|
Man on Fire
The snow collects the good with the bad, as can be seen when it melts. This blog is my snow, holding onto my experiences. |
 Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2007 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2004 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July My Links Hopie26 Inkspector Natala Snowbird Sound of Harmony Apokalipsis Alternate Space Old School FREE!! IBC Canvas The Church in Bethesda tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog 
|
posted by: Chuck (reply) post date: 10.10.04 (3:18 am) I completely disagree with you about this movie. Of the recent movies I've seen (last six months), I must say that "Man on Fire" was one of the highlights of my moviegoing experience, and that's saying a lot from me. I think you completely missed the point of this movie. It's not about justice, or any perceived notion of such a thing. It's about one man's battle with himself and the society that made him who he is. The point of the movie isn't that senseless violence is okay. It's a psychological microcosm of a greater truth. He is a trained killer; it is his profession. What do you expect him to do? What other recourse is there for a man of his past and of his predicament than to take the game to the level of his killers, only with at least some greater purpose behind it? I think your reaction to this movie is the typical Christian drivel we see towards anything that doesn't portray a "peace and love" message. Gimme a break! The world isn't all about peace and love. The movie would have been a complete failure if it had been shot in any other way, for it would have betrayed the character of its key personality. There is a moral undertheme, but it is not so vulnerable to the attempts at oversimplification you have so painfully made. It is a look at a divided man. It is a look at a real world of absolutely careless killers. It is a case study in the haunted world of a man who has seen his one redemption stolen, perverted, in front of his very eyes. The point is not, "did he do the right thing?" The point is, "why did he do it and what does that show about our lives?" Could he had done differently? No. Could this movie have been done better? Doubtful. posted by: Chuck (reply) post date: 10.10.04 (3:23 am) Btw, no offense, but if you think American justice is more "just" than what happens in this movie, you are very naive. And about "justified killing," again, the movie isn't examining whether his actions are justified, but rather how his actions change and define his life and the lives of those he encounters. (Although I would challenge you to come up with an intelligent argument to say that what he does is NOT justified.) posted by: Chuck (reply) post date: 10.10.04 (3:53 am) Hi again, and sorry for cluttering up your message board, but I keep noticing more things that you say about this movie that I must take serious issue with. In what way do you perceive Creasy's actions as entailing "glorified" killing? i really want to hear your explanation of that comment. I sure didn't ever get the impression when I saw the movie that either I the viewer or he the character were supposed to see what he was doing as "glorified." It seemed much more like a necessary evil, a charge placed upon him against his will; in other words, i didn't think he wanted to kill those people at all, but felt he had no other choice of action. I would hardly call that "glorified"; certainly not in comparison with the killing in some films I've seen. Also, I notice that you have a hard time defending creasy's actions, yet you defend the "bad guys" by saying that "there's much more to a person than their actions." I most strongly disagree with you on that conclusion! How the heck does a person make up for ruthlessly kidnapping, raping, and killing innocent children for profit? So if you see a remorseless murderer going home to his job and wife and kids, that somehow makes him seem more like a "complete" character, and that causes you to take sympathy on him when he gets what's coming to him? Even the Bible says "you reap what you sow." I wouldn't necessarily say the actions in this film are biblical, but it is hard for me to believe that you can be appalled by one man's fight for justice and at the same time sympathize with ruthless, remorseless child molesters and murderers. Now, I think i understand where all of this is coming from. It's the whole "revenge" problem, right? It's not our place to avenge the wrongs of this life. That's great, and I agree with you, but again, that's not what this movie is about. For one thing, he's not a Christian, and I think this movie is a great snapshot of the frustrating, heartbreaking, infuriating battle to discover meaning behind one's life. I think you took a lot of Christian stereotypes into this movie to come away with the conclusions that you made. The themes of this movie cannot be so simply described as "glorified killing" or perverted justice. It certainly, I believe, was meant to be more than an adrenaline-pumping "bad guy" thriller. One last thing: I also think you missed a lot of the depth to creasy's character. You say that he is "depressed and has given up on life, but then gets back into the swing of . . . torturing and killing." Wow, I couldn't have better oversimplified and misrepresented the plot if I had tried. Anyway, I've already talked about how he didn't want to "get back in the swing of things," as you so coldly put it, but felt compelled to do it for the sake of the memory of the one person who has ever shown him a little of the true meaning of love (amazing how you forgot to include that little piece of context). Howver, I would also dipute your claim that he was "depressed and ha[d] given up on life." He may have been close to that point, but I think there were undertones--important undertones--of a desperation for something more. His character gave me the sense of a man acting out of desperation to retrieve his "paraise lost," a man possessed, a "man on fire." This movie is not about a "man on fire" as in glorified killing. it is a movie about a "man on fire" within his heart, seeking meaning and purpose to his world of senselessness and sorrow. i think the producers of this movie did an excellent job of painting these strong, incalculable values into the characters and the plot. It is not their fault if moviegoers judge their work with lazy, complacent ideas of violence and right and wrong. Certainly, if there is one point to this movie, it is that right and wrong are not always so clear when dealing with people who are truly ruthless. posted by: Em (reply) post date: 10.10.04 (10:22 pm) It is good to hear different opinions about movies, it is interesting to see how many different things were picked up form the same movie watched by different people, and I think that sharing that opinion is great, but I think that we need to understand that our opinion is just that and nothing more. I do enjoy the vivid descriptions using words, y'all should keep up with the writing!! posted by: SparklingSnow (reply) post date: 10.10.04 (11:22 pm) ‘Em’ Thank-you for spending time commenting on my blog. (Chuck, too) Remember that it (this website) is a means for me to express myself (among other things,) or do what I want with it- I’m not a columnist for the Wall Street Times or for some place where my opinion should matter to thousands of people, it does not get paid for now, and I have no restrictions. I also don’t work at it full time, and do not want to- even at the risk of coming across as imbecile. I’m glad you got a lot out of the movie, and I’m sure any writer or director that cares about how/what his or her work has been portrayed as would be grateful to hear the impact it has had on you. It seems like you made a lot of personal attacks on me, so I’m hesitating to falling into the perceived trap for now. I still do recommend watching the movie, as I said in the post. I did enjoy it, and I don’t think very highly of taking the system into your own hands, i.e. killing someone because you don’t think anyone else (the government) will do anything about it, or do it in time. I don’t think that the world as we know it is acceptable, and I do advocate sticking up for what you believe, or encouraging a change in current ways of doing things, but I think there has to be people to support you (even if it takes a long time to have them see things your way.) posted by: Chuck (reply) post date: 10.11.04 (2:28 am) Reply to: SparklingSnow "It seems like you made a lot of personal attacks on me, so I’m hesitating to falling into the perceived trap for now." There's no trap. Reading my comments again, at the end I did go a little over the top, but I intended no personal attack. I just think you missed the whole point of the movie. It's okay if you disagree with me, but I wish you would explain your opinion a little better. Perhaps that's why you thought what I said was a personal attack. What I was trying to show was that you made a lot of statements against the movie without giving much of anything for a reason as to why you felt that way. Now, if I'd never seen the movie, I would shrug and say, "ok, that's her opinion, that's cool," and move on. But, having seen the movie, I felt that you didn't do it justice in your critique of it. If I had never seen it, I would assume it were some action flick without much of a deeper theme to it, when it really is much more than that. That's why I found your lack of a defense for what you said to be so frustrating. If you want to bash the movie, I have no problem with that at all, and we can certainly agree to disagree. I'm sure there are plenty of other ways to look at that movie besides mine, and I am not even necessarily correct in my opnion of it. I just wish that when you bash something, you would give your readers a well-thought-out explanation of why you didn't like it, so that then they can make up their own minds. But there isn't anything much more frustrating than when someone is just like, "man, I hated that movie, it was so violent and stupid (or whatever)," without giving me a single good reason based on good critical thinking. I don't think that sort of criticism is very constructive. So, my main challenge, in which I came across too harshly in retrospect, was for you to expound your opinion and explain to me and your other readers why you think that about the movie. Just making flat statements against something without providing evidence is irresponsible, in my humble opinion. |
|
If you were to get the chance to live your life for any purpose, and to do anything you wished, what would you do? I hesitate to say- because I'm so used to doing thigns for others' approval- but would that life include glorified killing? I've liked the Denzel Washington movies I've seen, but am rather disappointed in the perceived theme of Man on Fire. I like how the movie was shot (notice I didn't say people shot haha), and I loved hearing so much Spanish (language can be so beautiful to my ears when it's not confusing or frustrating), and I would recommend seeing the movie (kidnapping is a big thing in some parts of the world)- but what's the deal with the theme? Denzel's (I think 'Creasy' in the film) depressed and has given up on life, but then gets back into the swing of things, which includes torturing and killing several people. Does that make up for a little girl getting kidnapped/killed or for the men being in their chosen profession? I guess it will stop them from future crime, but does that make killing them off OK? Justified killing? It reminds me of capital punishment (is that the nicer way of putting it?), except that it's one man deciding what to do instead of a jury, or more of the public. I'm not saying I'm for it. I'm also not saying I don't enjoy a good movie- when a 'bad guy' is seriously injured and/or killed, I definitely get the adrenaline going, I smile- but I also recognize that it's a character, not a person, and that they are depicted as pure evil - they're not shown being a normal, everyday person. There's much more to a person than their actions.