I watched this on a flight while a bit drowsy so forgive me if I missed something obvious.
But why was the Brad Pitt character the prosecutor? I know it was part of a bigger plan, but I couldn't work out what it was, nor why, if it was such a good idea, everyone else was pushing for the defence.
as he said in the movie "im not taking this case to win... im taking it to lose"
he also gave the defense attorney the questions to ask..
Yeah I understood that much but what I'm missing is the WHY? So he's essentially helping the defence, right? So why was he so glum when he lost?
shareHe was one of the group of four friends that was raped while incarcerated. He was planning payback for years but just did not expect it would be finished in the courtroom the way it was. He was glum at the end because I am guessing he got what he really wanted but it didn't change the way he felt. He was still a loner after he stopped being a lawyer and was actually probably happier when he still had his revenge to plot because that gave his life meaning.
shareWell put Steffeeric...that's the best way I've heard it explained!
shareI agree, very well put. They got their revenge but it didn't give them back their lives. I always thought Brad Pitt was glum because perhaps against his best judgement he hoped there would be some consolation.
Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott
He was also glum because his career was over, he basically gave up his career as a lawyer to get revenge
shareHe was also glum because his career was over, he basically gave up his career as a lawyer to get revenge.Well not really as because as Shakes said he could switch to defense 'So,you switch to the other side and work as a defense lawyer. The money's better. There's always gonna be more bad guys than good, Mikey. And can you imagine the work you'd get from John and Tommy's crew? That's a house and a pool.' In any case he says 'I've seen all the law I want to see' so I'm not sure he's too cut up about about his career over or not.
Might have put the DA's office onto his plan had he jumped up and cheered for the release of John and Tommy...Michael played his part to perfection and looked dazed and confused, as if to say "Gee, how did I flub this surefire case up?"
I confer with the thought he may have expected to feel relief and closure after getting revenge on his tormenters and the Wilkenson Home for Boys, and a Not Guilty verdict for John and Tommy.
Stefeeric's explanation is best.
But I was also somewhat confused the first time Michael meets with Shakes and is discussing the plan, he says, "it's messy, not the way I planned it" ...
...but how DID he plan it??
Obviously he had been collecting info on Ferguson, Styler and Addison for some time, but what about Nokes, who had been the ringleader?
It was just random chance that Nokes decided to have dinner in the same bar where Tommy and John were drinking. If that doesn't happen, how and when do they track down Nokes?
It really doesn't seem like Michael had much of a 'plan' put together before, by sheer chance, Tommy and John end up killing Nokes.
Although I suppose Michael also had a dossier of info put together on Nokes, too.
================
4) You ever seen Superman $#$# his pants? Case closed.
My take was that Michael had been planning it for years, that he went into Law to figure out how he was going to do it. The other forced his slow, deliberate plan by running across Nokes by accident and executing him. Nokes had become a complete lowlife and was probably more difficult to track than the other perpetrators.
_______________________________________
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"
Maximus Decimus Meridius
Has anybody who replied to this post watched the damn movie??? There is no "take". It is all explicitly laid out. The Pitt character was one of the 4, and the whole idea was to expose what was going on at the home. They said so in so many words. Why is there even a discussion about this?
shareHas anybody read the original question :) I think it was clear the poster was asking why he took the role of prosecutor rather than defender. You could argue that he could have taken the role of defender and still exposed all the seedy goings on, although it was probably easier to orchestrate from his position, especially with a bumbling defence lawyer.
shareYou could argue that he could have taken the role of defender
It would have not been possible in this position as it would have made no sense to call a former friend of the victim to the court. It only makes sense as a prosecutor who is defending the victim.
shareHow in the world did you miss that, OP.
shareHe was one of the four boys who were raped and beaten. He knew that if another prosecutor took the case, that prosecutor would've fought very hard for justice for Nokes. He took the case to lose so this way the gangsters got their revenge and are free.