![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Review: The Brave One
This week my movie was The Brave One. Jodie Foster is one of my favourite actresses, and I'm not likely to hate a film with her in it. I approached this one with some trepidation, having read some unflattering reviews. However, with some reservations, I really enjoyed this movie. I wouldn't recommend it to everyone: it is very violent, and morally ambiguous, but both of these can be strengths if you're someone who enjoys this type of film.
One thing I should say: because of the subject matter, my approach to this film is more analytical than emotional. It's a very visceral story, so my approach is, well, more distant than it should be.
Jodie Foster plays Erica Bain, a radio journalist who survives a violent attack in what I think was meant to be Central Park. Her fiance is killed and she is comatose for several weeks but eventually makes a full recovery...physically, at least. Emotionally, it's another story: she becomes agorophobic, and when she does venture out she's consumed by fear as well as grief for her dead lover. Eventually, she buys herself a gun, and shortly afterward is forced to use it in self-defence. She becomes a vigilante, walking the streets and riding the subway, killing the bad guys who cross her path.
A number of things struck me about this one. The initial attack is the most violent scene in the film. Erica and her fiance are attacked by several men. One of them films the whole thing on his cell phone, and the movie switches between normal film and blurry cell-phone footage, so that the very worst of the attack you don't see clearly, but it's all the more shocking because of what you do see: this cold-blooded thug filming a murder.
I was relieved that the attack wasn't sexual - there's an undercurrent, but the attack is violence, murder, not rape. Yet later, Erica's flashbacks of the attack are interspersed with flashbacks of her making love with her fiance. I found that extremely uncomfortable. Sure I get the sex/death connection, but this seemed to be presenting the violence as something to turn the viewer on. It was exploitative and unnecessary.
The other thing that struck me was the psychological realism of Erica as a killer. I'm not sure if her first kill is realistic; not sure because I've certainly never been there. It's self-defence, that first kill. She's in a late-night store when a man bursts in yelling at the (female) cashier. He kills her, and Erica tries to hide but he realises someone is there. It's very clear that he's going to kill her, too: she's a witness. So there's nothing morally ambiguous about her decision to shoot. What I'm not certain about is her reaction afterward. Because instead of panicking, or running she calmly gets up, steals the tape from the store's security camera, wipes off her fingerprints and walks away. I don't find that entirely believable, considering that only days before it had been a struggle for her to even get past her front door, and in a way the whole plot rests on that moment. But the pace of events picks up at that point, so the viewer isn't given much time to pick at the plot hole and the portrayal of her actions after that is consistent, and (I thought) very reaistic.
After the first time, she kills deliberately. Her initial targets are men who put themselves in her way: they approach her. Later she picks her targets in advance and plans her murders more carefully. I said earlier that she's a vigilante; that's not accurate. She's a serial killer, I believe, because she does two things that are "typical" of serial killers: she keeps trophies from her kills, and she tries to get close to the police investigation.
Trophies: Erica is a radio journalist. The first time we see her she's walking the streets of New York, recording the sounds of everyday life. She radio show is a "slice of life" kinda deal, a commentary on what life in New York is like. She carries her mike and recording equipment everywhere and when she starts killing people, she records each incident, playing them back later, in private.
Seeing cops on the scene after her second kill, she approaches the detective in charge, asking for an interview. Perhaps it's an attempt to explain her presence as she's not the only reporter on the scene, but she gets involved with the cop as time goes on. And she uses her radio show to talk about the murders in the same way some serial killers collect press cuttings.
It takes way too long for the cop to get suspicious of her. Sorry, but if I can recognise her behaviour as fitting a profile, he's a terrible cop if he doesn't.
And here's where the plot begins to unravel for me. Because, as I said, she's not a vigilante. She's not on a revenge kick. She doesn't even try to track down the men who attacked her until one of them is handed to her on a silver plate. The ending implies that if she can get her revenge, she can quit killing. But if she's a serial killer...well, by definition, they don't quit. They have to be stopped. Erica seems to recognise this. At one point she asks, Why doesn't someone stop me? and toward the end, her behaviour is self-destructive in a way that, again, is typical of the disorganised serial killer (except her murders are not disorganised - a bit of an error there, I think).
I think we're supposed to believe, as the credits roll, that it's over. But that seems unrealistic.
So...yes, an enjoyable film. But one which requires rather too much suspension of disbelief. On the other hand, it's Jodie Foster. How can you lose?
One thing I should say: because of the subject matter, my approach to this film is more analytical than emotional. It's a very visceral story, so my approach is, well, more distant than it should be.
Jodie Foster plays Erica Bain, a radio journalist who survives a violent attack in what I think was meant to be Central Park. Her fiance is killed and she is comatose for several weeks but eventually makes a full recovery...physically, at least. Emotionally, it's another story: she becomes agorophobic, and when she does venture out she's consumed by fear as well as grief for her dead lover. Eventually, she buys herself a gun, and shortly afterward is forced to use it in self-defence. She becomes a vigilante, walking the streets and riding the subway, killing the bad guys who cross her path.
A number of things struck me about this one. The initial attack is the most violent scene in the film. Erica and her fiance are attacked by several men. One of them films the whole thing on his cell phone, and the movie switches between normal film and blurry cell-phone footage, so that the very worst of the attack you don't see clearly, but it's all the more shocking because of what you do see: this cold-blooded thug filming a murder.
I was relieved that the attack wasn't sexual - there's an undercurrent, but the attack is violence, murder, not rape. Yet later, Erica's flashbacks of the attack are interspersed with flashbacks of her making love with her fiance. I found that extremely uncomfortable. Sure I get the sex/death connection, but this seemed to be presenting the violence as something to turn the viewer on. It was exploitative and unnecessary.
The other thing that struck me was the psychological realism of Erica as a killer. I'm not sure if her first kill is realistic; not sure because I've certainly never been there. It's self-defence, that first kill. She's in a late-night store when a man bursts in yelling at the (female) cashier. He kills her, and Erica tries to hide but he realises someone is there. It's very clear that he's going to kill her, too: she's a witness. So there's nothing morally ambiguous about her decision to shoot. What I'm not certain about is her reaction afterward. Because instead of panicking, or running she calmly gets up, steals the tape from the store's security camera, wipes off her fingerprints and walks away. I don't find that entirely believable, considering that only days before it had been a struggle for her to even get past her front door, and in a way the whole plot rests on that moment. But the pace of events picks up at that point, so the viewer isn't given much time to pick at the plot hole and the portrayal of her actions after that is consistent, and (I thought) very reaistic.
After the first time, she kills deliberately. Her initial targets are men who put themselves in her way: they approach her. Later she picks her targets in advance and plans her murders more carefully. I said earlier that she's a vigilante; that's not accurate. She's a serial killer, I believe, because she does two things that are "typical" of serial killers: she keeps trophies from her kills, and she tries to get close to the police investigation.
Trophies: Erica is a radio journalist. The first time we see her she's walking the streets of New York, recording the sounds of everyday life. She radio show is a "slice of life" kinda deal, a commentary on what life in New York is like. She carries her mike and recording equipment everywhere and when she starts killing people, she records each incident, playing them back later, in private.
Seeing cops on the scene after her second kill, she approaches the detective in charge, asking for an interview. Perhaps it's an attempt to explain her presence as she's not the only reporter on the scene, but she gets involved with the cop as time goes on. And she uses her radio show to talk about the murders in the same way some serial killers collect press cuttings.
It takes way too long for the cop to get suspicious of her. Sorry, but if I can recognise her behaviour as fitting a profile, he's a terrible cop if he doesn't.
And here's where the plot begins to unravel for me. Because, as I said, she's not a vigilante. She's not on a revenge kick. She doesn't even try to track down the men who attacked her until one of them is handed to her on a silver plate. The ending implies that if she can get her revenge, she can quit killing. But if she's a serial killer...well, by definition, they don't quit. They have to be stopped. Erica seems to recognise this. At one point she asks, Why doesn't someone stop me? and toward the end, her behaviour is self-destructive in a way that, again, is typical of the disorganised serial killer (except her murders are not disorganised - a bit of an error there, I think).
I think we're supposed to believe, as the credits roll, that it's over. But that seems unrealistic.
So...yes, an enjoyable film. But one which requires rather too much suspension of disbelief. On the other hand, it's Jodie Foster. How can you lose?
no subject
In the convenience store, there was a moment, right after she pulled the trigger, where she was stunned and unable to move. I think her motive in going behind the counter was to check the cashier. That was where she looked first, and she didn't go immediately for the VCR. When she finally noticed it, that's when she grabbed the tape, wiped off her prints and fled. The survival instinct kicking in, maybe. Not wanting to explain her illegal gun or lack of permit. She only wiped down things behind the counter, remember, she didn't go back and wipe off everything she'd touched (the cooler door, the sodas, although it's unlikely the cops would have printed them anyway).
Also, approaching the detective after the subway shooting... she didn't! I also think that was her first premeditated kill. She had the option of leaving and she didn't take it. Afterward, she was able to leave, and she went to the bar and sort of reinvented herself. Said, "Okay, this is who you are, this is what you do, this is how you get past it." Didn't she also say "Hello, you" to her reflection? A sign that she was finally seeing the person she'd been before.
When she went back to the subway, I think it was because after her transformation (either into something or back into something else), the shooting had felt like a dream. When she noticed the cop noticing her, she tried to leave! He chased her down the street and eventually cornered her. The interview request was her trying to appear normal to the cop. It would have looked weird to him if she hadn't asked.
And remember, the second time he showed up at her work, she ran away again! After that interview, though, I think you could make the case for the serial killer argument. Because after that is when she started asking him about the case and progress they were making. But it wasn't instigated by her; the cop was pushing her to get involved the entire time.
Sorry for rambling! I just wanted to point some things out. I agree totally with your assessment of the movie, just with a bit of an adjustment. ;-D
no subject
Yes, she did look. But she didn't try to help her. If her motive were to help, you'd think she'd at least check for a pulse or breathing. One look isn't enough to tell you it's hopeless. My impression was she looked because, let's face it, you can't not look at something like that. But I saw no sign she really cared whether the woman was dead or alive.
I live in a country where guns are illegal, period. I don't get what it's like to live in a gun culture. But it seems to me that, given what she went through - which was a matter of public record - no cop would be likely to bust her for carrying an unlicensed gun. Not unless they thought she'd used it, and in the store murder, even if they had, the tape clearly showed it was self-defence. I doubt a prosecutor would waste time on the case.
Also, approaching the detective after the subway shooting... she didn't!
Well, no she didn't march right up to him. But she made herself conspicuous and when he came after her she made sure he would remember her. She could have just left. She could have asked him to leave her the hell alone - and after what happened to her no cop would be surprised by that. But she chose an approach that made certain he would notice her. She's meant to be a minor celebrity: she would know what will get people's attention.
And remember, the second time he showed up at her work, she ran away again!
Well, yeah. 'Cause without the adrenaline overdose post-kill, she recognised the cop as a danger to her. That she didn't recognise that earlier (or did, but pulled the bravado thing instead of running) is what makes me see a serial killer.
But it wasn't instigated by her; the cop was pushing her to get involved the entire time.
No, he didn't. He went after her the second time, sure, and gave her that interview. But the rest was all her. She started talking about it on the air, justifying the murders - which kept up her connection to the case, let her talk to the cop without getting him suspicious.
Sorry for rambling! I just wanted to point some things out.
Don't apologise. I'm always happy to discuss :-)
no subject