Primal Fear has always been one of my favourite films, but there is always one thing that bothers me:
If Edward Norton's character was, in fact, this strong-willed person (Roy) all along, and Aaron was the fabrication, why would Roy ever subject himself to those acts pushed upon him, Linda and Alex by Archbishop Rushman?
What are people's opinions?
http://greatestfilms.co.uk
think about WHY Roy needed to invent Aaron in the first place.
the clue comes at the end with revelations bishop was into REAL pedophilia [the O'Donnell case] and not what kiddies are now taught as pedophilia ie PASSIVE voyeurism [as we see in Eyes Wide Shut].
Roy sought out the bishop to settle some old scores from 10 years before but the power elites do not allow Hollywood to deal with pedophilia except in vague whispers - which is probably why Kubrick was zapped, along with 20 minutes of EWS.
The amazing thing about PF is how it just kept to the very border of such issues and survived, based purely on the vehicle [MPD] and not on the guts.
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
"think about WHY Roy needed to invent Aaron in the first place."
But there's a flaw in that argument, because if Roy was created by a poor abused Aaron, then he wouldn't be able to flick in and out of being Roy or Aaron at will (and remember, he coldly calculates to become Roy when he sees/hears the camera in the interview room running out, that wasn't about pressure building in Aaron's head), or explain quite rationally to Vail at the end how he had been tricking him all along!
It's a cute twist, and surprising. But the more you think about it the less sense it makes: either Aaron morphed into Roy as a defence against the abuse he had suffered (in which case it wouldn't be possible for Aaron/Roy to make rational decisions that cover up his duplicity), or the Aaron/Roy split is all an act (in which case a character like Roy would never submit to the sort of abuse the Archbishop was guilty of putting Aaron through).
because if Roy was created by a poor abused Aaron,
---
that's same mistake Marty made
"NO there never was an Aaron"
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
I think it makes perfect sense, and don't see it as a plot hole.
You're making the assumption that Aaron suffered from multiple personality syndrome. The implication is that he didn't. Rather, he was abused and molested as a child, and grew up to be an angry teen. He ran away to Chicago where he met the pedophile priest. He fell into the same role of being a victim that he had been in as a child, but eventually got fed up with it and punished the people he felt had wronged him-- his girlfriend and the priest. He then invented the Aaron and Roy characters to convince the courts he was insane, so he'd go free soon.
Even a strong-willed, angry person like the real Aaron (whose personality is closer to that of the character Roy he created) can be bullied and pushed around by an authority figure, especially if it harkens back to a past situation of powerlessness.
Yeah I'm not buying it though. Or the movie should've dealt more with the 'Roy' character, because he didn't come off like a victim at all. You have to show that in movies
shareBut there's a flaw in that argument, because if Roy was created by a poor abused Aaron, then he wouldn't be able to flick in and out of being Roy or Aaron at will (and remember, he coldly calculates to become Roy when he sees/hears the camera in the interview room running out, that wasn't about pressure building in Aaron's head), or explain quite rationally to Vail at the end how he had been tricking him all along!
Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...share
What does EWS have to do with pedophilia?
shareIt is my opinion that Roy didn't care about the sexual acts and that he wanted gratification from Linda too. I do believe that jealousy caused him to kill the bishop, or he was angry that the bishop was such a phony. Perhaps Aaron was the "Golden boy," at the beginning and then the bishop found someone younger?
shareOne thing that bothers me. Is when people spell favorite with u in the middle. What's the deal with that. Is it a Canadian thing?
shareOne thing that bothers me. Is when people spell favorite with u in the middle. What's the deal with that. Is it a Canadian thing?
---
no it's the way it is spelt [you say spelled] in PROPER English
you are just a small a american and my heart goes out ...
may bin Laden have mercy on your sole [npi]
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
Oh, well excuse the *beep* outta me big time
shareActually favorite has been used in instances as early as the 17th century. And favourite didn't become the preferred British spelling till the late 19th century. But what would I know. I'm just a small American. No one cares about your blog btw dipshiet
sharenow repeat after me
AL-U-MIN-IUM
ain't that hard
http://www.kindleflippages.com/ablog/
What a wanker!!
shareYeah, that's important. Nothing worse than a self-righteous pig-snob who thinks that cultural differences in English spelling is something significant enough to use as an insult to others. Get a life, ya pedantic buffoon.
shareI find it ironic that British people don't even pronounce words correctly most of the time. Funny you can invent the rules of a language but are incapable of following them.
shareLester spouting $h!T again. Both spellings are attested as long ago as the 14th century. Spelling of words with the "our" vowels was not settled in Britain until the 18th century, with some experts claiming that the present "British" spelling was adopted because it looked more French!
The Americans favoured the "OR" spelling. There is no PROPER English! The language is constantly evolving.
You Lester, use "dude". Is that not American? You probably didn't call your dick-tugging tennis chum by that name, did you? But things have always been a little different at Augies.
I'm Australian and expected to use British English but the American spelling is definitely superior here. First because it is shorter and second because the "or" spelling, unlike "our", is consistent with the way it is pronounced.
R G B
Is that necessary? SCUMBAG comment in my opinion.
share[deleted]
Even though Aaron may not have Multiple Personality Disorder, it's definitely possible that the abuse slowly turned him violent and psychotic when he was a timid and naive person to start with. The video footage of the abuse raises some questions, but it's not necessarily a plot hole.
share... what is strange is that once the existence of Roy is revealed, Martin Vail never asks about Aaron's previous statement that he saw a third person leaning over the bishop's body. Since Aaron doesn't know who Roy is, it's definitely a clue to Martin that Aaron is making stuff up.
shareAaron is a psychopath and successfully fools everyone with his Dissociative Identity Disorder act of Roy. In the initial interview with Vale Aaron claims to have "lost time" after seeing a figure crouched over the Archbishop, which means that he would remember it. At the end of the film Aaron claims that Roy nor Aaron was ever real. He means this quite literally, as psychopaths often feel they've no real personality or identity and often feeling "outside themselves" Aaron is what he wants.
Most likely he knew nothing of the allegations of the previous victim from 1985. Most likely he had adopted the "Aaron" personality (shy, timid, stuttering speech) when the Archbishop first met him, inviting him into his Cadillac and the Church and used this camouflage for the entirety of his time there. Most likely he was a willing participant at first with the sex stuff. Alex said the Archbishop always used the same tape, just recording over the previous session. As we can be sure that Aaron has a cunning mind, he may have changed his demeanor in the last video so as not to appear enjoying it so much in preparation for the murder and the chance that it would be found.
As to the true motive, as Aaron said at the end, it was just a work of art. Aaron is not psychotic, for he is indeed quite sane.
The Archbishop had probably run out of usefulness to Aaron, or perhaps he was just bored.
See, how I interpreted that at the end of things was that the weaker persona (Aaron) became completely suppressed by the stronger, more dominant personality (Roy) and of course Roy is going to deny that Aaron ever existed and was made up because the personality of Roy was arrogant and narcissistic. It world be demeaning to admit that he was associated with Aaron in any manner, better to just completely write off Aaron as ever having existed instead of 1)admitting that he (Roy) wasn't real and byproduct of Aaron's trauma or 2) dragging along that weak personality/person (Aaron).
I think where the main problem comes in at is that the Nueroscientist was never authorized or performed of her own accord, any actual neurological tests in Aaron/Roy, as she had suggested doing at the very beginning but of which Gere's character said weren't necessary. I think if she had we would be able to see nearly definitively, if any actual neurological changes were occurring (different centers of the brain lighting up/activating; etc), but since we don't have that we only have the story of a very unreliable character (Roy/Aaron) to explain things out for us.
There wasn't enough testing done I think. I don't know if 60 hrs would be enough to observe, question and diagnosis someone with this particular disorder, which is far more nuanced than the movie played it out to be. I'm also fairly certain it's given a different name now than the one used in the movie, but it's been a while since I've researched it in-depth so I'm unsure.
Either way, I think Aaron in that final moment did cease to exist and Roy came into complete being, having finally come into control. Sometimes when people "snap" they don't snap back and at least in my opinion that's what happened. But like I said, the disorder is far more nuanced than the movie let it on to be.
I don't think PF is a perfect film but I think the twist at the end is a bit of a "Usual Suspects" one in which we understand that we don't know the whole story and never will. There are clues to the nature of Aaron/Roy's condition but we aren't given enough to go on and the meat of the movie is how we as the audience have been duped by someone we underestimated because of their seemingly "weak" nature.
It does seem unlikely that Roy would let himself be so abused by the Bishop but we also have to realize we actually don't know much about Roy/Aaron. Roy may have been doing the Aaron routine for some time (whenever he felt he needed to use somebody). Perhaps for a period he went along with the sex stuff in the hopes of getting something out of the Bishop (who was a rich and powerful man) but eventually decided to get rid of him.
[deleted]