Why was "Life of David Gale" panned so thoroughly? (SPOILERS)

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by Hamlet *
**Wouldn’t it damage the credibility of the “no innocent person” argument if the only “innocent” person to be put to death, actually had to work at it, and then lie and deceive his way through death row? Is the movie this mind-numbing in it’s stupidity? **

Yes, it is precisely that stupid. Well said.

[Algernon]

Originally posted by Hamlet
If Gale wanted to show that an innocent person has been put to death, wouldn’t it entail that he was innocent?

As far as anyone in the movie knows, save Bloom, he was innocent.

Originally posted by Lemur866
The point of the movie was to show that the death penalty is flawed, because look! They’re killing an innocent person! Death penalty==bad! Except he wasn’t innocent, so the whole point of the movie is backwards.

No. This is precisely how I think this movie is misunderstood. The point of the movie is not to try and convince the audience that the death penalty is flawed. If that were true, then of course it’d be a stupid movie. The point of the movie is how good can come out of a bad situation.

Originally posted by Avalonian
This was not the case of an innocent man trying to prove his innocence, this was the case of an innocent man making specific efforts to prove his guilt. He did not prove the weaknesses of the system, but only proved that someone with a “cause” will go to great lengths, including manufacturing evidence and outright dishonesty, to manipulate others.

The thing is, within the framework of the movie only Bloom knows what you and the rest of the audience knows. I think you are accurate about the point that someone with a cause can go to great lengths to manipulate others. That is closer to the point of the movie. I don’t think the movie has anything to do with the death penalty. From the perspective of the movie viewer, it is sort of a McGuffin.

Originally posted by greck
Also, all they did was prove that if you set out to frame yourself for murder and you have the cooperation of the victim, you can do it. It really didn’t prove anything about flaws in the system. If you’re gonna preach, at least say something worthwhile.

At the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think the purpose of the movie was to preach about the death penalty.

[lissener]

*Originally posted by Algernon *
**. . . At the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think the purpose of the movie was to preach about the death penalty. **

That was, actually, the explicit purpose of the movie.

[lissener]

*Originally posted by Hamlet *
**. . . Wouldn’t it damage the credibility of the “no innocent person” argument if the only “innocent” person to be put to death, actually had to work at it, and then lie and deceive his way through death row? Is the movie this mind-numbing in it’s stupidity? **

Exactly.

[Algernon]

Well lissener, if that is true then I take back my support for the movie. Because as everyone has pointed out, that makes no sense. I hate it when people do this, but… do you have a cite?

I’m not a sore loser, but merely a reluctant one. (grin)

[Cervaise]

I saw this movie at an advance screening with Kevin Spacey in attendance, which is a prime setting for being blinded by stardom and thinking a movie is better than it is. And while I didn’t actively hate it, I didn’t really care for it, partly for the reasons articulated by Avalonian, and partly because I got tired of the unending series of cliches. Excerpts from my full-length review:

It’s not that The Life of David Gale is a bad movie. It certainly doesn’t deserve anywhere near the level of venom it’s attracted from some advance reviewers, who have spit nasty adjectives like “sanctimonious” and “self-serving” at the film. Yes, the movie is dressed up in death-penalty clothes, and in fact it seems to believe that that’s what it’s about, but as it turns out, the justice system is really more of a maguffin for a convoluted pulp thriller. The vitriol I’ve seen from other writers may be triggered by a subconscious perception of this bait-and-switch, insofar as the movie seems to promise one thing and then delivers something else. In any event, the film turns out to be a perfectly average mystery/suspense flick that doesn’t say anywhere near as much about the central issue as it apparently believes it does.

…

It doesn’t help that Bitsey is one of the stupidest investigative reporters I’ve ever seen represented on screen. She flies into Texas to visit the incarcerated Gale, and apparently does no research whatsoever. We see her reading a thick file before breakfast on her first day, but when she shows up for the interview, she’s a blank slate. She even resorts to visiting the scene of the crime and paying the re-enactment fee charged by the goth princess who moved into the house after the murder, just to get the basic facts of the event. This is supposed to pass for journalism? What the heck was in that big file she was reading?

…

And then, in a televised confrontation with the state’s pro-execution governor, Gale is brought up short by an obvious line of debate, for which a brilliant guy like Gale should have any number of ready responses; it’s the old irritating screenwriting shortcut where the script requires a character to suddenly become atypically stupid because there’s a plot point involved.

…

To be fair, the movie does make an effort to tarnish Gale’s halo, but it lets him off the hook again and again. He gives in to the sexual advances of a student who wants revenge for her failing grade, but one, she isn’t actually a student any more; two, he’s falling-down drunk and barely knows what he’s doing; and three, she’s a lissome dark-haired seductress remaindered from a daytime soap. Could we not find an ordinary 20-year-old female to really muddy the ethical waters? … It’s as if, every time the movie decided to break with expectation and challenge the audience, it does so in the most predictable and least challenging way possible.

…

I’m not going to reveal the details of the film’s conclusion, but I will say that it’s a major miscalculation from the standpoint of thematic consistency. The movie goes from polemic to specific; in other words, after having pretended for most of its running time to have something important to say about the way our justice system, and our society at large, views and applies the ultimate punishment, the film suddenly collapses to being about only this particular screwed-up situation, and totally loses its resonance.

Read my whole review here.

[Cervaise]

*Originally posted by Algernon *
Well lissener, if that is true then I take back my support for the movie. Because as everyone has pointed out, that makes no sense. I hate it when people do this, but… do you have a cite?

You snuck in while I was assembling my lengthy post. As I said, I attended a screening with Spacey in attendance, and the intent of the film, from his own mouth, was to send you away thinking about the death penalty.

[Cervaise]

Oh, and besides, think about the *freakin’ title of the movie:

The Life of David Gale*

Obviously, this is not a biographical movie, where we see the entire life of a character, like The Life of Abraham Lincoln or whatever, in which “life” means everything between birth and death. Therefore, in this context, “life” means something else. Now, clearly what’s at stake in the movie is whether or not he gets executed. Ergo, the very subject of the film, the thing being examined, is the being-alive-ness of the title character.

Whenever you’re confused about the thematic intent of a movie, always start with the title.

[Algernon]

Thanks Cervaise. I’ll accept a cite from the horse’s mouth. Color me disappointed.

Nice review by the way. Your first paragraph that you quote resonates with me. Well, to be more precise, it was pretty much what my entire OP was intended to be, but you worded it better than I.

[jimmmy]

I found several points stretched my credulity past the breaking point mainly centering on Kate Winslet’s character Bitsie.

Remember her running miles into the city, not getting a lift, when her car breaks down, as the clock literally ticks down? That really made me lose it – I really felt manipulated and that it was a cheap … and “dumb” … plot trick – no 5 star movie should ever include those elements.

Bitsie, who had witnessed kiddie porn & jail and was supposedly a nationally known and respected journalist fell apart, completely apart, because she saw the snuff film of Linney — it was bad but: “lose it cry your eyes out tough reporter” bad? Sh6t no. Unbelievable and manipulative (I say again).

Finally why did the Cowboy/Lawyer leave the film in her hotel room? What purpose did that serve besides terrifying her & manipulating (3X!!) us? I’ll cop to the conspirators may have wanted Bitsie to be fully committed and that was one way to go – to make her think the clock was running and she needed to engage, but really.

Well acted. Dumb plot. 0 stars ? No, the actors performances (including creepy Goth-girl) were too good for that… but 2.5 stars and relegated quickly to video? Yeah, it deserved that IMO.

[Avalonian]

Wow, Cervaise, that’s a really excellent review of the movie, and I agree with pretty much every word. I especially like what you said about Laura Linney’s performance: for all the star power of Spacey and Winslet, Linney’s the only one who came close to making me feel for her.

Very nicely done.

[lissener]

Also, Algernon, Alan Parker, the director, said in an interview something along the lines of (total paraphrase from memory) the movie was intended to examine the weaknesses of the American capital punishment system, which is exactly why it was placed in Texas, which is of course the leader in capital punishment.

[vivalostwages]

I’m with Avalonian. I just couldn’t believe or accept that anybody would put themselves through all that stuff just to make a point. I found it completely implausible.

[Isabelle]

I just saw the movie and had some questions.

1. What was the point in enclosing the post card from Berlin in the money to his wife?

2. If I recall Bitsy had to pay XX dollars for the interview. Who got the money? I don’t understand how it got into the hands of Dusty and then to Gayle’s wife?

This puts the reporter in an untenable position: if she goes public with the story, she will vindicate the governor, because after all, the guy was a murderer, so their was no mistake; case closed, capital punishment works. To maintain the conspirators’ lie, the reporter has to join the conspiracy of silence.

He just watched her committ suicide that wasn’t murder.

4. Was David Gayle so distraught that he was willing to sit on death row (for the average of 9 years) to be executed?

[Algernon]

Lord knows, based on my previous posts I’m not sure I really understood this movie, but here goes…

1. I believe it was to “prove” to his ex-wife that the rape was not really a rape and that he was innocent, just as he had claimed.

2. The money was delivered to his lawyer, who then used Dusty as the messenger to Gale’s ex-wife. All this was planned by Gale and Constance long before.

3. I think that he considered his life to be over when the suicide plan was conceived. He had nothing left to live for. He waited on death row to achieve what he believed was a greater good.

[Isabelle]

1. I believe it was to “prove” to his ex-wife that the rape was not really a rape and that he was innocent, just as he had claimed.

Well that was just stupid! Why didn’t he show his wife from the begininng? Afterall that just goes to show he did NOT use EVERY effort to convince his wife that he was innocent!

I rented the movie for a week so I am going to watch it again.

Unlike a lot of you, I had no clue that Constance was going to kill herself. It was a suprise twist for me.

I just thought that it was kinda a lame ending. Sure Gayle proved he was innoncent and put to death HOWEVER he set himself up. How many murderers set themself up?

[Algernon]

Hmmm. Isabelle, after you watch it again, see if you can determine when Berlin sent him the postcard. I got the feeling it was long after she left him and his life fell apart. Perhaps even in prison? Regardless, you’d have a good point. Gale would’ve “proven” his non-rape as soon as he had the postcard. I wonder if he know where she was at that time.

[Chefguy]

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the rental car. What a clever plot device! Let’s see…the car is balky and the engine light keeps coming on…what could possibly happen later in the film because of this? Oh.my.god. The car quit at a crucial moment! I never saw that coming, did you?

If you were in the middle of what was becoming a major investigation, wouldn’t you think to send your flunky companion (whose presence in the film was a mystery to me) to, you know, get another car, fer chrissakes?

[Isabelle]

Oh yes! I knew the car was going to give out. She should have exchanged it the first time it showed signs of distress. Idiots

[lissener]

Um . . . I knew the car was gonna give out way before you guys did, because, um, in the opening scene? the car? it breaks down.