I’m a liberal who opposes the death penalty. I don’t see myself in the mirror. I’m not a zealot. I wouldn’t commit fraud in service of a cause I believed in. I wouldn’t commit suicide in service of any cause. And if I were to feel so deeply about a cause that I were willing to commit fraud and suicide in service of it, I wouldn’t be so blindingly idiotic as to do something that would make my sacrifice retroactively moot.
I disliked the movie, not nearly as much as Roger did, but primarily for two of the same reasons. The ending of the movie makes no logical sense–Gale has completely undermined his own case by revealing to a reporter–which means revealing to the public–that the whole thing was a fraud. And because it paints death penalty opponents as stupid, dishonest, zealots.
Fair comments. But I think what presses some liberals’ buttons is that the film appears to paint anti death penalty campaigners as stupid and dishonest (as well as shabby, sick (in one way or another) and losers).
I don’t think the writer (himself a philosophy professor, I believe) and director Parker were trying to show that Constance and David (and the other scruffy people in the tatty office) were zealots, despite their rather outrageous plan and its denouement. They were trying to show what can happen to your average liberal (both academics, both no longer in the flush of youth) when the wheels start to come off their lives.
It is at this psychological level (of failure, insecurity, loss, desiderium) that I think the film works most powerfully. Perhaps there was also an attempt to show that hypocrisy is an ever-present danger for those who campaign for rights. On the other hand, you could take the whole assisted suicide thing as a MacGuffin, subservient to the psychologically element.
At any rate, I’m surprised critics haven’t been more circumspect in thier comments, and haven’t extended this film the courtesy they give to many others of seeing it as multi-layered and complex.
You haven’t found any liberals whose buttons have been pressed. Nobody here has said there were offended by the movie, and the claim that Ebert was offended is debatable at best.
I disliked the movie for an altogether different reason. I fell asleep about five minutes into this movie at the theater[sup]1[/sup] and so I didn’t see most of it. My wife told me I would have liked it because it showed Laura Linney, who is on my all-time-hottest-celebrities list, topless. So I counted the days until the DVD release, and when it came out, I bought it, ran home, put it in the DVD player, and eagerly awaited the aforementioned topless scene. Finally, it arrived … and it happened in the video of her death, with a plastic bag over her head, while she was kicking and struggling and twitching. Not only is that about the least erotic scenario I can imagine (and I don’t think I want to meet the person who does find it arousing), you couldn’t even see her face; it could have been a body double. I can’t believe I wasted $20 on that.
[sup]1[/sup]Which doesn’t necessarily mean I found it boring – no matter how much I want to see them, I fall asleep at most movies. Last time I fell asleep while waiting in line for the popcorn.
Look, gang, there’s a fine line distinction here between discussions on art/entertainment (which belong here) and discussions on political issues (which belong in Great Debates.) As long as this thread is about the movie, and why you liked it or didn’t, it’s fine here. And we can have different opinions and still be polite to one another.
However, accusing someone for disliking the film because of their political stance, that seems to me to belong in the Pit. You want to Pit Roger Ebert (or whoever) for allowing his politics to interfere with his movie appreciation, that’s fine, but don’t do it here.
I agree that the distinction is a fuzzy one, I’m just setting the guidelines in advance. If you want to pit Ebert, that’s fine, let me know and I’ll move the thread. If you want to discuss the movie, that’s fine, stick to topic. OK?
Understood, Dex. I was truly surprised at the reaction of dopers in the thread two years back (which, obviously, I didn’t want to resurrect), and the whole discussion even then had Ebert’s review as its fulcrum.
I wanted to gain the insights of Cafe Societieites (rather than GDers/Pitters), and felt I could just about pull it off. But the only way I felt I could do that was by being up front about my feelings. Hence the provocative title and approach. (In other words, I didn’t want to worm my way to my main point.)
Sure, I wanted to make people think and to challenge their belief systems, but since many films set out to do this, and also since the SDMB is dedicated to thoughtful (if not necessarily serious) discussion in all its fora, I thought I could do it here in CS.
As it happens, I think the level and the tenor of discussion has justified my choice, and if it’s okay I’d like the discussion to remain here. (Where it will now surely die a swift death!)
Isn’t Gale’s action somewhat comparable to someone who commits suicide-by-cop by pointing an assault rifle at a hostage, only it’s discovered later that the hostage was really a willing participant and the rifle was fake or unloaded? I’m not sure how that could be used as a valid argument for taking guns from police officers.
As for the uniformly bad reviews, I’ll wager that being liberal or conservative is irrelevant. Professional critics see a lot of movies and likely develop a distaste for contrived plot twists. Put one in your movie and you’re begging to be panned.
You might well be tight and your investment rewarded with a healthy dividend. But to set against that is the possibility that critics (of a certain era) might tend to follow each other like sheep regarding certain issues. (Sure, they will indulge in the very public spectacle of “tearing each other apart” to maintain the appearance of independent, even iconoclastic, critic - which brings kudos and big bucks if they strike the right notes at the right time - in other aspects and regarding other issues.)
And, then, one day, perhaps many years later, a new wave of critics will make their names - and their fortunes - by rehabilitating the genre. It’s happened before (take Abba and probably any number of films you film buffs could name).
Reading the reviews (csnipped only, admittedly) at Rotten Tomato, was I the only one to be struck by the fact that all the “East Coast” critics were trying to outdo one another with their caustic put-downs and dismissive analogies?
Do they, though? I’d be kind of curious if you could demonstrate any kind of collusion among critics, or a tendency of critics to read the reviews of others before weighing in. To me, it’s conceivable that a movie gets uniformly bad reviews because the movie sucks, and not because of some group mentality among reviewers.
My God, people trying to outdo each other with snarky sarcastic comments? I thought that was OUR schtick!
I’m not sure how the critics COULD read each other when most reviews of any particular movie are all published on the same day - the day the movie comes out, usually Friday.
I didn’t think the movie was making fun of liberals in general. It was attacking those people who are so blindly committed to a cause, be it abortion or the death penalty or the government implanting microchips in our butts, that they’ll do stupid and illegal things just to get their way. Like anti-abortionists who murder doctors, it’s the Machiavellian ethic taken to the extreme.
And yes, it’s very possible for the ending to reduce a movie to zero stars from two (or even higher.) The Firm comes to mind:
Tom Cruise tells the Mafia that yes, he’s been working for the government to bring down their corrupt law firm, and he knows all about their illegal activities, but he promises not to tell anyone because he’s a lawyer who values attorney/client privilege and he’s like a sailing ship with no port, blah blah blah, so please don’t kill me. And the mob says…“Okay, you can go.” WHAT???
In any case, I wouldn’t get too uptight about Ebert giving the film zero stars – the same rating he’s given to Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead (a classic!!) and Erik the Viking (not a classic, but very funny.)
Well, I’ve been reading and watching Ebert’s reviews for about 25 years now, and I can tell you from the certainty that experience gives you that this the key phrase in the review:
Unrealistic portrayals (at least in his opinion) of journalists are a huge pet peeve of Ebert’s. As you can see, he devotes a full half of his review of Absence of Malice to his problems with the portrayal of Sally Fields’ journalist character, even though he liked the film. His pan of the John Travolta/Jamie Lee Curtis film Perfect (review not online) froths at the gaffes shown in the running of a magazine, and takes Rolling Stone’s Jann Wenner to task for appearing in it.
So here we have David Gale, who is trying to alleviate the reporter’s sense of unjustice and idealism run amok at the notion that his own people betrayed him to his death, by revealing that he was in on it the whole time. For this little scheme to work, he counts on her bond with him to keep her mouth shut, which in Ebert’s eyes goes against every journalistic instinct he thinks the character would have had to have developed at that point to even get the assignment in the first place. I know from consuming hundreds of his reviews of his that it is something he simply can not abide.
The last image in the film, as I recall, is either of Kate Winslet’s shocked face, ready to sacrifice a story for the perceived integrity of her friend and his cause, or Kevin Spacey’s cool stare from the video screen, knowing she will do so.
But I disagree, and if this is indeed what Ebert is thinking, then I think he’s let his judgement be coloured by his lack of objectivity with regard to journos.
[The bolded part above] But there is no suggestion (certainly no certainty - I for one did not interpret the film this way) that he counted on her to keep her mouth shut.
The reason is simple: even if he is revealed to have fraudulently suggetes his own involvement in a murder he did not commit, this has no effect on the underlying truth. The wroing man - an innocent man - was executed, for a crrime he didn’t commit.
Gale saw no value in “half-martyrs” (or was it “almost martyrs” - same difference). He was a pragmatist. (Recall his mirth when Constance suggested that the group makes a 17 year old girl who had killed a policeman their next poster girl). A full martyr is a full martyr. Whether he’s been deceptive or not is not of central importance.
In the “Making Of” documentary on the DVD, the writer and director both refer to the layers of complexity, nuances which they wished to bring to the film. I think they manage that, even though some of the stunts (such as the unnecessary “countdown to 6 o’clock” at the end) are heavy handed. It had me involved throughout, it twisted and turned. It was never a zero star movie.
“The reason is simple: even if he is revealed to have fraudulently suggested his own involvement in a murder he did not commit, this has no effect on the underlying truth. The wrong man - an innocent man - was executed, for a crime he didn’t commit.”
Were that that were the only errant thing in that paragraph. The tape clearly labels him a co-conspirator in the suicide of the woman. His revelation eliminates his innocence, and the whole game would be given away if Kate Winslet published this fact. The cause for which he died would be ruined. Thus, the very fact that he arranges for her to receive it means he trusted her to keep her mouth shut.
The movie critics go to special screenings earlier in the week, often with several of the same critics at the same screening. They might talk to each other at the screening or afterwards. Before the reviews are published, they can easily have an idea what the general concensus concering a particular movie is.
Is that an interview online that I can read, or is it something you saw on television or something along those lines? I’d love to read it if possible. The reason I considered it might be a body double in the scene is because that woman’s breasts appeared rather a bit larger than my impression of Laura Linney’s. She certainly didn’t look like that in Love Actually, at least not to me[sup]1[/sup]. But if that definitely was her, well, then, excellent! … now if only it wasn’t in a scene involving suffocation, bound hands, and violent death throes. Give me a romantic scene like the one in Love Actually any day.
–
[sup]1[/sup]Of course, if anybody knows of any other such scenes involving Ms. Linney[sup][size=2]2[/sup], I would be willing to investigate them, purely in the interests of a scientific comparison of how different filming techniques can affect perceived size of what it being filmed, of course. OF COURSE!!![/size]
[sup]2[/sup]I mean scenes involving a lack of clothing, not gruesome murders or suicides. Just to specify.
From what I understand, here’s what was supposed to have happened.
(Imagine GD in a David Gale universe)
Pro-DP Poster: No innocent person has ever been executed!
Anti-DP Poster: What about David Gale? He was innocent! <provides cite>
P: You have convinced me! I shall write my congressman and state legislatures to repeal the DP immediately!
And here’s what would really happen:
A: What about David Gale? He was innocent! <provides cite>
P: Look at yopur cite! David Gale was involved in that woman’s death, and was complict in his own execution! He knowingly withheld information that would have exonerated him. I concede that an “innocent” person can be convicted if he doesn’t defend himself, and frames the crime to make it look like he was the killer! But really, how often does that happen? It’s unfortunate that so much of the state’s time and money was wasted on an elaborate suicide, but it proves nothing about the vast majority of death row prisoners, most of whom aren’t hiding evidence.
Gale got lousy reviews because the twist just doesn’t make sense.
I do agree that some reviewers (Ebert among them) especially haed it because they took an issue they take very seriously, and handled it so very ineptly. An unfortunate bit of personal bias, but of no real harm, since the film itself was so inept.