You know, maybe I am just cranky today, but I still think the OP screwed up with the thread title. I didn’t want to know anything about the movie and now, thanks to his thread title, I do. If/when I see the movie now, I will see it with the knowledge that a) Ebert didn’t like it, and b) Ebert specifically didn’t like the ending. IMHO and in retrospect, even the thread title I suggested (Ebert give zero stars to Life of David Gale) tells me more than I want to know.
You’re entitled to think whatever you want, of course, but personally I can’t think of a single incident where merely knowing that a particular critic didn’t like a movie made it less enjoyable for me. One of the problems with going into a movie totally cold is that you greatly increase your chances of seeing a movie that’ll leave you feeling nine bucks and two hours poorer.
Well, that’s just plum ridiculous. If you want that degree of insulation, turn off your computer, throw out your TV, and smash your radio. Lock the door and draw the shades. Refrain from human contact until you see the movie.
I mean, really. Movie ads include this type of thing all the time (“two thumbs up!”). Guess you must wear blinders when you walk past the rows of posters at your local cineplex.
You should probably avoid entertainment MBs where people discuss entertainment.
Dewey Cheatum Undhow, I really try to avoid knowing too much about movies and for the most part, I succeed. It isn’t that hard–I surf during commercials anyway. 
I tend to read reviews after I have seen a movie, just to see how their opinion coincided (or didn’t) with mine. And do people really read movie posters? I don’t think I ever have, other than to find out something like what book that movie I just saw was based on or something like that. Again, after the movie, not before. I walk away or politely ask that people not tell me about movies they have seen, other than if they liked it or not (trying not to be fanatical in my knowledge avoidance ). [hijack]BTW, I love Car Talk. Have you ever read the rest of their names? Very funny. [/hijack]
watsonwil, for obvious reasons, I don’t go to message boards where I think people will put spoilers in the thread titles. This board is usually very good about that. I realize that many will think this is a marginal case, but for me, knowing what I know now will likely affect how I watch this movie.
Fibber McGee, our experiences differ. That sort of knowledge has affected my movie watching. I don’t mind wasting the price of a ticket–and knowing what the critics say doesn’t always prevent that. The critics, by and large, loved About Schmidt and I couldn’t have hated it more. But that could be a whole 'nuther thread…
I’m sorry, but I think you’re being ridiculous Brynda.
Come on, guys, cut Brynda some slack… how could she have known that the movie has an ending? Really, the thread title went too far.
You know, there’s actors in it too… and music! Oh my Gods, the spoilers! How is she ever going to watch the movie now?
Here, I’ll be nice and put this in a spoiler tag…
A couple hours before the movie ends, it begins!
[Britney]Oops, I did it again![/Britney]
:rolleyes:
Well, that was a pointless hijack. Anyway…
I saw the movie today. Thought it was pretty good. The spoilers make it seem a lot worse than it really was. I was a bit dismayed when the story switched from a simple character drama to a more action-based “whodunnit?” with lots of running around and talking in raised voices. And Kate Winslet cried wayyy too much.
About the ending:
I guess what offended Ebert was the very last frame where it’s revealed that David Gale was in on the plot all along. It was stupid, didn’t make sense and should have been left out. (Fading to black when the reporters were talking about how “David Gale will finally find the respect in death that he sought in life” would have been the perfect ending.) But movies these days seem to rely on bizarre pointless twists, and I guess I’m just used to it by now.
Does it deserve zero stars? Naah. I’ve seen worse.
Oh, and apparently Ebert gave zero stars to Erik the Viking and The Hitcher, both of which were great movies. I haven’t seen any of the others on his zero-star list, although I did catch about five minutes of Freddie Got Fingered, which was enough to make me think it really did deserve that rating.
The purpose of the many revelations of the ending is to make the characters look heroic, but instead, it just makes them look like idiots.
[spoiler]We find out at the end that everyone involved other than Bloom was in on the conspiracy. The “victim” committed suicide. David planted evidence to convict himself later on. The cowboy kept and edited tapes that would reveal David’s innocence, but only after his execution. David’s lawyer threw the case intentionally. The problem is that every death penalty opponent in the film is painted as a nut-case, which only serves to undermine the point they are trying to make.
It’s even hinted that Berlin and the ex-wife were involved. Berlin may have been paid off with one of those silver suitcases full of money to stage the rape, drop the charges and leave town. This sets up Gale with a bad reputation on which to base the belief that he raped and murdered his colleague. The wife gets a shiny suitcase full of money and the postcard from Berlin at the end, which indicates that the wife was being paid off also.
The final revelation is necessary to the political ideology of the film. If it isn’t revealed that he was involved in the conspiracy, he’s the innocent victim of left-wing nutjobs out to prove a point by murdering an innocent. By revealing that he knew all along and helped plan things, everyone involved is portrayed as a self-sacrificing idealist. The problem is that this robs the movie of it’s only potentially sympathetic death-penalty opponent, and sends the message that only headcases oppose the death penalty
If I didn’t know that many of the principals were liberal activists, I’d think this movie was pro-death penalty propaganda.[/spoiler]
Hey Number Six, I think you are going too far in your theories. This film actually makes more sense than you are giving it credit for. I kind of liked it…
Anyways, on to specifics:
[spoiler]My take on it was that “Berlin and the ex-wife were involved” only in the sense that they contributed to Gale’s feeling that his life was now worthless and meaningless, thus allowing him to feel that the only way to strive for meaning in his life was by proving his innocent man executed theory. The whole progression of Gale’s misfortunes from false rape accusation to loss of his wife to loss of his kid to loss of his profession and self-esteem, to bottom-of-the-barrell alcoholic made his decision to do this believable. He was now losing the only person he cared about (remember how he did not previously know she had leukemia) and I think by staging this whole murder thing they both felt they were giving meaning to their lives. The money and postcard to the wife at the end is Gale’s way of preserving his memory with his son, something he said to Winslett was important to him. This way his wife and son know that he neither committed the rape nor the murder.
I think everyone is actually being too kind when you talk about how certain plot points are “necessary to the political ideology of the film.” You are giving the film way too much credit: this film does not have a political ideology about the death penalty. It’s characters do, but the film is about those people and their causes and what they feel they must do for those causes. As they show from the interview with Governor Bush… I mean, Governor What’s-his-name, the fact that they ended up executing an “innocent man” doesn’t change anybody’s mind about the death penalty anyway. This was more of a personal crusade for Gale and his murdered colleague; remember the big political debate on TV scene when the Gov beats Gale at the end by asking for one name of an innocent person who was executed? Even though he says then that he would put a moritorium on the DP if Gale could name even one, the Gov sings a different tune after Gale’s execution proves erroneous. In this film, both sides are morally corrupt!
I’m not sure in retrospect that everything made sense (like what did Kate Winslett really think was going to happen even if she did arrive at the execution before it happened and waved a videocassette around?), but overall it made for a compelling movie. Certainly better than zero stars![/spoiler]
I have a question:If I commit suicide, and make it look like someone else killed me, this person is then arrested, tried, convicted and executed, legally am I guilty of murder? How about if I only fake my own death?I thought that this movie could be good, but based on what I’ve read here, I’d say that there was no way in hell it could be. I’ve heard a couple of non-spoiler reviews and it’s interesting that both of them hated the movie, each one hated it for a different reason. One felt the “thriller” type parts of the film were a total waste of celluloid, the other felt that they were the only good parts of the film.
Normally, I don’t agree with Ebert’s reviews, but having read the spoilers, I’d have to say that this time he got it right. (Of course, he’s better than one of the local reviewers we have here in town. If the movie doesn’t feature a gay male sex scene, he’s probably not going to like the movie.)
Tuckerfan:
Well, since you put it in spoilers, I guess I will too.
[spoiler]No, you are not.
-
Guilt and innocence are for a court to decide. No one can try you when you’re dead.
-
Even if you did stand trail as a corpse (well, sat trial unless they put a poll up your ass), you still wouldn’t be guilty of murder. You killed yourself. That’s still suicide.
-
If you faked your own death, there would most likely not be a body to produce and the defense lawyers would clearly ask for a writ of habeas corpus (asking for a body of evidence, and, in this case, literally the body of evidence).
-
“Oooh oooh,” you say “what if I cloned myself and then killed it and framed someone else for the death?” I dunno. Start a GQ thread. :)[/spoiler]
(Eschewing the SPOILER tags here, FWIW)
[nitpick]
Moving for a writ of Habeas Corpus (“you have the body”) allows a party’s counsel to compel the state in a criminal case to produce the defendant and inform him of why he’s being held (by beginning proceedings against him) or to let him go. (HC can also be used in other cases, such as child custody, to produce the child and get a ruling on custody issues). It basically forces the prosecution to shit or get off the pot.
You are thinking of corpus delecti, the “body of the offense.” It is not a writ but rather an element of the prosecution’s case: they must prove that the victim did in fact die. It is usually, but need not be, production of the actual corpse; it is entirely possible (though certainly more difficult) to secure a conviction with only circumstantial evidence of death. Example: you kill Fat Tony by making him wear cement shoes and pushing him off the Brooklyn Bridge; a couple of witnessess (brave or crazy enough to testify) see you do so; Fat Tony’s body need not be recovered to secure a conviction.
[/nitpick]
Mmm…delicious corpse…
Yeah, you are correct. Mea culpa.
richardb:
[spoiler]I may have been reading too much into the Berlin subplot, but given that the false rape accusation sets up the false rape and murder, I don’t think it’s farfetched to think she may have been involved.
In addition, it’s as part of his interview that Gale tells Bloom that he didn’t know about the leukemia until relatively later on. Given that he’s trying to hide his involvement in the actual suicide and set himself up as a martyr, I don’t think it’s much of a stretch for him to have lied about exactly what happened with Berlin, his wife, or anything else that would interfere with the story of how he came to be where he was. I looked at the story told in the interview as a Verbal Kint type of thing–once you know the final revelation, you can’t trust anything he said.[/spoiler]
Oh, and one more thing. I suppose that it’s possible that the filmmakers didn’t have a political agenda re the death penalty.
It is possible to look at the movie as an elaborate con game ala The Sting, with the death penalty being the mcguffin about which no particular point is being made. If so, it’s poorly done (it was telegraphed too often and too soon) and I find the idea of building light entertainment around such a solemn subject distasteful.
That said, I still think the movie is supposed to be anti death penalty.
My wife and I saw it last night. Not bad. Certainly not zero stars. My theory is that it conflicted with Ebert’s political stance on the death penalty and that’s what got him in a lather. I’ve seen worse movies (and so have you).
My theory of the ending was that Gale’s wife had paid Berlin to do her job. This would give her ample reason to take their child out of the country and divorce Gale. Sending the money and the postcard to his wife seemed to be saying *“I know what you did.”*We couldn’t figure out the significance of the sweater, though..
I’ve been chuckling over this since the beginning of the thread…surprised no one caught it…
You can’t trust dead reviewers for a minute!
You might want to read that posting again. He’s referring to Gene Siskel’s reveal of the ending of The Crying Game on their pre-Oscar show in 1992.
I must agree with Brynda re: the spoiler in the title. I find even the mention that said movie exists to be too much of a spoiler. I prefer to know nothing at all about the entertainment I am about to enjoy.
In order to accomplish this, I cut myself off from the world entirely, watching no TV or movies, reading nothing, and venturing outside my house only with blinders and earplugs. At random intervals, a trusted friend comes to my house and takes me to be entertained. I never know in advance anything about the entertainment about to be provided to me–not even the type. He may take me to a movie, turn on a TV, or place a new book in front of me to read.
It is only in this manner that I may enjoy my life. Please stop ruining it for me!