Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by jamesgarvin (A) on February 22, 2006 at 08:01:05

In Reply to: That's entertainment? posted by dave c on February 21, 2006 at 12:42:08:

"So I would ask, with all its faults, what is entertaining about it?"

Well, I think your question assumes that your critisms are faults, which they may or may not be. But I'll try to respond to some of your comments:

(1) "the police guy from Interpol not getting it and rolling over for the US military who of course would not have had jurisdiction." I am not sure at what point in the film you are referring to. My impression is that people like Cage in this line of work probably know more about the law than the police. Add in some smarts, and I believe that intepol probably has a tough job charging people they know are guilty with a crime for lack of evidence, or because the people they are chasing are smart enough to follow the letter of the law. I find it plausible that someone is Cage's position, while technically a lawbreaker, receives protection from the United States or another foreign government because of the service he provides. Akin to informants who break the law but are given free passes because of the information they provide. They provide their service better on the outside than locked up in jail. I suspect that the point the film was making was that the United States Government, with it's military might, can circumvent Interpol, which has limited resources and man power. The message is more important than the example the film may have provided to demonstrate it's point.

(2) "the painting in the container/lock-up"

I am not sure how gun runners transport large caches of weapons without getting caught. I assume if there major busts, we would read about it on the news. There do not appear to be major busts, which tells me that the gun runners are more successful than not. How are they successful? I think "how" is less important than the fact they are successful, which I think is the point of the film. The scene in which Interpol boards the ship of a known gun runner, opens a container containing potatoes, and I am thinking that there are guns behind them thar taters. Obvious. Interpol apparently never saw the same films and television shows I've been watching for thirty plus years. So what? The point is that the runner gets the guns through. How? Not important.

(3) "brother complains about people about to be killed with their guns... what did he think they were used for?"

Well, you are right, logically. During the entire film Cage makes a point that he must block these things from his mind. After all, he simply sells guns, he does not pull the trigger. I have heard this argument from gun manufacturers in the United States for years. I have no doubt that the death that is dealt is much more vivid, and eye opening, when seen, as opposed to imagined. For most of the film, they are dealing guns in place A, have no direct knowledge what is taking place, certainly do not see the fruits of their labor, and life is good. Brother then actually witnesses the results of his labor. I suspect that the effect would be similar to seeing a murder on television versus actually witnessing the killing. We have a client who was in a workplace shooting in which four co-workers were killed, had a gun pointed at her, and then the killer was distracted, and so she lived. She cannot leave her basement. I suspect that she saw murders on television and was not affected. I have no problem believing that that the brother's attitude was changed when directly witnessing the carnage from guns he helped supply. The bigger point to the scene which I believe you miss is that Cage's attitude was not changed in seeing the carnage, and his brother killed. That is the bigger question.

What I found entertaining was being taken into a society and places that I have never been and will never go. What I found illuminating was the theory that all these weapons rendered obsolete by the newers bestest model must go somewhere. Where? Particularly when there is money to be made from them, why thrown them into the landfill? Who sells them? Where do they go? Who makes the money? These are questions that the film raises, and frankly, I never really considered. This, I think, was the purpose of the film, and that it forced me to think of these issues makes it something of a success, for me. The film played the right music for me, even if it may have missed some notes.