#51
Posted: 11/10/08 at 11:23am
Again, it's so strange because I can see your point EXACTLY, and yet I still disagree.
I completely understood why she was so quiet during the last third: she had been put through hell just for speaking the truth for so long that she did not want to get her hopes up. And you could also infer that, since she had suffered so much and so often for her son that it was time to finally (FINALLY) let other, good people take over. So because she was avenged, she of course would seem perkier when the story flashed forward.
And as for the hanging itself, it served two purposes:
1) If the son did die, this was the death of the son being avenged.
2) It's still messy despite justice being served and, even though her son has been avenged, that does not mean she (or us, by extension) can get much peace.
As for the business with the end of the "changeling" child subplot, that little scene by the train station was a fantastic payoff, at least personally.
Here's the thing with the city: it happened. And to me, that's fascinating. That one woman (okay, in reality there were three simultaneous cases that brought down the police department, but hers got the most press) could do so much good just because she could not back down. She changed the face of a city, fer cryin' out loud! But, once again, I completely see your point. You wanted it to remain micro and focused more on the child, but I was fine with it becoming more and more macro as the film progressed.
Here's why I find our conversation fascinating: critics are split on this film about an even 50-50, and it seems to be a love/hate thing, not a "it's great" or "it's almost great" split. And I thought to myself "WTF!? Did these critics see the same movie I did?" And now that we've written back and forth, I understand why some didn't get it. That doesn't mean I don't love it any less, but I understand why others might.
I completely understood why she was so quiet during the last third: she had been put through hell just for speaking the truth for so long that she did not want to get her hopes up. And you could also infer that, since she had suffered so much and so often for her son that it was time to finally (FINALLY) let other, good people take over. So because she was avenged, she of course would seem perkier when the story flashed forward.
And as for the hanging itself, it served two purposes:
1) If the son did die, this was the death of the son being avenged.
2) It's still messy despite justice being served and, even though her son has been avenged, that does not mean she (or us, by extension) can get much peace.
As for the business with the end of the "changeling" child subplot, that little scene by the train station was a fantastic payoff, at least personally.
Here's the thing with the city: it happened. And to me, that's fascinating. That one woman (okay, in reality there were three simultaneous cases that brought down the police department, but hers got the most press) could do so much good just because she could not back down. She changed the face of a city, fer cryin' out loud! But, once again, I completely see your point. You wanted it to remain micro and focused more on the child, but I was fine with it becoming more and more macro as the film progressed.
Here's why I find our conversation fascinating: critics are split on this film about an even 50-50, and it seems to be a love/hate thing, not a "it's great" or "it's almost great" split. And I thought to myself "WTF!? Did these critics see the same movie I did?" And now that we've written back and forth, I understand why some didn't get it. That doesn't mean I don't love it any less, but I understand why others might.
