Film 82 "Primal Fear"
"Primal Fear"
Starring: Richard Gere, Laura Linney, Edward Norton (and John Mahoney and Frances McDormand)
"Primal Fear" is one of those movies that I could watch in my sleep and still enjoy thoroughly. I think I've seen this movie about a dozen times and it never gets old. I remember one of the first times I watched in was when it came out on VHS. I had rented it and I watched it with my mother. I don't think I understood the full scope of the material. Instead, I just enjoyed the fact that I was watching an R-rated movie. There's a lot going on in this film, from politics to religion to mental illness to the justice system.
Richard Gere plays a character somewhat despicable at first since he seems to be a defense attorney who chases these hated defendants like they were ambulances because he's looking to be a part of the 6 o'clock news or the newspapers headlines. We meet him in a bar discusses the morals of his practices and he sees a potential client on the news. He quickly chases down this poor "Kentucky farm boy" and volunteers his services to him, pro bono (for free) because he wholeheartedly believes in the boy's innocence, but we can tell that he more so believes this will be the most sensational case of the year (at least in Chicago, where the film takes place). Richard Gere's Martin Vail seems to be all "pomp and circumstance" and he believes everything he says to everyone. When he gets angry, you really think he is angry. When he says he wants what's best for this kid (his freedom), you almost are convinced that he deserves it, too. That's the sign of a good defense attorney, and an even better sign of a great actor. Richard Gere throws himself into a role that perhaps in anyone else's hands would have come off as a character we hate, but here Gere has a reputation as an actor who can convince any jury (viewer) that what he believes is truth.
The only trouble is: he is being duped. He is being played. And being played quite hard and quite well.
Edward Norton plays Aaron Stampler, the poor Kentucky boy caught out of his element. This is Edward Norton's first film role and he plays his character so convincingly well that you cannot believe he is a newcomer. He he holds his own against Richard Gere in some very intense scenes. I daresay he even surpasses Gere as Aaron Stampler. Norton presents himself as Stampler (this choir boy with a speech impediment and innocence) in a way that makes us feel sorry for him, until the very end of the film when he reveals his true nature to both Martin Vail and us as viewers in one of the best culminating, table-turning scenes I've seen on film, because you've spent an entire length of a film building up a relationship and feelings of remorse for Stampler only to be torn apart when you realize what's happened this entire time.
Aaron Stampler is a choir boy for the archbishop (who has a deep, guarded secret of enjoying sex between teenagers that he has taken under his wing and directing/taping their exploits for his enjoyment). You can tell the archbishop has some sort of secret just from the opening scene where he attends some kind of benefit dinner and the light is shone on him and he is regarded in such high esteem, yet cuts of the boy's choir (singing at this same dinner) make you feel uneasy. Bravo to the director and editor.
The next scene presents the brutal murder of the archbishop in such graphic detail that you know there's a reason for his grisly demise. Stampler is found covered in blood, hiding under the train-tracks minutes after the discovery of the archbishop's body and there really is no question that he did it (except in Martin Vail's eyes), in fact the district attorney's are so convinced that it is an open-and-shut case that they call upon their star D.A. (played by Laura Linney, who I have loved in just about everything she has ever been in and here is absolutely no exception, because she is wonderful).
What follows could have played out like any other courtroom drama, but the script is well written to avoid the cliches that come with such films. And the revelation about halfway through that Aaron Stampler suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder (thanks to a psychologist played by Frances McDormand). The case becomes a fight against mental illness versus politics versus religion. Is innocence or guilt determined by someone's mental capacity? Should it be? Is a murder just a murder? And should it be tried as such, regardless of someone's lack of understanding? And what-of the dark secret of the archbishop? Does that have any weight in determining the outcome? Can you justify murder of a guilty man for exploitation? Do two wrongs in fact make something right?
I struggled for awhile, in my own life, to understand such questions as an old friend of mine from years back was found to have murdered his "girlfriend" (now about 4 years ago). He had previously suffered major brain injuries in a vehicle accident after which he was never physically or mentally the same again. This was a guy I'd known for several years and I'd seen a significant change in his reasoning and all around mental abilities. But was he capable of murder (in the first degree)? I did not know. And the crime was so heinous that I did not want to believe someone I knew would be capable of such a thing. Should he be given the rights to undergo treatment for his mental deficits after his accident? Should he be granted immunity for such a terrible crime (against another human being)? I mean, taking someone else's life is perhaps the most unforgivable act against humanity. I struggled to understand. I struggled so much that I attempted to write a novel about it in order to express my thoughts and opinions on the entire matter. This is a novel I've put aside for months, taken out and re-evaluated, and put back again and again, because the material touches me so personally that I don't feel like I can ever really do it complete justice. I know that I want to return to it someday because it could be a great novel, once I figure the characters out.
As far as the other material that this film presents: the deep, dark secrets behind religious doors (that being sexually exploits and misdeeds by men holding such high esteem and regard). These religious men like priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the like are respected men who have claimed to taken an oath of celibacy and are committed to denying themselves of an otherwise basic need in life (that of companionship, but also more importantly physical intimacy with someone). Is this something that can really be controlled due to an oath? I strongly do not believe that it can be. And because they have taken such an oath, it often comes out in deviate and abusive ways. You want to know my solution to all these issues that the faiths seem to be having with cover-ups and sexual misconduct? Employ within the faith lay-people. Allow people to be married and hold positions within the church.
Now, I grew up Catholic and went to church for about 16 years, until I started to see the hypocrisy that seemed to underline the faith. The church was basically started as a way for people to buy their way into heaven, regardless of someone's behavior throughout their lives. What is to be said for that idea? Act as you wish, because as long as you have the fortunate, all sins will be forgiven? I'm sorry, but I'd rather live a life of moral upstanding that I can live with myself for living than ask for forgiveness and pay for my misdeeds in order to be received into heaven (a place no one can admit, or deny, exists). I'd rather put my faith in myself and my ability to reason and live morally.
The thing with "Primal Fear" is that each character is strong and convincing. If I had seen this in the theater when it first came out, in 1996, I'd like to think that I would have seen the potential for greatness in Edward Norton then. He went on to perform with even high standards in the controversial film "American History X" which to this day is still in my Top Five Favorite Films of All-Time.
I will not reveal the details of the climax to the film, except to say that even I did not see it coming.
This is definitely a must watch film.
Starring: Richard Gere, Laura Linney, Edward Norton (and John Mahoney and Frances McDormand)
"Primal Fear" is one of those movies that I could watch in my sleep and still enjoy thoroughly. I think I've seen this movie about a dozen times and it never gets old. I remember one of the first times I watched in was when it came out on VHS. I had rented it and I watched it with my mother. I don't think I understood the full scope of the material. Instead, I just enjoyed the fact that I was watching an R-rated movie. There's a lot going on in this film, from politics to religion to mental illness to the justice system.
Richard Gere plays a character somewhat despicable at first since he seems to be a defense attorney who chases these hated defendants like they were ambulances because he's looking to be a part of the 6 o'clock news or the newspapers headlines. We meet him in a bar discusses the morals of his practices and he sees a potential client on the news. He quickly chases down this poor "Kentucky farm boy" and volunteers his services to him, pro bono (for free) because he wholeheartedly believes in the boy's innocence, but we can tell that he more so believes this will be the most sensational case of the year (at least in Chicago, where the film takes place). Richard Gere's Martin Vail seems to be all "pomp and circumstance" and he believes everything he says to everyone. When he gets angry, you really think he is angry. When he says he wants what's best for this kid (his freedom), you almost are convinced that he deserves it, too. That's the sign of a good defense attorney, and an even better sign of a great actor. Richard Gere throws himself into a role that perhaps in anyone else's hands would have come off as a character we hate, but here Gere has a reputation as an actor who can convince any jury (viewer) that what he believes is truth.
The only trouble is: he is being duped. He is being played. And being played quite hard and quite well.
Edward Norton plays Aaron Stampler, the poor Kentucky boy caught out of his element. This is Edward Norton's first film role and he plays his character so convincingly well that you cannot believe he is a newcomer. He he holds his own against Richard Gere in some very intense scenes. I daresay he even surpasses Gere as Aaron Stampler. Norton presents himself as Stampler (this choir boy with a speech impediment and innocence) in a way that makes us feel sorry for him, until the very end of the film when he reveals his true nature to both Martin Vail and us as viewers in one of the best culminating, table-turning scenes I've seen on film, because you've spent an entire length of a film building up a relationship and feelings of remorse for Stampler only to be torn apart when you realize what's happened this entire time.
Aaron Stampler is a choir boy for the archbishop (who has a deep, guarded secret of enjoying sex between teenagers that he has taken under his wing and directing/taping their exploits for his enjoyment). You can tell the archbishop has some sort of secret just from the opening scene where he attends some kind of benefit dinner and the light is shone on him and he is regarded in such high esteem, yet cuts of the boy's choir (singing at this same dinner) make you feel uneasy. Bravo to the director and editor.
The next scene presents the brutal murder of the archbishop in such graphic detail that you know there's a reason for his grisly demise. Stampler is found covered in blood, hiding under the train-tracks minutes after the discovery of the archbishop's body and there really is no question that he did it (except in Martin Vail's eyes), in fact the district attorney's are so convinced that it is an open-and-shut case that they call upon their star D.A. (played by Laura Linney, who I have loved in just about everything she has ever been in and here is absolutely no exception, because she is wonderful).
What follows could have played out like any other courtroom drama, but the script is well written to avoid the cliches that come with such films. And the revelation about halfway through that Aaron Stampler suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder (thanks to a psychologist played by Frances McDormand). The case becomes a fight against mental illness versus politics versus religion. Is innocence or guilt determined by someone's mental capacity? Should it be? Is a murder just a murder? And should it be tried as such, regardless of someone's lack of understanding? And what-of the dark secret of the archbishop? Does that have any weight in determining the outcome? Can you justify murder of a guilty man for exploitation? Do two wrongs in fact make something right?
I struggled for awhile, in my own life, to understand such questions as an old friend of mine from years back was found to have murdered his "girlfriend" (now about 4 years ago). He had previously suffered major brain injuries in a vehicle accident after which he was never physically or mentally the same again. This was a guy I'd known for several years and I'd seen a significant change in his reasoning and all around mental abilities. But was he capable of murder (in the first degree)? I did not know. And the crime was so heinous that I did not want to believe someone I knew would be capable of such a thing. Should he be given the rights to undergo treatment for his mental deficits after his accident? Should he be granted immunity for such a terrible crime (against another human being)? I mean, taking someone else's life is perhaps the most unforgivable act against humanity. I struggled to understand. I struggled so much that I attempted to write a novel about it in order to express my thoughts and opinions on the entire matter. This is a novel I've put aside for months, taken out and re-evaluated, and put back again and again, because the material touches me so personally that I don't feel like I can ever really do it complete justice. I know that I want to return to it someday because it could be a great novel, once I figure the characters out.
As far as the other material that this film presents: the deep, dark secrets behind religious doors (that being sexually exploits and misdeeds by men holding such high esteem and regard). These religious men like priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the like are respected men who have claimed to taken an oath of celibacy and are committed to denying themselves of an otherwise basic need in life (that of companionship, but also more importantly physical intimacy with someone). Is this something that can really be controlled due to an oath? I strongly do not believe that it can be. And because they have taken such an oath, it often comes out in deviate and abusive ways. You want to know my solution to all these issues that the faiths seem to be having with cover-ups and sexual misconduct? Employ within the faith lay-people. Allow people to be married and hold positions within the church.
Now, I grew up Catholic and went to church for about 16 years, until I started to see the hypocrisy that seemed to underline the faith. The church was basically started as a way for people to buy their way into heaven, regardless of someone's behavior throughout their lives. What is to be said for that idea? Act as you wish, because as long as you have the fortunate, all sins will be forgiven? I'm sorry, but I'd rather live a life of moral upstanding that I can live with myself for living than ask for forgiveness and pay for my misdeeds in order to be received into heaven (a place no one can admit, or deny, exists). I'd rather put my faith in myself and my ability to reason and live morally.
The thing with "Primal Fear" is that each character is strong and convincing. If I had seen this in the theater when it first came out, in 1996, I'd like to think that I would have seen the potential for greatness in Edward Norton then. He went on to perform with even high standards in the controversial film "American History X" which to this day is still in my Top Five Favorite Films of All-Time.
I will not reveal the details of the climax to the film, except to say that even I did not see it coming.
This is definitely a must watch film.
Duuude. Spoiler alert!! I've seen Primal Fear. It IS a great film. But one of the best things about it are the surprises. Multiple personalities?! You can't just tell people that. I mean, I guess you can. And yeah, it's been out for like, what, 20 years, but still. If I were reading this post because I was interested in watching this film, I'd be kinda upset, you know? You might want to put a disclaimer in front of a post where you talk about the plot points in such detail, especially in a twist-ending thriller. Just sayin'. That said, I enjoy your posts. You have a clear, conversational tone that reveals the warmth of your personality. I like reading about how you reacted to a movie, how it made you feel, and where you are coming from that made you react in that way. Keep on writing!
ReplyDelete