MovieChat Forums > Sleepers (1996) Discussion > How likely is is.....? (SPOILERS)

How likely is is.....? (SPOILERS)


1.) That these 4 homosexual/bisexual pedophiles would end up all working at the same institution, and conveniently work the same shift? (Ritual child abusers, despite how often they appear in the news, are not really that common when you consider the entire population. Plus, there are fewer homosexuals/bisexuals than straights in general, so that makes it even more of a stretch.)

2.) That you could count on one of them to immediately crack under pressure on the stand, and confess everything? (The movie keeps telling us how "brilliant" Brad Pitt's master plan is, but it seems to be built on a lot of luck.)

3.) That 2 experienced criminals/killers wouldn't wait outside a restaurant for their prey to leave, and kill him there...rather than open fire inside a restaurant where people know them?

reply

I always wondered about the first point. One or two maybe but not four. I mean they weren't priests they could go home and have sex with a woman so it can't have been frustration. Likewise the fact that they were all capable of systematic child sex abuse is more than coincidence.

Good guys may not finish last but they sure as sh*t don't finish first!

reply

And not that his testimony can be trusted, but the one that breaks on the stand says, "I was drinking a lot then..."

Like a drinking problem turns you into a systematic sexual abuser of children? I think the problem usually goes a BIT deeper than that.

reply

1) the way I saw it. The alpha male (Kevin bacon) probably saw it as power thing and talked the others into doin it. They drank a lot so it was much easier to talkthem into doing something like that.

reply

Repeatedly? For years?

reply

Yeah. Peer pressure. You get talked into doing thugs repeatedly it's not going to be Lon until they just start liking it or go with the flow. Like being peer pressured into drinkig.

reply

I agree that Nokes was the ringleader of the group, and the guy who started it. Once he had the guards involved in it just one time, he essentially had them blackmailed and they had no choice but to join him in future incidents.

reply

My Opinion

1. Product of work environment combined with peer pressure. The Catholic priests that are in the news for child molestation go after the alter boys because of convenience. Someone previously posted that Nokes was sort of a bully and may have convinced the others to join him.

2. The point of having Ferguson was to show that Nokes was not a good person not to confess to everything. Plus being a sunday school teacher, they were counting on Ferguson to have SOME conviction

3. Reilly & Marcano saw Nokes for the first time after the period of sexual abuse which has to be very tough to deal with initially, therefore their actions were irrational and emotionally motivated.

reply

3. Reilly & Marcano saw Nokes for the first time after the period of sexual abuse which has to be very tough to deal with initially, therefore their actions were irrational and emotionally motivated.


Or maybe they really did believe that their reputation as hardened criminals, who were willing and capable of murdering people over even the slightest offense, would compel the witnesses to keep their mouths shut. Maybe they were just that arrogant and over-confident.

reply

1. I look at this from the eyes of a predator. If someone was sexually attracted to young boys, then they would go for jobs where they had easy access to the young boys. Add the fact that the young boys was in trouble and would be easy pray. I also agree with the alpha male aspect. You may have pedophiles that will be passive enough not to do what the guards did, but the Alpha pedophile brought it to the level they did. By doing this it allowed submissive pedophiles to act out there sick desires.

2. I can't remember if they evaluated the guy before hand, but odds are he would be the weakest link of the four. They picked him out of the three remaining guards because they felt he would be the easiest to break. They also built it up to take the guy off guard. I also get the impression that him and the other three guards was pushed into acting out there desires for young children so there was guilt and remorse.

3. I would say this was pure impulse from the two characters. They gave a back history of them as grown ups that they didn't care about going to jail, they did drugs and was cold. IT was a pure act of passion.

A man can change his stars
Fear me, Love me, do as I say, and I'll be your slave.

reply

I hate threads like these.

If movies always have to reflect your vision of reality, then why even bother watching?

reply

Any book, or movie is going to reflect your vision of reality. It is based on your interpretation. You can have 4 people read the same thing and get 4 different responses from the same thing.

The name is Stephen and I'm male.
Fear me, Love me, do as I say, and I'll be your slave.

reply

Can you play a rendition of "Kumbaya" to go along with that post?

reply

1. Yeah, it was a bit of a stretch. Not to be pendantic, but what they did doesn't make them gay or bisexual, not even the guy who was said to still be abusing children, because a) they weren't going after grown men and b) BECAUSE they were kids, especially with them being in an already powerless position, it was more about power and sadism as much as sex, if not not moreso. However, your point still stands. As mikeyg24, maybe one or two but not all four. The whole "peer pressure" argument only explains so much as well, despite what other posters said.

Like a drinking problem turns you into a systematic sexual abuser of children?
And I would say the same thing about peer pressure as for drinking. Like simply being goaded by your friends would turn someone who normally doesn't hurt children into an abuser of kids? I don't buy it.

2.Totally agree; it was a stretch.

3.Totally agree here too.

reply

[deleted]

I just love threads like this because there's always one guy that's got to make a big deal out of the male on male stuff and make sure EVERYBODY realizes that we're talking about not just a pedophile, but a GAY pedophile. As if the gay part makes the pedophilia worse. I'm sorry, it doesn't. Pedophilia is bad all on its own and doesn't need anything to add to the definition.

Your discomfort with the GAY part is noted -- clearly you're not as uncomfortable with just regular pedophilia.

reply

Like some other posters on the board, I don't think all four of them were gay pedophiles. They derived pleasure from demeaning, abusing and raping young delinquents. They took advantage of the fact that these young boys were completely defenseless…and they felt confident they could get away with anything. Engaging in sexual activity with a person of the same sex does not necessarily make you gay, even if it is voluntary (on your part, at least)…that's why in some legal documents, you find the expression "men who have sex with men".
At the time of the trial, only one of the four guards still seemed to be into boys…maybe he was the only true gay pedophile, even though we don't know for sure.
As far as the other points are concerned:
I didn't find it unrealistic Fergueson cracked on the witness stand. A divorced Sunday school teacher. His being religious must be relatively new, since back in Wilkinson the guards mocked Shakes for owning a rosary (and made him say prayers while they were torturing him). When people who used to be anti-religious suddendly turn to religion, it is often because of grave personal problems. (The opposite can also be true.) My suspicion was confirmed when I saw Fergueson clutching a crucifix while recalling scenes from Wilkinson. His cruelty and the boys begging him to stop. He's obviously a tormented person, a nervous wreck. I think he no longer cared that he might go to jail because of his confession.
Now, for Johnny and Tommy gunning down Nokes in a restaurant full of witnesses…some minutes early Shakes narrates that Tommy once shot a mechanic who cut the line in front of him…at a movie theater. I think the two felt completely safe, since they were well established in the mob.

reply

I just love threads like this because there's always one guy that's got to make a big deal out of the male on male stuff and make sure EVERYBODY realizes that we're talking about not just a pedophile, but a GAY pedophile. As if the gay part makes the pedophilia worse. I'm sorry, it doesn't. Pedophilia is bad all on its own and doesn't need anything to add to the definition.

Your discomfort with the GAY part is noted -- clearly you're not as uncomfortable with just regular pedophilia.


Listen you little monkey, I'm not the one who brought up they were f@gs, the op did. Then as usual some pc buffoon has to complain that they're not really f@gs; ya cause straight guys like banging boys when they could get a hooker anytime. Don't bitch at me cause you can't handle the fact that movie had GAY PAEDOPHILES in it.

reply

Then why comment repeatedly about it?

reply

Good points OP. It was a very compelling movie but these were weak aspects of it.

It was only 13 years later. Why wouldn't the guard on the stand recognize the names of the defendants and prosecutor and steer clear? He wasn't subpoenaed - he agreed to be a character witness. That he wouldn't find out the names of the defendants and prosecutor is too conveniently unrealistic and requires a huge suspension of reality for the viewer.

reply

I agree with you. Films are supposed to be an "interpretation" of reality, not an imitation.

reply

On # 1 and 3, I guess the chances are slim, but both could happen. The novel describes John and Tommy as psychopathic killers would didn't care if anyone saw them or not when they shot Nokes.

As far as the guy breaking down on the stand, seems very unlikely he would confess to the molestations... especially since he would be facing criminal charges.

Oh, I've chosen my words carefully Persian... perhaps you should have done the same. Leonidas

reply

1.) That these 4 homosexual/bisexual pedophiles would end up all working at the same institution, and conveniently work the same shift? (Ritual child abusers, despite how often they appear in the news, are not really that common when you consider the entire population. Plus, there are fewer homosexuals/bisexuals than straights in general, so that makes it even more of a stretch.)
They didn't have to be complete psychopaths or degenerates, it could be a combination of being at the wrong place/time and having a weak, follower personality. The three followers probably would have been fine with a different supervisor. The drinking just helped them to ease into the situation.

2.) That you could count on one of them to immediately crack under pressure on the stand, and confess everything? (The movie keeps telling us how "brilliant" Brad Pitt's master plan is, but it seems to be built on a lot of luck.)
A combination of luck and planning. The fact that Fergusen was now more of a devout Christian, teaching sunday school or whatever, made him more vulnerable to guilt/remorse of his previous actions. He had made a change for the better - unlike Nokes who just scoffed when faced with being confronted by his 2 victims.

3.) That 2 experienced criminals/killers wouldn't wait outside a restaurant for their prey to leave, and kill him there...rather than open fire inside a restaurant where people know them?
I don't know, I mean waiting outside would make sense to me, but these guys had slid into deviant behavior, or perhaps it was somewhat a crime of passion, seeing your tormentor all of a sudden, enjoying a casual dinner in the same resaurant they may have considered their 'turf'.

reply

1) Sexual crimes are influenced less by any sexual attraction towards the victim, and more on the thrill one can get from being in power, in totally control. Many priests found to be abusing young boys identify as straight men; they simply had most access to boys, so they abused boys. If they were around some girls, they would abuse them, too, because the gender didn't matter as long as it was someone weaker then them i.e. a child.

2)The guard they picked to go on the witness stand was now an upstanding citizen and if teaching Sunday school was anything to go by, a man of God. Plus, he probably wasn't expecting that anyone was going to ask about what went on at the detention center. Put together his new found morality and the element of surprise and you got someone more than likely to crack under pressure.

3)Probably the heat of moment got to them. The mere presence of the guy that tormented them so horribly made all sense go out the window.

The Player: We're actors! We're the opposite of people!

Hey, brother...~ Buster, AD

reply

2) Has been well explained by replies. Though the question remains why he didn't suspect why Nokes was murdered, and then piece together what was going on from there.

3) Yeah, I think you're supposed to assume that they were just overwhelmed by the post-trauma of seeing him again. Plus, their casual attitude of walking out and saying "One down" to Shakes suggests that they were confident they had impunity given their connections.

reply

1) Like previous posters said,it wasn't really about the sex(most of them were married,I believe even Noakes was wearing a ring in that first shot of him we see him in).It was purely about the power over the boys,it probably wasn't even about the sex but "teaching the boys a lesson" as Nokes said many times.Making them respect and fear them and what better way to control a bunch of kids than to break their spirits,and again what better,easier and faster way to do that than to completely and utterly hummiliate them and use them like that.

2)I don't think they were counting on him to break down at the stand like that,that was an added bonus(esp. since it didn't nor would help their case in any way,if anything if it came out that John and Tommy were in Wilkenson at the same time as Nokes it would automatically give them a motive for killing him and it would hurt them,so it was risky business to say the least).They were trying to "open the door" to the horrors that happenned over there,making the accussations and letting the public know that something fishy was going down there so that it would hopefully lead to people checking things out.They chose Ferguson because he seemed "squeeky clean" and he was working in social services(thus making it more likely for people to start looking into it a bit more).Of course Ferguson almost immediatelly when the questions started about the tortures etc recognised the two boys.That confrontation alone,along with the fact he himself was a father by then,he was a man of God and the years of guilt he probably had felt since "escaping" Nokes' control led to the breakdown,but you could clearly see(and it was brilliantly acted by all actors I must add) how surprised and ecstatic they were when he said that "yes" and admitted to everything...you could clearly see they were all struggling not to start shouting out of pure joy!

3)Again like other posters said,it wasn't about making a hit,it wasn't even the reason why they went there in the first place.They saw the man that had hurt them after years,and John was clearly upset even after all those years.It wasn't them tracking him down and planning how to kill him,it was them being at the same place with the bastard for the first time in all those years and for the first time they had the upper hand.They didn't think things through,they just wanted revenge and they took it!

reply

Since everyone has already given the answer I would have said for 1 and 3, I just wanted to add on to what some people were saying about the second one. In the book, Carcaterra made a pretty huge point of saying that Ferguson was the weakest of the bunch and mostly preyed on John (who was the weakest of the group), because he could be easily overpowered. While Ferguson may have grown up to be an upstanding citizen, he was still a weak man, and could be overpowered by others. Enough bullying on the stand, and he would have caved in, it's that simple.

reply

It wasn't about 'homosexual/bisexual'. To a degree, it wasn't even about pedophilia.

If you read the book, Noakes and... I believe it was Addison had problems with women, and severe power issues. It was about fear. They feed off the fear of the four young boys, because it was the only time in their lives that they were SOMEBODY. They held the power over these four boys. The other two men (including the one on the stand) basically just followed along. Much like many of the Nazis, these men didn't necessarily like what was going on, or even agree with it, but they went along with it, because they were weak-willed, easily lead men.

As for the third part of your question... If you listen as Shakes narrates, he tells us how both Johnny and Tommy have serious cocaine addictions. Not to mention... seeing their childhood abuser, knowing that they held the power for the first time... It's a heady experience. Add that to a long-term cocaine addiction, and yeah, I'd say it's plausible. I'm not saying I believe the story is true, but not for those reasons.

reply