A death as such is not a thing which would get any one back to their routine life. The loved ones affected by it go through the period wherein they question everything in their life. And a death which is not natural is a permanent damage one cannot get over by. As Erica Bain (Jodie Foster) says, you become some one else. Will you become to be a killer or as the media in the movie says a “vigilante”?
Erica Bain, a radio talk show host is set to marry her boy friend David (Naveen Andrews). They take a walk in the Central Park of New York City. Three men start to mess with them and turn into a blood rampage. David dies while Erica survives. She is not able to go outside her home. When she does, to get back to the life the city leads seem to be fearful. Everything stops and does not look right at all. Is she dealing with the fear or loss or revenge? She does not know either. Fear is the first thing takes on her. She buys a gun illegally since she realizes to get a gun, there needs a license. With injustice prying her, it follows her to a grocery shop. She witnesses an angry man killing the clerk working there and realizes he is not alone. She makes her first kill. After that she continues to walk in the nights looking for the “wrong” people to be hunted.
As a movie, it is well made and acted. Terrence Howard as Detective Mercer is good but not good enough to convince the actions in the end. Foster does her part really well and convincingly which is why it is scarier. No one can associate with the pains of Erica Bain. No one can console her or words which will have no meaning. Dealing with it is easier said than done. Surprisingly her dearest friend does not come to her house to talk with her. Nor does David’s mother who is in the same pain as hers, in fact more than Erica. The screenplay conveniently negates them. It also conveniently places the victims to be certain of the most assuring wrong doing which would not put Erica or the audience in guilt. With this pathway, what are they trying to convey is frightening me.
The battle within Erica is the subject out here. She does not have any one to talk which is hard to believe. She befriends the cop who is investigating the murders she does which is a formula. But the way it happens is almost accidental and very mature. Erica looks at him as a guy who can be a very good judge of her actions. In fact she subconsciously hopes that he authenticates those killings. She does become a different person but is this how to deal it? The crimes are there and the justice does not take place as it should every where. But does it good enough to take another human life? And let us say even for a hypothetical sense that all her killings are against the “bad” person who in their life would have gone and killed many more lives, this instinct of her to see the wrongdoings and kill can go wrong any moment. What if this instinct kills an innocent person? Is there any vigilante justice over that? Or can we take that system always does mistakes? It is not worth to risk one innocent life over many other supposedly bad actions. I am not sure whether this is what they intended. May be they thought on focusing over the dramatic variations of values, system and philosophies to bring an ambiguity over those concepts.
Detective Mercer is the one who has the same heart and view towards the injustice as that of Erica. He is the good cop who constantly tries to do his job in the best way possible. Erica is quite evidentially confused with right and wrong. Mercer does not. His impulsiveness is overcome by his composed thinking. He reacts but brings back the positive momentum towards that immediately. And the final action does not look like him at all.
A film over the crimes so vicious and evil which has been done to Erica brings discussion. The dilemma over the right and wrong, conscience and forgiveness makes and does not makes sense at all. Human mind varies every moment and traumatic incidents change any one to some one. If the film projects itself as a short story, then you see it as one separate incident. You talk about it but not necessarily do the same thing as the character does. A film which takes a route of arriving on something looks for its conviction. With violence around the globe, is it a movie with a confused intention of a vigilante necessary?
The movie tag line is “How many wrongs to make it right?” and that’s what made me to watch the movie. “The Brave One” directed by Neil Jordan is convincing by the performance of Jodie Foster but leaves without being convicted for a message which very well might make the wrongs rights.
Erica Bain, a radio talk show host is set to marry her boy friend David (Naveen Andrews). They take a walk in the Central Park of New York City. Three men start to mess with them and turn into a blood rampage. David dies while Erica survives. She is not able to go outside her home. When she does, to get back to the life the city leads seem to be fearful. Everything stops and does not look right at all. Is she dealing with the fear or loss or revenge? She does not know either. Fear is the first thing takes on her. She buys a gun illegally since she realizes to get a gun, there needs a license. With injustice prying her, it follows her to a grocery shop. She witnesses an angry man killing the clerk working there and realizes he is not alone. She makes her first kill. After that she continues to walk in the nights looking for the “wrong” people to be hunted.
As a movie, it is well made and acted. Terrence Howard as Detective Mercer is good but not good enough to convince the actions in the end. Foster does her part really well and convincingly which is why it is scarier. No one can associate with the pains of Erica Bain. No one can console her or words which will have no meaning. Dealing with it is easier said than done. Surprisingly her dearest friend does not come to her house to talk with her. Nor does David’s mother who is in the same pain as hers, in fact more than Erica. The screenplay conveniently negates them. It also conveniently places the victims to be certain of the most assuring wrong doing which would not put Erica or the audience in guilt. With this pathway, what are they trying to convey is frightening me.
The battle within Erica is the subject out here. She does not have any one to talk which is hard to believe. She befriends the cop who is investigating the murders she does which is a formula. But the way it happens is almost accidental and very mature. Erica looks at him as a guy who can be a very good judge of her actions. In fact she subconsciously hopes that he authenticates those killings. She does become a different person but is this how to deal it? The crimes are there and the justice does not take place as it should every where. But does it good enough to take another human life? And let us say even for a hypothetical sense that all her killings are against the “bad” person who in their life would have gone and killed many more lives, this instinct of her to see the wrongdoings and kill can go wrong any moment. What if this instinct kills an innocent person? Is there any vigilante justice over that? Or can we take that system always does mistakes? It is not worth to risk one innocent life over many other supposedly bad actions. I am not sure whether this is what they intended. May be they thought on focusing over the dramatic variations of values, system and philosophies to bring an ambiguity over those concepts.
Detective Mercer is the one who has the same heart and view towards the injustice as that of Erica. He is the good cop who constantly tries to do his job in the best way possible. Erica is quite evidentially confused with right and wrong. Mercer does not. His impulsiveness is overcome by his composed thinking. He reacts but brings back the positive momentum towards that immediately. And the final action does not look like him at all.
A film over the crimes so vicious and evil which has been done to Erica brings discussion. The dilemma over the right and wrong, conscience and forgiveness makes and does not makes sense at all. Human mind varies every moment and traumatic incidents change any one to some one. If the film projects itself as a short story, then you see it as one separate incident. You talk about it but not necessarily do the same thing as the character does. A film which takes a route of arriving on something looks for its conviction. With violence around the globe, is it a movie with a confused intention of a vigilante necessary?
The movie tag line is “How many wrongs to make it right?” and that’s what made me to watch the movie. “The Brave One” directed by Neil Jordan is convincing by the performance of Jodie Foster but leaves without being convicted for a message which very well might make the wrongs rights.
1 comment:
You're certainly right that the acting almost trumps the rather ridiculous storyline in this one, but couldn't quite do it for me .... Jodie Foster is great as usual, and there's not an actor or actress working now who I look forward to seeing more than Terrence Howard in almost anything
Post a Comment