MovieChat Forums > Butterfly on a Wheel (2007) Discussion > Excellent film but one point of confusio...

Excellent film but one point of confusion...

posted 8 years ago by joeylightyears
3 replies | jump to latest

What a masterpiece! Not since 'The Game' have I been so entranced by such a realistic thriller! That said, I do have one bone to pick with this otherwise flawless movie, and it is most likely due to my own stupidity.

SPOILER ALERT

As well all know by now, this motivation for the 'kidnapping' is really Pierce Brosnan's anger at the Gerard Butler character for meddling in his family affairs, disrupting his otherwise perfect life. Not only was Gerard allegedly having an affair with Pierce's wife, but he was also engaging in sodomy, buggery, and god knows what else with Pierce's teenage son. Who among us wouldn't have gone to the same lengths to enact revenge upon such an evil man?

The problem I had with this is that the son didn't show the normal signs of victimization upon randomly encountering his abuser early on in the movie. One would have expected him to not make eye contact or to show a more pronounced "fight or flight" response when seeing Gerard, but he acted as if he didn't care. Now the obvious answer is that this is just an inexperienced actor learning his chops, but given that this movie is Oscar worthy I really doubt the director would have let this slide. So I think I muse have missed something. Could it be that the son was actually the mastermind all along, and coerced Gerard down the dark road of homosexual molestation in order to get even with his dad (who probably abused the son early on?) In the case, the son's nonchalant response could even be read as irreverent!

Any thoughts?

[–] debmet59-1 8 years ago

I think you need to watch it again. There was nothing in this film at all to suggest Butler had even seen this boy before the meeting on the street.

Also, you do realize that the Pierce character was working with Butler's wife all along. Right?

[–] joeylightyears 8 years ago

With all due respect, I've seen this film several times and there is no doubt that there was some funny business going on between Gerard and the Pierce's son. Notice how the son clenches his cheeks as he is walking away... that is not a normal motion! Also, there is a nod of approval between the two when they cross paths. And Gerard seemed to know an awful lot about the boy. For example, he instantly surmised that he was Pierce's son instead of nephew, neighbor, or lover. Seems a bit TOO familiar (my pet theory is that he happened to glance upon a family photo on the mantle during one of his routine anal violations of the son).

But even if you discount this circumstantial evidence, the plot simply makes no sense without this element. No husband is going to go to such lengths of revenge over a "normal" affair. Obviously something deeper must be at play here, and molestation/buggery is the logical choice, especially since the introduced the otherwise meaningless teenage son in this fashion. Deus ex machina, maybe, but I think it's ingenious!

[–] debmet59-1 8 years ago

Hmmm...fair enough. I guess I need to be the one to see it again as I completely didn't get that at all. Boy, wouldn't we be confusing to police if we were ever eye witnesses to a crime. Lol

UPDATE: Ah Joey...you got me. Haha! When I read your post I actually thought you were serious. I'm recovering from surgery and I have tons of time right now, so out of curiosity I read some of your posts, then I realized. I was gullible. I have to hand it to you, you're good. That was funny. Cheers!