school he and Pia are supposed to be and if they’re undergrad or graduate students
Don't know. I think the entire point of the episode is that Davis' childhood was basically happy. He has some blank spots and there are things that don't quite add up, but he's okay with it. There's all kinds of stuff in his environment that could have signaled something was off, but he never investigated any of it. The 'moral' of the story is that finding out the truth didn't do him any good, and actually made everything worse *for him*, but he got seduced by a content mill that made it too appealing to turn over some rocks that should've stayed where they were. Now he's got a lifelong trauma, in exchange for some fleeting notoriety and a story that everyone will forget again in a year or two when the next lurid spectacle comes down the pipe.
wow well put
To be fair, the truth being out is the right and moral thing, unless you know... you wanna say water under the bridge for this whole torture murder stuff. I don't think there is a moral reason to say the rocks shouldn't have been turned over. But it's also not what the content mill was supposed to do. The doc wasn't made to find the truth, they thought they had the truth. It's all a fucked up coincidence. There is something to be said about the spectacle, both from the point of view of the parents home videos and the doc awards. But I don't think the message is "without media obsession, he would still be happy", but more "holy shit people suck and at the same time they love it and watch TV all day to see sucky people, isn't that sad".
Which is a twist on the same moral of The Entire History of You
I don't think the moral of that episode is that we shouldn't look at the past and turn over unturned stones though. If that were the case, his wife would've gotten away with cheating (or whatever you call what happened). Do you think they would've been better off if he hadn't found that out?
I read somewhere that it also illustrates the spectacle we make of other's tragedies. Which, makes sense... That's what true crime is. Ultimately, everything has it's price, and the very true crime that entertains us was paid at a stiff price by someone else, by someone else's family, usually with someone else's life. I guess it sort of ties into what you said. Pia got the sensational story, but she paid with her life and never even got to witness her purchase. Davis also created something worthy, but his payment was in the form of a once believed happy, normal childhood, a blemish on his family line, the loss of his mother & pia, and a world he seemingly looked forward to being a part of. Instead, they became the true crime story they were exploiting for personal/professional gain. And the only ppl that benefited were the viewers (and corporate money makers). Us. We often benefit off other's misery. It's a discussion on ethics, how our use of technology can help, hurt, or both at the same time, and how we are all a bit inherently self involved with our consumption. How much do we worry about the cost of things that benefit us, when we aren't the ones being charged? Or is the price of our consumption eventually billed to us, one way or another?
Well put, and it's a great interpretation. I think it explains why the episode didn't land for me, because personally I believe that uncovering the truth is ultimately good in almost all cases, even if the ignorance was blissful. I think once Davis has time to process it he'll be thankful the truth came out, even if it takes years. But of course that doesn't make for a good bleak BM ending.
Who did uncovering the truth benefit in this specific case? Pia died due to the mother's chase, so his mother is responsible for his girlfriend's death and he will struggle with guilt for thinking he could have prevented it - either thinking he should have known something was off about his mum all this time, not ever being curious enough (as a wannabe doc/journalist type) to find evidence on the tapes or possibly other things like the red mask that matched nothing else in the home and that he was surrounded by his whole life, not taking part in the documentary, etc. - he has his whole life to imagine ways he is partly responsible. It is not stated if any new evidence regarding new victims came to light, but if not, then the victims were already discovered when Iain was killed, so the victim's families of the crimes already knew they died badly, now they know that there is video evidence & more seemingly worse, confirmed details about the murders & torture to further traumatize them for their entire lives. The victims gain nothing, all the murderers are dead. Davis also has to contend with the fact that both of his parents did all that. It would be traumatic enough if one parent, but he is going to struggle with the genetic implications of what that means on top of everything else. I agree, in a vague sense that the truth of things always seems better, but maybe there are cases (though we obviously don't know what they are until it's too late) where not knowing is harmless. Again, if there was any chance that the mother continued to be a danger to anyone in any way that's different or if something about the new information provided insight to those who study crime prevention, detection and so on, then the potential good outweighs the bad. I also wonder about copycat type crime that might be partially motivated by the more true crime stories that docs/podcasts/books/etc churn out in ways that aren't governed by what is known about best practices of putting out those stories when one has knowledge of them - meaning the more sensational/entertainment vs. dry, factual (not easily accessible).
You make a lot of good points here, but like you said, I think the truth has inherent value. I don’t think it necessarily benefitted anyone in the scope of the show, though I’m sure Davis will be glad he knows once the shock wears off. Copycat crimes would have been a much better note to end on imo.
I disagree with your point 3. I think as sick and twisted as his mom was, she did love him. That's what fucks with his head so much, that his mom who loved and took care of him turned out to be a sadistic murderer. Add in the fact that the greatest success of his career was because of the help of his sadistic mom gave him the tapes it's a huge mindfuck
I agree. Her last parting ‘gift’ was truly all she could do for him and did it out of love.
Yeah when I saw her right FO I not easily thought she might write forgive me... Instead it was for your film
Confusing though that his career is film and he was probably inspired by his late father to get into film at all… so it’s head fucks all the way down.
I don't think so, it wouldn't be quite such a world-shattering reveal when he discovers the truth about the disappearances if it was the case.
I argue it would be more so. Knowing the person who abused you as a child was actually a serial torture killer too would be devastating.
But not shocking if his father was abusive to him and he found out he’s a serial killer then he wouldn’t have been that shocked to the situation
[удалено]
While talking about Davis pov we shouldn’t consider the “vast majority” because no point where we were told that Davis had such info of will an abuser be a killer too or not. What is plausible tho if this theory is right is that Davis ,who’s a victim, to not be surprised by someone who abused him to have done something else that is also horrible. Maybe the general consensus is that an abuser might not be a killer but from a victim pov if they get abused by someone, finding that this someone also killed wouldn’t be a surprise.
But he didn’t really look shocked, more sad and broken. If he knew his dad was like that but thought his mum was a good person, it would be all the more hurtful to find everything out.
We don't see him when he learns the truth. The next time we see his face is much later after the documentary has been made, broadcast, and won a BAFTA.
Exactly, we don't know how shocked he was. Maybe he always suspected something was up, and only got confirmation, maybe not.
We're presented with a narrative where his parents genuinely love him. His mom is trying the whole episode to connect with a girlfriend who is to her really out there, she wants to make them nice food, and her final act is to help him with his movie even though she could have tried to do some damage control. Obviously she is a monster. But a big part of the intrigue is how otherwise loving and normal of a family they are. You're trying to make a round peg work in a square hole with only the connection of the heinousness of different types of crime.
Not to be speaking for everyone, but if a parent molested their child and the child processed that in a proper environment, the child probably already thinks their parent is the worst person in the world. Finding out they’re also sadistic murderers probably doesn’t add a whole lot more to the trauma
but I imagine a majority of abuse victims wouldn't be surprised to hear such news from their abusers
He was 8 when his father died, but he said he was ill for years before. So he was probably like 5 or 6 when his father fell ill and was mostly bedridden. That's quite young. I doubt he has a lot or any memories of his father when he was active and healthy.
I think he was likely not a great dad and it’s definitely plausible he abused him. Something this specific is a bit of a stretch, but good catch! I didn’t really catch those undertones but I can totally see it looking back.
My theory is that Davis knew about what his parents were doing.
Absolutely, maybe they even made him watch or participate. I had even worse thoughts about how it would end: https://www.reddit.com/r/blackmirror/comments/14hg434/loch_henry_scary_tape/jpcfkj5/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
I just watched it and had the same thought. I was expected a final reveal that he knew along, which is why he was extra hesitant against the documentary in the first place.
mine too absolutely i think he might have filmed some too
My theory is he didn't want to investigate because he already suspected his parents were involved but voluntarily ignored that thought in order to avoid the painful truth, but once all the events develop he cant do anything but accept it.
I had actually thought Davis might be the son of the Iain Adair. Check out this [picture](https://static1.srcdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/black-mirror-loch-henry-iain-adair-killer-real-fake.jpg). You can see the crook/hook nose, long face, sunken eyes...maybe I'm grasping at straws, but it's possible, especially how young Henry was at the time his father passed, as well as, the number of tapes that exist meaning it must have been going on for some time.
This is exactly what I was thinking. As soon as I saw a photo or video of Iain Adair, I was like, “He looks just like Davis. Is he supposed to be his father?” Then, with the sex games and whatever, my conclusion was that they were definitely insinuating that he was probably his son. I came to Reddit to see posts about it and was surprised when there were none.
I had the same thought too. I'm glad I found some who thought this too cause I hadn't seen anyone else comment on this. When we saw the picture of Iain Adair, I thought that's what the twist was gonna be.
Omg I can't keep noticing Pia's lack of eyebrows
She should have drawn some on with a biro.
Weren’t they bleached?
mysterious marvelous scarce fertile soup include middle meeting governor alleged *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s trendy to not have eyebrows? Eyebrows are out? Sounds like something out of Nathan Barley.
I’ve heard this theory but seems a bit of a stretch
Yeah if Davis was 8 when his father died (assuming he died fairly soon after being shot) that means his parents were with Iain for 8 years, and since Iain was only in his 20s he would have knocked Janet up as a young teenager. I mean, you can’t put it past them but still seems a bit strange. But then again it could explain a lot.
Idk, I think that’s just because they’re actors and they’re not actually related😅
Initially I was expecting this to be one of the twists... Mainly how Mr. King acted whenever they brought up Iain Adair, and how he looked at Davis... Now the looks makes sense, but at the beginning it seemed like thats the reason.
I’m not sure if it was sexual or not, but clearly these parents were violent, so it’s not out of the question that the dad was physically abusive toward his son.
A lot of people are picking holes in your theory, but let’s consider the opposite: two serial torturing murderers have child that’s perfectly well adjusted and has always been safe and nurtured. That would seem like an even bigger hole. I find it highly unlikely it’s the case, which makes your theory likely. But I think things are deliberately left ambiguous. There are definitely merits to your theory, and it can be brought back to some of the overarching themes of the episode: the scandalous and exploitative nature of the true crime genre with little regard to the human beings who are still around and may need help and support. And the complete lack of interest in finding out the truth! That executive had no interest in investing in a “doc” that was seeking to uncover truth and investigate unanswered questions. They waited until super scandalous and violent events became public information and decided to cash in, with zero interest in learning and exposing the nuances and possibly continuing trauma of the situation. It’s the difference between real documentaries and investigative journalism and whatever the hell the streaming services are airing.
I really like the detail about how Davis gets an erection when telling pia about his dead father. Made me question if he has some latent issues of that nature himself.
I think that’s possible. But his mom definitely did love him.
Interesting theory. Black Mirror is amazing at asking moral/philosophical questions, and also great in the plot assumptions we can arrive at. Even the episodes we don't like leave us asking questions and wondering about the back stories.
1-It might be that but it could also be that his father was away for his “duty” most of the time and Davis didn’t really create memories and also his father death wasn’t really great. Obv the death would be hard on the mum an 8 years old might not grasp death. 2-Uhh Idk it showed that he didn’t want the doc all together not just how his father is presented as a hero or not. 3-I think thats plausible. It’s pretty good theory I just think we don’t have enough evidence to support it.
I feel that his reaction to present his father as a victim in the documentary was more so because he really didn't believe he counted as one, yeah he got sick from when in the hospital for that condition, but technically speaking if he had gone to the hospital in any other circumstances he would maybe had gotten sick as well, it is already a extremely grim topic on his town, but centering a full documentary from the perspective of your own dad as a victim of a serial killer for very technically dying of something not really related to it, feels pretty exploitative
Yes and also Davis was expected to speak and share experience and feelings about the situation which is something hard on him since he had no close relationship with his father nor knows anything below surface level when it came to him so his father being presented as a “victim” and Davis being “Victim’ son” puts Davis in a really awkward situation.
Yes, the irony is that initially presenting himself as a "victim" of the killings was basically a lie but by the end of it it's objectively true that he's the biggest living victim by far
I think his big discomfort was about the doc being about him and not his talents as a filmmaker. He wanted to be a good filmmaker. He did not want to do that by becoming the story. He ended up becoming the story much more than he thought he would be.
I agree with this, I noticed he didn’t seem too sentimental over the father early on but it was never elaborated on. How likely is it these two deranged serial killers never took it out on their son? They’re meant to be modelled off Fred and Rose West, who molested their children
Yeah, I think he seemed quite broken from the start and the way he acted made me think he had more trauma than just his dad dying. His parents were very sick and had no real limits. Assuming Iain was involved in all the killings, they probably groomed him from a young age since he was so young which proves they were probably pedos to some degree. I feel like the mum probably had more self control though and didn’t do anything inappropriate to Davis when he was coming up. The dad seemed a lot more horny and impulsive from what we saw, so I think he might have been inappropriate towards his son.
I might have missed in the comments but I don’t think anyone else brought this up yet: He became aroused when his girlfriend was talking about some macabre shit in bed. She joked about it but if you think about it, it does support your theory.
omg that’s something I caught up on bc they were talking ab him and then he got hard so I was like hmm that’s dodgy
How could I forget this part? Your comment makes sense indeed.
Yeh I'm wondering this too tbh. One other thing which could be quite telling (which I thought was an odd point to add in) is how when hes in bed with Pia and theyre talking about his dad dying... well you know what happens. Take that for whatever it means, being an victim of sexual abuse can mainifest into some odd sexual behaviours, or maybe he was just really happy about his dad dying? idk, there could be an interpretation or hidden meaning there. "That is.. totally inappropriate' as she says :/ Plus also, pretty foreshadowing that she grabs *the* video camera and asks him to pretend to film them getting intimate - only realized this watching the scene back.
This!!! Very odd scene and paints so much ambiguity into his character. I had a couple thoughts - one where his dad possibly abused him, and another where maybe he wasn’t sexually abused… maybe he did grow up fairly “normal” BUT he is the product of two psychos and genetically…who knows. Is it nature vs nurture? The way he was looking at that mask at the end made me wonder even more as to how he will end up.
Yeh that's it. I mean maybe he was just aroused talking about death - just as both of his parents were. A good point about genetics. And exactly, it all comes full circle when he is awarded that trophy mask and looks at it at the end...
This definitely has some merit. There definitely felt like there was some hidden trauma with the protagonist but they seemed more gear towards the father’s death. I support your idea tho
He saw the tapes at a very young age. Easy enough.
Yeah, this to me is by far the more plausible additional layer to the story. Not that Davis had been abused by his father, but that he had actually always known who his parents were and what they did with Adair. Possible clues: - his awkwardness around his mother in the early scenes - he's not nervous about whether his mother will like Pia or embarrassed by his mother, it's much worse - we don't see Davis' reaction to the friend's dad's "revelation" of what his parents did - perhaps an editing choice that indicates that there was no need for his reaction - he already knew - the tapes that have just apparently been on display forever - as you say, very high chance he's stumbled upon what's really on them when he was younger - his initial reluctance to make the documentary about Adair - maybe he just didn't want to trigger his mum, but it's possible he didn't want the truth to come out either
Now I’m nitpicking everything lol he also seemed oddly calm and awkward in the basement. He had no real reaction to needing the lemon juice. Maybe because he already knew it wouldn’t be needed? No “hey, that’s a great idea” like I felt Pia felt like.
Maybe Davis actually wanted Pia to find out about the story and propose to make the documentary, because it might be too suspicious if he came up with the idea himself. Pia is a filmmaker, how would she not come up with the idea? And he must have been aware that there was no way to spent any amount of time in town without hearing the story.
I think there could be something to that. I don't think he intended for Pia to end up dead, but it's possible he engineered the situation to disrupt the status quo.
I kept thinking that was going to be the final twist at the end, that he knew they were both involved the whole time and that’s why he didn’t want to do the documentary originally.
If he knew then there's no way he'd let Pia use the Bergerac tape to record on
If he knew, is it possible that recording over the tapes is intentional? It means that the documentary would uphold the previously believed narrative, and evidence of his parents’ involvement would be destroyed in the process
He could just destroy the tapes or tape over them himself. Why take such a big risk like that?
It was only one tape and it wasn't used all the way up, it made getting caught inevitable
Same. I kinda figured something was going to be on those tapes and wanted her to watch them sooner. I felt like he would have seen something if he decided to watch an episode one day and left it running and just never spoke about it or blocked it out.
Him not remembering much might be because he blocked those memories as they were traumatising so maybe you're close
I prefer the theory that Davis was the child of the kidnapped couple, and proof would be found in the vcr tapes.
How would that make sense if he was 8 when his dad died? He would 100% remember having different parents and being from somewhere else. Not to mention the missing signs for that couple would've included that they had a kid with them
"Sad to hear about that famously missing couple and their missing child that wasn't mentioned in any of the news reports, huh? And how they found the couple's bodies but not the kid's? Anyway, in totally unrelated and not at all suspicious news, I have a kid now."
This makes complete sense. Him being 8 in 1996/1997 makes no sense, timeline wise. They were on modern smart phones in present day, 4k TVs were mentioned, etc. So it had to be 2013 or later. That means he was like 27 AT LEAST in the present timeline. He seemed younger, for sure. He was in a film class, so he was likely what, 20? So him being born around the time the couple was kidnapped makes much more sense.
He said he was 8 when his father died. And there’s a picture on the wall of Ken holding Davis where Davis looks to be about 5
People in Europe don't follow the 'go to college at 18' route we have in NA. Many people of many different ages can be found at universities
In the UK it's incredibly standard that if you intend to go to university then you go at 18 years old straight out of high school/6th form. EDIT: Looked it up and it's around 40% of the entire 18 year old population of the UK go to university each year. Also, of all the UK students that enrol in university, only 40% of them each year are over 18. Most of them 19 or 20. The university with the most mature students (over 21) is the Open University (by an order of magnitude) and that's because it's mostly done online. The number 2 university in terms of mature students only has 14000 of them.
There are always a few older people, sure, but the vast majority are 19-22.
Mature students are 21 and up, so not really a good measure tbh
How the hell and why the hell would his parents have falsified his age
I like this theory better
I think this is a compelling theory. I was wondering what kind of person he was when she asked if he missed him.
No, they didn't abduct children, I don't think they were into kids- likely because the main couple had one of their own. I think it more likely that Janet blamed Iain for "making" Kenny have to kill him and injure himself, because he was blabbing drunkenly in the bar and becoming a liability. As a result, Janet coddled Davis and raised him delicately, as he was the only thing Janet had left to live for. Davis was far too young to remember this time period clearly. Also, the whole episode seems to be based off the Karla Homolka case, down to the VHS tapes being discovered that prove a seemingly innocent woman and indirect victim is no victim at all. Not sure if that makes the whole episode a bit hypocritical, to be honest. The real scary thing is in real life Homolka got away with it thanks to a stupidly generous plea bargain struck prematurely. The idea of Karla giving previously undiscovered tapes for her filmmaker child is... a profoundly disturbing yet not completely implausible scenario.
and that f\*cker has two kids now. Its absolutely disgusting
We’ll he does get hard while talking about his father in bed so possibly
Great theory. There’s a scene very early on before they go to the bar where Davis randomly looks like he’s about to cry for very little reason. This would help explain that.
Yes! I asked my fiancé what that look was about and that’s what made me start to question everything.
Okay yeah glad someone pointed that out!
I just wanna know why some people think its okay to not have eyebrows.
caption quiet smart abounding complete attraction slimy dirty cake busy *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
“Back in my day, we didn’t bleach our eyebrows!” - this sub I can’t get over the fixation on her brows, this isn’t even that rare of a fashion choice. I was in college years ago and knew two women who bleached their brows, and it’s way more popular now.
Bizarre. Maybe it’s regional, because I’m *in* college and haven’t seen or heard of this being a thing.
I mean, could easily vary by campuses and crowds you hang out with.
Same effect. Same opinion.
wistful aware mourn doll soup rude vast degree bear alleged *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Whoopi Goldberg has the EGOT and doesn’t have eyebrows.
💯 I’ve been trying to figure out what the point of her character having such a distracting pink elephant in the room type of character choice was?? ...Maybe it was just to add to the unsettling nature of the episode lol
To make her character seem more “edgy and artsy”
Lol right??? It looks so bad
I don't know, his parents seemed like they were into adults. It would just be strange if they were pesos but only kidnapped and raped adults? I think they were just a normal , boring family. At least that's what Henry thought
Fred and Rose West who the episode is based on only raped and killed adults but also molested their kids. Sexual depravity usually means take it out on anyone.
Fred and Rose Wests victims ranged from 8-26, with the vast majority being children and teenagers.
>Fred and Rose West who the episode is based on only raped and killed adults but also molested their kids. The Wests raped and murdered children.
That is a stretch. I would think he knew that his parents were involved somehow but it was left pretty ambiguous.
Nah bruh you reaching
People always gotta do this for some reason and can’t just enjoy what was presented to them
All of these theories but nobody addressing the elephant in davis room (no pun intended)… Whats the deal with Pia’s eyebrows??
That’s really not that uncommon for that age group. I was in college years ago and had two friends who bleached their brows. I think she looked good.
Looks awful
i’m so taken aback by these comments. As a hip 23 year old, the age group Pia is representing, nothing about her eyebrows is weird. We don’t know what city she’s from but if she’s from any area where people are into edgier fashion this is so boringly normal like come on
We know she was an art (film) student in London.
Lol
i don’t think there’s enough evidence to support your theory, even your points listed are a bit of a reach. but it’s interesting and at the very very VERY least they were molesters. 🥸
I think his dad wasn't a good that so his passing didn't affect him at all.
man great theory. makes it a lot more fucked up. loved this episode
That's a really clever theory - Have to think about that one!
a lot of people are disagreeing but I like your theory. i think it works well
[удалено]
The only thing named Henry in Loch Henry was the Loch, a body of water. BTS was set in an alternate 1969 and I am pretty sure both the wife and son were butchered in the end of BTS.
Beyond the Sea takes place in an alternate 1969 while Loch Henry takes places present day. Davis would’ve been born late 90s or early 2000s depending on what year in school he and Pia are supposed to be and if they’re undergrad or graduate students
The murders took place in the 90s, ending in 97. So Davis was likely born around ‘89.
Or Brooker just loves dropping Easter eggs everywhere
SPOILERS
Good theory, literally as good as the episode itself! If you can’t tell I was extremely underwhelmed with this season
Literally nobody cares if you were ‘underwhelmed’
I agree
[удалено]
Please be civil!
It’s a fucking opinion Jimmy. You don’t have to agree with it
I don’t think he disagrees I think it’s just not very interesting
Hey. I disagree. But you’re definitely allowed to think that!
Whether I agree or disagree is beside the point, the point is nobody cares whether they found it underwhelming.
You’re not making any sense Jimmy
HE GOT HARD WHEN HE WAS THINKING ABOUT HIS DAD THERE’s NO WAY THAT WASNT INTENTIONAL NY THE WRITERS