What does the thieving murder accomplice have to forgive Alan for?
I honestly don't even get the movement or the antagonism in the film. Yes the video is chopped up and used to tell a falsely positive story, but that's the long and short of it. People have their entire lives recorded just to show a 1 1/2 hour re-cap to people who already know all the person's dark secrets. It's not like the videos become public domain. Who cares? It's so inconsequential. People lie about the dead today too. Are people protesting funerals demanding people talk about the bad times? Ultimately the falsely positive videos don't change anything, if someone was a bastard in real life, there will be just as much evidence as ever. Putting out a friendly cut won't change arrest records, court convictions, accusations, or the witnesses to the events. This film tries to suggest this editing changes history, and that's just absurd. Why would they kill for that?
And the one thing, the one possible ting they had as a valid argument was that the recording changed people's behavior for the better (except for them apparently, because they're cool with murder) but not only is the premise absurd considering only 1 person will ever see all the bad crap anyone ever does, and that 1 person is sworn to secrecy, but when Alan finds out he's been recorded, instead of it becoming a negative, it actually becomes a positive for him because he's allowed to see his own memory. Yes it also gets him murdered, but that's not a natural consequence. He could have done 100 things to prevent that, at the least contact the police about the guy who admitted to murder.
reply
share