In a message dated 10/1/01 9:34:55 AM,
jurnum@utu.fi writes:
<< I've never liked the film. Or actually, I don't know
what to think of it. It's visually stunning and fast-moving,
but then, as always in Friedkin's films, the emotions and the
intellectual concerns leave me cold. The movie is
contradictory at least and it never decides whether the
William Petersen character is a hero or not. To me he is just
a boring macho with a mission, but the movie never seems to
notice that there could (and probably should, too) be
criticism pointed toward him. He's criticized at first, but
then he gets away as a hero in the
(unintentionally funny) ending.
>>
I've always believed the main theme
of the film is that Defoe's "bad guy" and Peterson's "good
guy" were morally indistinguishable. Both are interesting and
fascinating to watch, but neither is a hero except in the Sam
Spade sense. (Someone kills your partner, you have to hunt
them down.) The only semi-heroic figure in the film is
Peterson's partner, whose name (for those who need extra
assistance with their symbols) is Hart.
Most of the parallels between them
were drawn with as trowel rather than a brush. (For instance
both men were named variations of Richard, one is named
Masters and the other Chance to identify their personalities)
and as the story evolves it becomes clear that both live
entirely by their own rules, both exploit their male and
female associates (and are exploited in return) and both care
only about winning the game. Both men are amoral cowboys --
and both could have easily been cell mates or adversaries of
Doc McCoy. I saw the film as hard-boiled through and through
and one of Friedkin's best.
Jim
Blue
-- # To unsubscribe from the regular list, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to # majordomo@icomm.ca. This will not work for the digest version. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 01 Oct 2001 EDT