Some movies just want to tell a story and for the most part refuse to take positions on anything.
Some movies have a clear agenda and largely stick to the landing (probably the least common).
Some movies want to have their cake and eat it, too. Falling Down (1993) falls into this category.
I’m not completely sure what you mean by this. I never got the idea that Michael Douglass’ character (or the story) was playing it for the audience.
He’s unhinged on a day where his psychological balloon exploded, but I never considered the character “evil”. He’s a character that didn’t really realize that he was “the bad guy”. You can see it when he thinks that he hurt one of the kids of the family that he inadvertently kidnapped.
Personally, I think the story played out as it should have. He was worth divorcing, and he played it straight until he just went nuts one day. His super ego took over for a day, and it led to his death, but I never got the impression that he was actively looking to hurt people.
I’m of the belief that if the mom said “sure, come over for a bit, spend some time with your daughter, and drop off your gift”, then his day would have been very different (and the story/movie wouldn’t exist). However, I’m guessing that there’s a reason why she’s so against that.
Anyhow, I don’t get the “have your cake and eat it too” thing. I mean, the protagonist dies…basically by suicide (because he believes that his death will benefit his daughter more). I don’t think he was “evil” and then became “good”.
I always thought the movie just shows that everything has consequences we should be aware of. Most of the characters did not think a lot of those consequences. They were just satisfying their egos, their needs, their greed...
shareThe only issue I took with the film is that it marketed itself as ‘a normal joe snaps one day’ which is a really enticing concept. But no, turns out he’s a mentally unstable nutbar who wants to kill his ex wife and possibly his kid. Who can relate to that..?
Also the Robert Duvall subplot didn’t work for me and ruined the pacing.
It does smack of ‘We don’t want to be glorifying violence so let’s make Douglas the villain and throw in a good guy. Oh shit, our hero needs some character development, chuck in a load of backstory about his wife or something… OK, ACTION!’
This is a film that could do with a much more streamlined remake. Make it about a guy who gets cancelled and goes on a gunishment spree, taking out various Woke mutants.
I did think he was mostly a normal Joe. The home movies show he had a temper and was nasty to his wife and child, but the reason he goes on his rampage has as much to do with getting laid off and told he's useless and irrelevant (not economically viable). I can't relate to his abusive issues, but I can relate to a lot of the other stuff, and I do find him tragic and sympathetic (if, ultimately, still culpable for his actions and decisions).
I loved the Duvall character. He was the counterpoint. He was doing what Bill should have done. He knew how to take it, how to put his family first, how to defend what was really important, and by the end of the movie, how to stand up for himself, too - all without going on a crazy rampage.
Meh - we already know how to be normal and not go on a crazy spree, we don’t need the Duvall example. I just wanna see the normal guy who cracks and takes it out on the fucked up aspects of society.
I bet that’s how the script started before the compromises were made.
Except without Prendergast we wouldn't get that wonderful scene at the end. It could've been some random detective (or patrolman) who caught up with Bill, but it wouldn't have felt earned. If it was just Michael Douglas going from societal annoyance to societal annoyance, one after the other, I think the movie would've gotten really old, really fast. Plus it would've robbed the movie of its depth. If we don't know the exact stressors (the home life) or see the other side of the coin, we're just left with, "Snooty managers annoy me, and I want to be served breakfast at lunch time, so I'll pulse some rounds from my TEC-9 into the roof until people listen to me."
shareAll they needed to do was add to the stresses. Make his wife a nagging bint who cuckolds him and bleeds him dry with alimony, dare the audience to sympathise with his desire to kill her - morally dubious cinema with balls is much more exciting.
If Falling Down had come out in the 70’s that’s what it would have been like, in the same way that we sort of get onboard Travis Bickle’s killing spree. The 90’s were much safer, at least until Tarantino really got a foothold.
If Falling Down had been more one-sided like that, I don't think I would've liked it as much. The nuances and the grey morality make it interesting. If it was just revenge fantasy porn, I think it just would have (or likely would have) come across as an immature wish fulfillment of an Angry Young Man. Taxi Driver doesn't bring me on board with Travis, even if I do empathize with him on wanting to see the filth of humanity gone, I still don't want his methods employed. It's still complex.
Falling Down is a brilliant movie because it's easy to see where Bill is coming from, but the counter-argument is also presented, and it's presented fairly realistically. This isn't some "voice of the people" standing up for the little guy, this is a guy who's snapped. I love the sympathy we get from the stressors and seeing why he snapped, but if it was just, "Oh, his wife's a c-word," it would've cheapened the movie.
I’m not suggesting ‘revenge porn’ I’m suggesting the pressures mount up from all areas of his life and he snaps, and rather than cheapen it by making him part-psycho as they did the character would instead be a normal dude facing real world pressures that would irritate anybody.
If it was a short, nasty, complex film that poses difficult questions, much like the trailer promised, it would be remembered as a modern classic.
I do think it's a sort of nasty, complex film. I'm not sure about how difficult the questions are, although I do think that it shows us the difficulties that Bill is going through, they just also have him realizing that he's the baddie.
The problem with trying to make it a "normal Joe" and have it pose any difficult questions is that those questions are only valuable if we continue to see this as a moral possibility, but anybody who gets sick of advertising, downsizing, inflation, and snooty clerks and decides a reasonable solution is to whip out a sub-machine gun kinda negates the "normal" part or the realistic part or the moral part.
Isn't that scenario a Catch-22?
I do think it's a sort of nasty, complex film. I'm not sure about how difficult the questions are, although I do think that it shows us the difficulties that Bill is going through, they just also have him realizing that he's the baddie.
The problem with trying to make it a "normal Joe" and have it pose any difficult questions is that those questions are only valuable if we continue to see this as a moral possibility, but anybody who gets sick of advertising, downsizing, inflation, and snooty clerks and decides a reasonable solution is to whip out a sub-machine gun kinda negates the "normal" part or the realistic part or the moral part.
I guess I'm just trying to figure out what pressure would make a person snap and start blazing away with automatic weapons instead of something like a slap at the Oscars. Smith is clearly upset, too, and after the outburst he knows in his guts that it was a huge mistake (hence the rambling acceptance speech).
The Catch-22 is that in order for somebody to go on a prolonged rampage, either they have to be under extra-ordinary pressure (ie, not simply a bad divorce and sky-high prices at a convenience store) or they have to be out of the ordinary themselves (predisposed to something like this due to rage issues).
I don't think Falling down was cowardly, I think they gave Bill the right combo. They provided him with everyday pressures that we can relate to and showed us somebody snapping. When they added the other stuff, they made it more understandable how he got to the level he did, but the movie puts its emphasis on his despair at not "fitting in". His job, his wife, and society at large rejected him. The fact that he had a temper just explained why he could flare up to the points he does.
Agreed, Duvall was a good counterpoint.
shareWe need that balance or the movie wouldn't work as well. Particularly notable with Duvall is that he's henpecked at the beginning and he hits a point, too, where he won't stand for it any more. The difference between Prendergast's "snap" and Bill's snap, though, is a great underline. Prendergast asserts himself for his own mental and emotional health and because he knows he can do good for more people. He provides us with a "breaking point" blueprint.
share"Make it about a guy who gets cancelled and goes on a gunishment spree, taking out various Woke mutants."
I'd buy a ticket to see that movie, but Hollywoke is never going to make it.
Sounds like somebody uh ... WOKE up on the wrong side of the bed today. Hmmm?
shareUwe Boll has addressed a similar predicament several times with his 'Rampage' movies and also with this slow-burner:
https://youtu.be/8Y-NqShTj5w