My take away from that scene is that murder wasn’t a big deal for the guy. Obviously at least in the film the family had a hard way of living. That was the point of the hit man being there. Even if he was inept enough to even put himself in that group of people (that’s where your real complaint should be), he was comfortable with the idea of handling that level of violence. Had they followed his plan, kept cool, they probably would have gotten away with it.
It seemed like the girl wanted the hit man’s father to take care of her. What was he supposed to do? I’m sure his idea was either to try and alibi his son or let his son face the music. What he wouldn’t want to do is implicate himself for her.
It has been a while since I saw the movie and i wish I could remember it better so I could more confidently explain how it wasn’t a logic gap.
Of all the families that was the one that seemed most tightly knit and together, oddly. I think they were maybe just already gang affiliated in some way.
Also...comparing the film to what really happened is a no win situation. I suspect Larry Clark (who played the hitman’s dad) would say he was going to a higher emotional truth than be slave to facts. The kids seem to deny most of what they’re accused of anyway. I read a message board a long while back that had one of them on there a couple years after she got out of jail, talking about the movie. She basically denied everything in it. She was a born again Christian.
i do think the movie’s answers were a little stock about absent parents, etc. I don’t think there really is much of any explanation for what happened. Kids are always emotional and about individuality but really they would never want to be seen as individual from the pack. Add some genuine wrong done against some of them, too many drugs or drinks, and suddenly there’s a bad mix of group think and inertia. But who really knows? Probably least of all the kids themselves.
reply
share