**Warning: There are a substantial amount of "Law Abiding Citizen" spoilers in this blog.**
The other night, I watched the Jaimie Foxx and Gerard Butler vehicle "Law Abiding Citizen". As much as I hate to admit it, the film is pretty entertaining. "Law Abiding Citizen" does not reinvent the wheel as far as filmaking goes, however, it does provide a consistent experience.The action is decent, the dialogue works fairly well , and the performances aren't that bad. It is a solid B level thriller. Good not great.
I had a fairly good time watching the film but something about the film's overall treatment of certain characters bothered me. Briefly, the film's plot goes as followed: Clyde, Gerrard Butler, witnesses two men murder his wife and daughter. During the trial, Clyde's attorney, Nick played by Jaimie Foxx, informs him that he is offering a deal to the main perpertrator of the crime due to a "botched forensic investigation". The deal will basically ensure a death sentence for the accomplice and have the main perpatrator free within seven years. Nick is more concerned with keeping his 96% conviction rate and less concerned with his clients wishes. This is a classic example of an agency problem. Nick gets his conviction, the accomplice receives the death penalty, the murder gets released in seven years, and Clyde is understandably upset. Ten years later, Clyde starts exacting his revenge in very creative ways. One by one people associated with Clyde's plight are knocked off. At the end of the film, Clyde is killed by his Nick.
The film opens really well. It is the perfect set up for a revenge saga but the movie takes the film in a slightly different direction. Instead of siding on the efforts of Clyde, who, in my opinion, is the most sympathetic character in the entire story, the film sides with Nick, the attorney. I wouldn't have a problem with this characterization if the writers made Nick a more dynamic character. If Nick somehow changed his ways as a direct result of Clyde's actions, then I would be more forgiving of this story aspect but at the end of the film Nick is still the same person. In my opinion, Nick is the least sympathetic character.
Clyde, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of Nick. He is the perfect foil for Nick. (I will give the writers credit for that). Not only is he more sympathetic as a character, I found myself identifying with him the most. . Here is a man who has had his entire world shattered. Clyde is betryaed by a judicial system that cares more about "slam dunk" convictions than actual justice. He is the victim in this story not Nick. I would have gone along with the film's intended chraterization if there were no rhyme or reason to Clyde's actions but there are. All he wants is justice for the murder of his family. I feel I would have enjoyed the film more if they had made Clyde more of an anti-hero and completely dismissed the absurd notion that I should feel sorry for Nick. In my opinion, there is no difference between Clyde and a character like Batman. Both characters have experienced some sort of tragedy inspire them to deliver an alternate form of justice. Both characters use their expertise as an asset in fighting injustices. So why one villanized and given the key to the city?
I feel this chracterization detracts from the enjoyment of the film. I had a similiar problem with Rob Zombie's "The Devil's Rejects" but that is a different story. I did enjoy "Law Abiding Citizen" but I can't help but feel bothered by some of it's motifs.
- "It's going to be biblical."
No comments:
Post a Comment