- and 2. we can toss out for storytelling reasons.
- (again) She’s used to hiding her intelligence and intentions from men.
- also needed for storytelling puposes.
- The father didn’t know, and his intentions were undermined. It was his racism that was being examined. The daughter was an ancilliary character, not connected to others, not shown to be racist in any way, unlike the “main” characters. The motif you speak of is maintained for the father either way.
Regarding “storytelling reasons,” presumeably the story I am being told can be distilled to a set of statements about characters, their actions, and their motivations for so acting. So even on your reading of the scene as proceding as it did for “storytelling reasons,” we still need to know just what story is being told–in other words, why the lady did what she did, in the sense of “what was the motivation for it?”
So what’s your explanation?
-FrL-
Yeah, that’s a big part of it for me, too.
The girl would have been shot through the chest, but not for the woman just randomly selecting one out of the 10 choices she had for bullets. How differently it all would have been if she’d just said, “gimme the blue box” instead of the red box.
If you think that she intentionally bought blanks, or knowingly loaded blanks, then you have to suspect that she would have not loaded the gun if shed bought real bullets. The “tone” of her knowingly buying blanks just doesn’t mesh with the rest of the movie. It’s like saying that Ryan Phillipe knew the guy was pulling out a statue, but he shot him anyway.
OK. First off, the “storytelling” bit only shows that “She didn’t say ‘Give me the blanks.’” is not evidence that she didn’t know. It doesn’t prove that she did know, either. If the storytellers don’t want the audience to know what a character knows, there isn’t any other way to do it: they have to dance around it in the dialog.
Under the “She knew” theory, at that point in the story, the audience is supposed to think the box has cop-killers or something. If we knew they were blanks, we would not fear for the locksmith’s little girl.
Does this make sense?
It makes sense. But I just meant to explain that under my interpretation, a motivation has been provided to make sense of the woman’s actions, while under yours, no such motivation has been provided. Why say “give me the red ones” instead of “give me the blanks?” Why go look at the bullets towards the end of the movie?
I agree with you that its a storytelling device. It works to keep the audience in the dark about something. Exactly right. But you are saying that this fact can be adduced as a complete explanation for the woman’s actions, thereby obviating any reason to think she didn’t know she was buying blanks. I am saying that “its a storytelling device” does not at all undermine my interpretation, and fruthermore, if taken as somehow sufficient to undermine my interpretation, then “its a storytelling device” leaves us wanting an explanation of the woman’s motivations.
-FrL-
How is this debate even still going on? You’d have to be a idiot to think she didn’t know she was buying blanks. She obviously knew she was buying blanks based on the following:
-
Elementary knowledge of storytelling and logic.
-
She loaded the gun and would have seen the word “BLANKS” written on the side. She also loads the gun for her father even though he says he can do it. Obviously to prevent him from asking questions, or seeing the bullet box.
-
When the gun dealer hands her the box, his hand conveniently covers the label, which is then obscured when she takes the bullets. This scene is shot from that specific camera angle to make this less obvious.
-
She is not surprised when her dad tells her he shot a girl. The dad asks her to take the gun, so she goes to get the bullets also. She opens the drawer, looks over at him to makes sure he’s not looking, then pulls out the box which clearly says, “BLANKS”. If nothing else, the look she gives him, tells you she knew, and this is backs up by the people involved with the movie.
-
Last but not least, in the director’s commentary on the DVD, Paul Haggis, the director and writer, says the following during a conversation with Don Cheadle during the scene described in comment #4:
Haggis: And this is the look… right here coming up… people always ask this question, did she know they were blanks or not, and that was the look that says, “yes, she knew” [laughter]
Cheadle:[laughing] Yeah, she knew, she bought them
Haggis: Another thing is that people said that those blanks were only on the screen for a flash, a second. I think people are smart, you don’t need to lead them along…
Apparently, Haggis is wrong about people being smart. It is clear the director/writer attempted to make it patently obvious to the audience that she knew she was buying blanks.
Well now you’ve gone and hurt my last feeling 
. I didn’t listen to the director’s commentary when I saw it, but I’ll be sure to when I rerent it (that is if I’m smart enough to turn that function on).
Because her dad was still in the room.
He was previously removed from the store by the owner’s associate. He may have still been in earshot, as was previously suggested in this thread.
Where were you two pages ago? 
Thanks brickbacon , I’ve been trying to google the director’s intent, and was coming up with nothing.
And WOOKINPANUB , shame on you for not watching every last bit of commentary on the DVD - and don’t try to tell us you only had a cuople hours to spare.
Seriously though, thanks for the welcome.
–KidScruffy
I don’t see how elementary knowledge of storytelling and logic picks out one of these theories as better than the other. In fact, if I had to choose, I’d say it picks out my interpretation, for the following reason. It is elementary to the art of storytelling that characters’ actions be the outcome of coherent motives internal to the story being told. Your interpretation seems to break this principle, while mine takes it into account.
If she were paying attention. It doesn’t seem implausible to me to think that a person might open a box of bullets and load a gun without paying any attention to the text written on the box. This point does not seem to me to decide between the two theories.
That might be a good point.
Again, this does not decide between the two theories. Clearly, on my theory, the nature of the bullets would be concealed from the audience, as well.
To my recollection, she emits some sort of excited exclamation over this revelation.
I don’t follow the import of your word “so” here.
[quote]
She opens the drawer, looks over at him to makes sure he’s not looking, then pulls out the box which clearly says, “BLANKS”. If nothing else, the look she gives him, tells you she knew,
[quote]
Frankly, I’d have to watch the movie again to verify this.
Would be nice to see a cite on that. (I really mean it, I’m not trying to be sarcastic or facetious.)
Well shit man, why didn’t you just say this up top and leave out the rest?
I leave my post as is because I think its consistent with the movie as presented sans commentary. But this last item from you is (on the most popular theories as to how interpret movies) of course the clincher. I don’t know why you even felt you needed to go through the other points.
No, what he’s saying should be obvious is that they are blanks. (I’ve talked to a couple of people who didn’t even catch onto that.)
Its clear that if the writer/director attempted to make it patently obvious that she knew she was buying blanks, then he failed in his attempt–since about half the people who watched the movie misunderstood his intention.
(I maintain my idea of the movie makes for a better movie than the writer’s, in this case… )
-Kris
No, he’s saying both. If you have the DVD, listen to the commentary. It’s obvious that she knew what bullets she bought, despite your attempts to justify what would be illogical behavior that contradicts the obvious motifs in the movie. I don’t think this part is bad writing per se, just moviegoers not paying attention.
I’d have to re-watch it, for the scene where she loads the weapon. How many sides said “Blank”.
Because, I don’t know jack shit about firearms and ammo and how in hell would I KNOW that a Red Box signified blanks, so blah blah of course they’re blanks they’re in a red box. Huh?
I was gasping when that girl leapt up into her father’s arms and got shot. I mean, shocked upset freaked. I had no clue that Red Box means blanks. Maybe a lot of people did, and that colored their view of those scenes. Also, I missed the printing “Blanks” on the box- embarassing, but I did. I was watching the woman, not the prop. Perhaps this was constructed carefully so that some folks- depending upon a predisposition and mindset- will see or not see certain things.
What we are given to watch, and what we chose to watch are sometimes very specificially different. The Director, near the end, is taken aside in a killer great cameo by Tony Danza of all people, and basically told to re-shoot a scene to reinforce some stereotypes. Neat little awful sequence. Me, I watched how the cast and crew looked at Terence Howard at the beginning of that scene, as well as when he heads back in. Well, we hear him call for another take, I think we don’t see him do that. But at the beginning, I tend to watch background while listening to the lead in some scenes. Similarly, I looked around the apartment he shares with his wife. How is it decorated. What does it show us about who the inhabitants are, and so on.
Anyway, point is that some of us saw a box labeled " Blanks ", some of us missed that wording even though apparently it was obvious to be seen in a shot.
Kind of works, for me. The subtext of the movie is, what do you see and what do you do about it? What do you CHOSE to allow on your radar? So, if some of us missed stuff, and others of us zoomed in on stuff, that is as it was meant to by.
We were manipulated.
Cartooniverse
I agree with Frylock - based on that quote, he is saying that people should notice when she goes back to the box, that they are blanks and don’t need to be hit over the head. He’s not commenting on the viewers who assumed that buying blanks was unintentional.
I also think it is a better story - and better storytelling - if she didn’t know. And, obviously, without the director’s comments, it could be interpreted that way, since a lot of people did, in fact, interpret it that way (including today’s quick poll of my coworkers).
I did graduate with a film degree from a high-profile university. That doesn’t make me an expert; but I’m hardly a careless film watcher or unfamiliar with filmmaking conventions.
I did not post the entire quote. I understand your interpretation based on the part I quoted, however, I think he was saying both base don listening to the entire commentary.
I’ve explained how I think my reading is more in keeping with the possibility of explaining the woman’s motives in a psychologically logical way, and I’ve explained how I think my reading is more in keeping with the motifs of the movie.
You have not explained how your reading accomplishes either of those goals. Nor have you explained how my reading, and the explanations I just referenced, falls short of those goals.
For this reason, your framing of my posts, as quoted above, falls flat. You haven’t earned the right, discursively speaking, to make the claim quoted.
-FrL-
You must have gone to Columiba. We didn’t learn words like "discursively " at S.V.A.
I suspect that the attention to detail in the scenes involving the ammo is purposely vague. I do need to rent it, for I have only seen it once in the theatres.
Have you not even seen the movie? He does end up “using the thing” and does not get himself killed.
We don’t see that during the loading scene. We only see the word Blank after it’s already clear they are blanks.
No-one’s saying you, or the character, had to know a red box meant blanks. What’s more as far as I’m aware a red box does not mean necessarily blanks, and the film does not depend on that being so in any way.