the whole film i really thought there was gonna be some sort of twist or something more would unfold about joel and david. but i guess it was just the fact that david killed joel's girl a few years before? and there was the whole deal where david said they needed each other, they were like ying and yang etc.
but what did david mean when he said "I can't believe you still don't know who you're talking to"? was there more to it that i just didnt pick up on?
cheers
I believe David had some sort of a hero worship thing for Joel; that, or something deeper. You could say that David was obsessed with (in love with?) Joel, and that was why he stalked him, killed his girl and continually drew attention to himself by killing all the other girls. I suppose a lot can be surmised from David's words (below), but that's my interpretation of them.
"Why did you turn away from me? Why was it so hard for you to accept? Cause you know I did it for you. You came so close to me that night. I remember clearly what I felt when I heard your footsteps falling behind me. Pride. I thought it would keep us together forever."
I'd have to agree with you wholeheartedly in this deduction.
You could take almost -any- of Griffin's lines as an example of his obsession/infatuation; i swear about 90% of his entire dialog would work. Honestly i think that may be one of the things that makes the movie stand out, imo; just on how much focus the characters have on each other. It's an unusual relationship to show up in a movie like this (but then again it makes sense?), so i am not surprised that many people who watch it for the first time miss it, or only notice it subconsciously. I'd guess that those specific "deeper feelings" we're noticing between Griffin and Campbell may not have been intended in the film's making, but nonetheless they seem to have shown up or at least can be speculated.
I agree that it's an unusual relationship. I also feel that the critics - who panned it - and some comments about Spader's acting entirely missed the point.
Joel isn't exactly an attractive character - he's irritable, short-tempered, wan and tired which is exactly what he would be if he can only sleep 2 hours a night and suffers from violent migraines. Spader got it entirely right & that long scene without dialogue where he comes home to his depressing apartment, develops migraine, is violently sick and then injects himself to relieve the pain I found mesmerising.
I have read that Keanu Reeves felt he was tricked into the part. He accepted a lower salary than either Spader or Tomei and then found that the 'cameo' appearance had developed into the storyline we saw. Perhaps as a result of reading this I felt that he was rather wooden as David.
I found the struggle between Joel and David much more fascinating than seeing the movie as 'cops trying to catch a psychopathic killer' kind of story.
I don't think Joel needed David, I thought that was rubbish.
I agree Spader's acting was good. He played it exactly like someone who needed David like a hole in the head. Or a migraine which felt like a hole in the head.
----------------------
Don't dream it, be it.
My take on this was that after Lisa's horrific death Joel sank into dispair which caused those psychsomatic illnesses. When David reappeared his interest in things/life was rekindled and the health problems receded. I thought that's what the psychiatrist was getting at when she asked him whether he 'needed' the man he was trying to catch.
In the car when David was taking Joel to where Polly was a prisoner he said that before Joel met Lisa he (David) was all Joel had. I took this to mean that Joel had been wrapped up in his work and solitary, rather like David. David killed Lisa in order to get the 'relationship' (as he saw it) with Joel back on the previous footing.
That's a very interesting theory, indymovies.
However, I am not sure that just having a purpose is enough to cure anyone of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I know a few people who have work (paid or unpaid) which is very helpful, but it does not make them less unhappy.
----------------------
Don't dream it, be it.
I don't know, Rose. I have found from experience that in those circumstances if something comes along which jerks me out the state I'm in - some sudden catastrophe, or something that really excites or interests me or some kind of crisis where I can do something - the psychosomatic problems tend to fade or disappear and if I'm lucky, don't come back. I thought that was the case with Joel.
shareYou may be right.
I am fortuntate not to have personal experience of PTSD. I know someone who has, in my pottery group. I haven't seen her much lately. I hope there's something that could help her.
She's very talented.
I seem to know a lot of very talented people who are also very caring (judging from their work or volunteer work and not just their interaction with me and other people) who are suffering from a lot of unhappiness.
I would not wish to over-simplify comments about mental health. I seem to keep putting my foot in it. I am currently trying to explain to people on another board that I didn't mean something the way they think I meant it, but that I didn't explain it very well.
----------------------
Don't dream it, be it.
I know what you mean. It's a hell of a problem sometimes explaining things.
Regarding what I said previously, with me I have found that something has to really pull me out of myself, take over my every thought, to have the required effect. Just deliberately taking up an interest, or a hobby or a job doesn't work for me.
Oh honey there usually is... I mean look at most of the action/thriller/horror or any other movie with two male leads, they all usually swim in gay subtext... especially your B-grade films, or lower budget ones.
The Watcher (Yeah whole movie was suss there)
Broken Arrow (The whole competition thing those two have going on screams of pent up feeings to me)
Top Gun (Oh dont get me started...)
Fright Night (Yeah another that was suss top to bottom...)
The list just goes on and on, its that whole obsessive serial killer thing. They develop some weird attachments... look at silence of the lambs... or red dragon for that matter.
I felt as you did, throughout the film everything pointed to the fact that Griffin was Campbell's alter ego. Too many instances to mention, but the things that stand out most are the quote you cited, as well as Polly's question "Did you miss him" and the analysis that they are yin and yang.
One scene that really points to this is right after the big chase scene in the middle of the film, where Griffin gets away after blowing up the gas station, the head cop (Ernie Hudson) comes baning on Campbell's door and then has Mitch pick the lock when there is no answer. Why? When does the head cop ever come to detective's home for a chat? No, he usually comes to arrest him. Seriously, what was the point of that visit? We never find out.
Then he's in the hospital, then he leaves the hospital and from there to the end of the movie he is never in direct contact with the other police.
What it really feels like in the end is that, either the writers were trying to trick the viewer all along or the director re-wrote the ending to have them as two separate people, making the entire rest of the movie make no real sense.
I'm not disappointed they weren't the same person. I actually groaned when it occurred to me - about ten minutes into the movie. I just wish they had made the film more straightforward and less deceptive in that direction.
You think they were the same person? I never got that...I just felf like David was insane. I don't think I can wrap my head around that idea and fit Polly and the cops into the picture.
shareSorry - can't respond to people who can't communicate in proper English, which includes punctuation, capitalization, and overall grammar.
share