ROCKSTAR

I saw this question as a poll on CourtTV.com and thought it was a good topic for us.

***

I think movies to tend to glorify criminals a little bit, fictional and real ones alike. I'm not sure I can pinpoint the exact element, yet it has something to do with admiration. It's ok that movie making needs exxageration for storytelling and impact.

But criminals are smart desparate and/or charming, they're appealing. Maybe they are just so anti-social(in the wider sense of the word) that it's fascinating to us and that translates even more through a screen. Whatever it is it does make it look like we glorify them.

UnsilentMajorty

Yes and no.

I think it depends heavily on the film maker's intent and execution more than anything.

I'm sure this poll is out now because "The Perfect Score" supposedly glorifies teens lieing, cheating and stealing to get ahead on the S.A.T. as well as "Catch that Kid" that has a bunch of pre-teens ripping off a high tech bank to save their farm.

But again, I still think it all comes down to intent and execution in the end.

For example, take a movie like "Natural Born Killers". It isn't supposed to glorify anything. It's more of a surrealistic commentary on how our society rewards negitive actions and anyone can be a celebrity if they are willing to pay the ultimate price. Also, the execution is highly exaggerated -- but not in an even remotely realistic way -- And is more of a psychadelic fantasy where the over-the-top violence is more of a comedic element than a serious one.

Contrast that with "Elephant" which is a dead serious portrayl about the grizzly horrors Eric Harris and Dylan Kleebold brought to Collumbine High one afternoon.

There is NOTHING remotely funny or surrealistic (ironically) about that film and what it is it's trying, intending, to say -- That these things happen and there are NO real logical answers (disturbing as that is), or scapegoats we can conveniently pin on someone or something to make us all feel better, and that the only way we can collectively see what these young people (the victims and shooters) went through that day was to experience it via the film going experience.

Also, what is the underlying message most films about criminals portray?

Crime doesn't pay.

Look at "Scarface", "The Godfather" and "Training Day".

While the characters get to live out our wish-fullfilment fantasies of having everything in the world (money, power, respect)... They pay the ultimate price with either their own lives or the lives of the ones they love.

In films like these, the glorification of crimials and criminal activities is a means to an end, and that end is not one most normal people would want... And that's the point.

Same thing with "Ocean's Eleven".

While it's more of a light-hearted caper film... The end message is still the same: Crime may pay off in the short run, but eventually, you will pay the ultimate price as evidenced with Danny going to jail at the end of the film and the car full of hitmen following them once he gets out.

Edited to Add:

Like I said, I am sure this this poll question is out now because of "The Perfect Score" and "Catch that Kid" as this country has such a double-standard when it comes to what is quote-un-quote appropriate for the youth of America (they can't see two men kissing on TV or a naked breast... Yet we can send these same kids off to war to fight and die when we invade a foreign country????).

I think that anytime you have movies like this that are targeted at the younger audiences that you're always going to get someone asking, "Does such-and-such (music, movies, video games) glorify such-and-such (sex, violence, greed, etc)?"

My answer to that is this country needs to "grow up" -- in the literal sense -- And stop trying to be some puritanical society with a veil of political correctness over it and actually take responsibility (back) in the home for how a lot of kids turn out and what we as a society deem "inappropriate" and deal with this stuff in a logical manner instead of always blaming the media and passing the buck as we like to do.

[ 02-09-2004: Message edited UnsilentMajorty ]

ROCKSTAR

The poll was based on the trial of a woman called Aileen Wuornos whose case was the inspiration for the movie Monster starring Charlize Theron.

About your argument I agree with you save for one thing. I think the fact that the criminals do die and get it so tough at the end, it sort of romantizes the whole way of life.

I am reminded of the beginning of Swordfish when John Travolta says that audiences like happy endings. At the end he gets away with it and nobody dies, etc, totally unrealistic.. His character says that Dog Day Afternoon should've let Al Pacino walk with the goods. Yet Swordfish flopped. Movies like the ones you mentioned, Scarface, The Godfather, etc, romantizes the struggle, the horrible lives these men live.

People know rarely we have happy endings in real life so they might've as well get an exciting life out of it, etc. Like John Gotti, he's still a hero. The movie is very clear about his status in Little Italy and it plays of that. Maybe to make us understand how serious it all is.

It's just my humble opinion, though.

***

I haven't seen The Perfect Score but it is an excellent example of the topic. I know it is meant to be funny for the subject is simply too close to home. I love movies like that because through them we get to live the fantasy of cheating the system. Which at the end it's what is all about.

Like in Point Break when Pat Swayze's character says "it was never about the money, its about us against the system" I think at the end, we all would love to be that (brave) crazy and risk it all for a chance of screwing who was predestined to screw you until you die.

Ironically, like you mentioned, almost all the characters die.

steffieweffie

I agree that sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. I think the reason they do glorify criminals is because some people would love to see the bad guy win. Who wouldn't want the bad guy to get the girl and the money?

You have movies like Young Guns that is based on history and is a fun movie, but they are bad guys. Movies like Maverick, where the main character is both good and bad: he lies and he cheats, but he also helps people.


Then again, in a lot of these movies the bad guys end up dead. It's all about entertaining the audience and giving them what they want.

UnsilentMajorty

Rockstar / Steffieweffie

You both bring up good points.

The thing about stories that focus on criminals is that they are often presented as morality and cautionary tales to the Nth degree. They also tend to be more tragedies as well.

"Scarface" is (while overused) a classic example.

It's a character study in excess (too much of anything) and that ultimately turns out to be Tony Montana's greatest enemy: Himself, and his fatal flaw of not knowing when to quit, I.E. Greed.

However, I have to disagree slightly that I think crime thrillers do not romanticize aspects of the criminal life at least in the overall, grand scheme of things. Maybe the details, but not the overall message of "crime doesn't pay".

As I alluded to earlier, characters like Michael Corlione, John Gotti and even William H. Bony, aka Billy the Kid, all appeal to our rebellious nature that loves to see "the bad guy" get away with "screwing the system" and being rewarded with what we all crave (money, power, respect, admiration) and that part in itself is romantic if they get the girl, get the big house, get the love and support of their close circle of friends...

But in the end, the overall message is that all that money, power and respect isn't worth the ultimate price most of these characters (fictional or not) pay in the end. It is literally the Faust deal that makes audiences ask themselves are you (they) willing to sell your soul to the Devil to get what you want?

The other aspect of this is what Rockstar mentioned above about "Swordfish" and John Travolta's character saying, "everyone wants a happy ending" regardless of what they say or what a film portrays.

I think it doesn't matter WHAT kind of ending you give audience. All that matters is that the ending was emotionally satisfying overall.

Again, not to fall back on an overused cliche... But when Tony Montana dies at the end of Scarface... It's a fitting end to his character and the only logical way that film -- and many others -- Can end.

What's the difference between giving an audience a so-called happy ending and one that is emotionally satisfying or that serves the story?

Subconsciously, as much as we may root for someone like Tony Montana or Michael Douglas's character in "Falling Down" to "get away with it" there is always something the film makers do that makes these characrters "not right" that just doesn't set well with what peoples' and society's expectations are of a "normal" person is BEYOND them being just criminals.

For instance, in "Falling Down", as much as we like what Michael Douglas does through out the film... He is STILL a crazy guy at the most basic level and for him to live in our society is something we (and by proxy the film makers) have said is just not acceptable.

The same thing with Tony Montana, Billy the Kid, and especially Bohdi from "Point Break".

These characters may have appealing qualities... But in the end, they are loose cannons and eventually the damage they would do (or have done) would extend far beyond themselves and therefore, hurt society as a whole.

These are characters who don't care how many people die -- innocent or not -- To validate their POV, lifestyle, etc.

This is what I meant about movies being morality tales more than anything else. Our society has deemed criminals "bad", so therefore, they must be "punished" in the end.

The only problem I have with this POV is that it then pigeonholes movies about criminals and forces the film(s) to become morality tales whether that was the original artistic intent or not.

I haven't seen "The Perfect Score", but wouldn't it be great if the characters actually go through with the heist, take the test, ace it and get away with it for a change?...

But I know that will NOT be the case BECAUSE the film is targeted toward a younger audience and therefore, our society thinks those viewers can't make the distinction between right and wron as well as what is purely entetainment vs. what is acceptable in the real world and it will probably end up being the same old, predictable route where they all decide it is better not to cheat, take the test on their own and do as well or even better if they had cheated.

How boring [img]smilies/rolleyes.gif[/img]

But again, films like that -- and "Monster" to some degree -- Are forced into roles that they shouldn't be constrained by, artistically, just to fit into what society deems as acceptable portrayls of criminal activity...

That is why, as hard as it is to watch, I wish more films were like "Elephant" because director Gus Van Sant defies societal logic (and HW formula) and does not offer a happy ending, an emotionally satisfying ending, or even presents any kind of "morality" in the movie at all... And yet it is one of the most well-made films in recent months in my opinion because of these factors.

How ironic that it begs the underlying question, are movies supposed to reflect reality and societal values, or defy and shape them to some extent? Hmm...

nicotine*blow

i think that it really depends on the movie "Monster"
starring Charliza Theron was for me one of the best stories showing a criminal how he really is-- a normal person but with bigger mistakes and normal nopt in all because some have syco probs but anyway luv that film

ROCKSTAR

Great point!

Yes. But it would take a mature person in a stable state to realize this. A person who is disturbed, angry or anti social will not take any of that into consideration thus, becoming slightly dangerous.

But then again, we all have that potential as well any intense movie. My argument there is redundant and too general.

I'd have to think more about it.

Are they loose cannons? That's def what society would want us to believe (and I'm not saying they're wrong). But maybe criminals are just more honest and braver than the rest of us.

I agree it depends on the movie. The woman she's portraying was a confessed liar and killer who was willing to do both for as long as she could be "safe" doing it.

She's noone's hero though. But then Thelma & Louise -both fictional and likeable- can get away with their "crimes".

What leads me to: Do criminals (fake or real) need to be likeable and cool in order for ALL this argument to apply?

If she's not likeable then the "screw her, she's guilty and I hope she burns in hell" mentality takes over.

Crystal Clear

Bringing back this thread, because I think it's an important debate topic



This sums up my thoughts.


I think it's okay to portray criminals in movies getting what they're aiming for, to a certain point... Because the movies usually end with them getting a comeuppance and this is generally followed by their path toward redemption, if not getting killed.





American History X was a great movie for raising this type of question, because Edward Norton's character goes through several transformations / regressions / progressions in terms of his beliefs and actions. Due to a singular event in his life, (his father's murder,) he goes on to make harsh judgments of Immigrants, which was partially due to his father's attempts to force him to agree that job opportunities are lessening due to a growth in diversity favoritism. Norton's character takes somebody's life quite violently and it is all part of an effort to protect his home from criminals -- making him a criminal as a result.


Nothing is a black and white situation; his family severely pays the price for his actions on that night. His character also goes through many years of reflection and regret. Moreover, his younger brother grows up idolizing the CRIMINAL side of him, which has tragic consequences.


AHX definitely wanted to get the message across that the psychology of criminals is important to explore, and that there is no determined happy ending, unless it is earned.