If she really knew that they were blanks, then the movie (which I loved) has lost some of its spark for me.
For me, the movie isn’t about race, so much as it is about circumstance. Everyone is a racist in the right circumstance, yet no one is under different circumstances. The gun store owner exhibited poor behavior allowing a customer to leave the store thinking that she was protected by bullets that wouldn’t fire, yet his racism saved a life.
The least racist person in the film is killed by the one who was only perceived as the least racist, and the most racist person discovers that he really isn’t half as racist as he thought. He told his coworker to, “Wait until you’ve been doing it a while.” He was correct. Even he didn’t know himself after all of those years.
Cheadle’s character’s comment about Mexicans parking their cars on their lawns proves that even blacks can make racist remarks.
But more importantly, it’s all about racism being mostly a surface emotion. 98% of all racist individuals will find in them selves that all the racism goes out the window when another human beings life is on the line. Soldiers learned that in Vietnam, firemen and police officers learn it at the scene of an accident daily.
We are all just confused, scared beings fumbling in the black for the light switch, but we’re all the same color in the dark.
When I said “he’s sure to get killed,” I meant (and really, I think this was pretty clear, but oh well) “As far as she could know, (and should believe,) he was sure to get killed.”
I was talking hypothetically. If A gives B blanks, telling him they are not blanks, then if B gets into a gunfight, he will probably be killed, and that death will be, in part, on A’s hands. The woman in question fits A’s description, in the sense that she gave her father blanks, telling him they were not blanks. Therefore, had her father gotten into a gunfight, he would probably have been killed, and that death would have been, in part, on his daughter’s hands. It is reasonable to expect that his daughter should have known the previous sentence was true. And this knowledge makes her culpable for giving him the blanks in the first place.
I didn’t say the guy in the film actually did get shot, rather, I was saying that his daughter’s actions were blameworthy since so far as she should reasonably have believed, she was performing an action sure to get him killed.
Right. These observations support my contention that the “she didn’t know” interpretation is more in keeping with the themes of the film than the “she knew” interpretation.
The director says she knew. But I think the director is wrong. He’s telling us what movie he intended to make, sure, but it turn out he failed in making that movie, and instead (sort of “accidentally” I guess) ended up making the much better movie in which she didn’t know.
Whoever said the author of a work gets to tell us “what really happened”?
Wait. The gun store owner sold her blanks because he was racist? That makes absolutely no sense. After she chose the box, he asked her specifically if she knew what she was buying. I can’t believe he was really processing it at the level of “if I sell her blanks there’s a good chance that her father will be killed, and I hate Arabs, so I’ll let her buy these blanks.” The gun store owner was casually racist (addressing the dad as “Osama”) as opposed to actively racist. If he were actively racist he most likely would have refused to do business with the dad in the first place under some pretext. I can’t imagine it’s that difficult to fake a way not to sell someone a gun.
Meaning the carjacker as the least racist person and Phillipe as the least perceived, and Dillon as the most racist? Not sure why you’re thinking the carjacker is the least racist, just because he thought the other carjacker’s rant about the waitress was stupid? The same guy had no problem stereotyping white people based on country music so he still seemed to be at least as racist as, say, the HMO worker or some of the other ancillary characters. The daughter struck me as being less racist, as did her mother, and Sandra Bullock’s housekeeper, the guy buying the stolen vans, probably others, and no more racist than Phillipe’s character. As for Dillon, that he pulled Newton out of a burning car is no statement on his racism whatsoever. He got past his surface racism, as you call it, and rescued her because she was trapped and terrified. The next time he has to deal with a Shaniqua or Tyrel he’s goign to be as much of a prick.
Given the racist remarks from every other black character in the film (except IIRC the junkie mother), that’s hardly a news flash.
Certainly any good little Lit Crit student can tell you that authors are not always in control of their narratives, but when the author tells you what’s going on it certainly is worthy of great consideration. Here we have the writer/director telling us flat-out she knew she was buying blanks, and we have that supported by the scene in which she buys them in which her look fairly clearly communicates that she has spotted the blanks and wants them. She doesn’t want her father buying a gun at all but there’s no way for her to dissuade him. Yes, she initially says “whatever fits” because it doesn’t matter to her what (live) bullets she gets. All are equally bad in her opinion. Then as the gun guy is going over the types of bullets, her eyes clearly light on the box of blanks. As has been noted any number of times previously, the character can’t say “give me the box of blanks” because the story teller can’t reveal that information and still pay off the “magic cloak” story. Frankly, at this point you’re just being stubborn in holding to your “she didn’t know” interpretation. Just as story tellers aren’t always in control of the narrative, so can receivers of the story be wrong in their interpretations. In this case, an interpretation that she didn’t know she was buying blanks is, simply, wrong.
The scene established that the Dad is a hothead, right?
Daughter sees this and thinks…“Gee, my dad is gonna get mad at someone in his store one day and overreact and pull his gun and pop a cap in someone’s ass. I don’t want my dad shooting someone. Oh, look…blanks.”
I can’t imagine that she thinks he’s gonna have to get into protracted gun battle with anyone.
Am I missing something there? It seems pretty obvious to me.
I thought it fairly clearly communicated “I don’t give a damn just give me some bullets.”
This is not a telling point. Both readings of the scene acknowledge that, for “storytelling purposes,” the information that the bullets are blanks must be concealed from the audience. Of course that’s why the storyteller framed the scene as he did. No one’s missing that obvious fact. But the question is–if the storyteller did something in order to keep this info from us, what exactly is it that the story teller did? Did he fail to reveal that she was intentionally buying blanks? Or did he alternatively fail to reveal that she was unintentionally buying blanks.
Now, on my interpretation, the assumption is made that the story I’m being told is a good one, with consistent motifs and themes, and one in which character’s actions are explicable internally to the plot, in terms of their motives. On your interpretation, this assumption is not made, or at least, (in my opinion,) the consequences of this assumption are not correctly worked out.
This I freely acknowledged with the use of a “thbptptpt” smiley in the post you are referring to.
I think the actors/director messed up the double entendre here. The shop owner establishes a connection between bullets and penises, and then she makes a subtle jab at him by asking for blanks.
When I heard that the director indicated he intended that the woman knew she was buying blanks, I felt mildly suprised. (Though I had prepared myself for the possibility he would say that… ) My suprise was grounded in my impression that there was nothing in the movie to actually indicate that she knew they were blanks. Sure, I can see how someone might interpret it that way, but I see nothing in any sense indicating it to be the case. More than that–I thought there were positive reasons to think the contrary was the case, though admittedly these reasons had alot to do with some pretty abstract and possibly controversial notions as to what constitutes the theme of the movie and what constitutes a well-crafted film.
Anyway, point is: I was suprised. I didn’t just take it as another fact to process–I found myself (a little) taken aback. It didn’t seem consistent with what else I knew about the movie.
But what if the director had instead said he intended that she didn’t know they were blanks. Those of you who thought she knew–would you have felt suprised by this? If so, what would have been the basis for your suprise? In what way would it have seemed inconsistent with other things you know about the movie?
I still haven’t gotten around to viewing this again and listening to the director’s commentary, and since I posed the initial question, I obviously didn’t catch all the clues the first time round. After having read all the thoughtful posts here, though, think her not knowing would make it a better story.
Not only a better story, but less clumsily written. If she had known, it would have been more natural to say “Give me the blanks.” Of course she couldn’t say that for dramatic reasons, so she asked for the red box. But that dialogue is much less natural and more forced if she knew what she was doing than if she was choosing a box more or less at random.
I never listen to a director’s commentary. ESPECIALLY if viewing a Director’s Cut DVD. I watch a movie, I get what I get from it. Any filmmaker worth their salt can impart any levels of text, subtext, plot, sub-plot and so on. If I interpret the film to tell me that she had no idea that they are blanks, then that is valid- because I saw his/her film, and drew a conclusion.
To watch a film and then be instructed as to what I was supposed to “get”, that I ( and many others ) did not “get”, is pretty useless IMHO. It’s akin to going to see Citizen Kane and then being told 50 years later, " Well, you thought Rosebud was the sled, but really it was a secret symbolism commentary linked to Da Vinci, and the Holy Grail and if you view Citizen Kane again with an eye towards that symbolish, both obvious and hidden, why the remark " Rosebod" will become clear to you as having nothing whatsoever to do with a sled. Or a lost childhood. "
Please. What filmmaker gives his/her viewing audience SO little credit for intellectual rigor that they feel the compulsion to make a nonstop audio track giving their commentary as the films is watched? I watch a film, it makes an impression. As I age, surely my life experiences shade how I see all art. Reading “The Shining” at 15 was very different for me than reading it at 35.
I take it you never read movie reviews, book reviews, literary criticism in any form or talk to people, so as to maintain the intellectual purity of your observations?
Please. Of course you’re entitled to your own interpretation of this or any other work, but it seems very disingenuous to dismiss the director’s express intention when it’s diametrically opposed to your interpretation. The CK example is not a valid one, because whether or not “Rosebud” is a secret symbol for the Holy Grail is a matter of opinion. Whether or not she knew she bought blanks is a question of fact, and the director has stated that as a metter of fact she knew she was buying blanks. You can argue back and forth over whether the director made it clear enough in the narrative that she knew, but however clear or unclear he made it, the fact of her knowledge remains. Discarding the director’s statement of fact because it doesn’t jibe with your interpretation is fanwanking. Not that there’s anything wrong with fanwanking, but it hardly requires being wrapped up in such hi-falutin’ language.
I’m a little surprised by you, Cartooniverse. I find it acceptable to have a different opinion about a movie than others, including the filmmaker. To disallow the director’s comments on the matter, seems selfish.
In this matter (about the bullets), I and others have the view the the daughter knew. This is what the director intended (as stated in the commentary). Those on the other side of the debate have, in my view, given enough evidence that I recognize it as a reasonable, if ultimately incorrect, point of view. It seems that you’re poo-pooing the commentary because it contradicts your interpretation*.
I am an animator and storyteller. I view director commentary on DVDs a wonderful resource into the filmaking art, and like watching a movie with other storytellers. It’s fun. It shouldn’t be used to nail down all ambiguities of interpretation. It also should be viewed after seeing the movie many times.
Dam, I have to go now…more later if necessary.
Didn’t mean to be disingenuous. Yes, I read reviews but they rarely make me stay away- what if I just happen to be in the MOOD for a rock and roll Arthurian movie with Heath Ledger? Then what? Why, I scamper off to the movies, that’s what. My point wasn’t to dismiss the Director/Auteur.
My point was that a film should be able to stand on it’s own, without a Director’s audio track telling you what you’re missing because it was inside of the Director’s head, only to be revealed on the DVD. I love Director’s Cuts of films- they frequently have clarity that the release prints lack. To me, Bladerunner is a perfect case in point. That cut makes more SENSE.
I don’t want to get into a huge side-hijack about my C.K. analogy, so I will admit that it made sense in my brain, but perhaps wasn’t the best analogy I could have supplied.
I didn’t say that Otto. I said he exhibited poor behavior. After he asked her if she knew what she would be getting and she snapped at him, he made an inappropriate decision based on his racism. “Fuck her.” You can see it on his face. His racism saved the little girl, because most people would have made it clear to the customer that they were getting blanks regardless of their feelings about the customer.
The father was not in the store at that moment, as the scene clearly shows the security guy taking him out the door. There is no reason for her to be so secretive about what she wanted. Had the director intended for his treatment to be clear in retrospect, he should have had her react to the shop owner’s question with, “Yeah, I know what those are.” to indicate that she knew (and this still leaves the audience in the dark) or “I don’t care as long as they fit.” (Which is exactly what she said when he asked her the first time.
“Whatever fits.”
She is saying at that moment that she does not care as long as they fit. At that moment the Owner could have pulled out a box of hollow points and tossed them on the counter and she would have left with them. It is only when he pokes at her that she decides to make a half assed choice just to get out of there.
It doesn’t matter that the writer/director intended for her to know what they were, because the translation to celluloid conveys the opposite, which indicates a flaw in his writing/directing. Whatever he intended behind the word processor or in the direction of the film runs counter to what is conveyed on the screen. Admitting that he intended for her to know about the blanks isn’t an indication of his cleverness, so much as an acknowledgement of a mistake in the storytelling. He could have gotten it right and still left the audience in the dark, yet didn’t.
I stand by my assessment based on what the art says, not the artist’s intentions.
