During the trio's discussion we came to agree that (oh shit, I can't remember any of the names of the characters) the main character killed the drunk boyfriend as a symbolic act...killing the father who treated him so badly when he was a child. He saw the young boy (Frank?) as himself and wanted to protect Frank from the life he had lived.
I contend that the second crime was completely sane and rational...and was surprised that he landed back in the mental hospital for it rather than in "real" jail.
If we tilt this film on it's axis ...as Pat and I did this morning on our walk... and look at the main character's second crime as a judgement of the death penalty for the drunken boyfriend...then the discussion turns to justice. Did he have the right to impose and carry out that death sentence? Does anyone have the right to impose a death sentence?
I can and did get swept up in the feeling that he had no other choice but to kill that boyfriend to prevent further damage to the boy and his mother. The main character was willing to accept full responsibility for his action...but were there other options? In "real life" are there other options?
Perhaps this is too heavy, but I live each day in the place where self- determination is the only way. I applaud the fact that he called the police and accepted the consequences. In the end he looked at peace with his choice.
And as for the scepter of the death penalty (which appears as the main
character's act of "vigilante justice") that part I can't accept as THE option
...killing another person. On the other hand, as a relativist who has never
been in a situation where killing another person seemed the only option, I
can't condemn ...just can't condone.
Vicki
And as to Sling Blade, I DID like the movie. I sympathized with Karl (ps thanks for the name reminders!). I thought he was a QUALITY human being who had survived a LOT of bad breaks ...things which should never happen to a boy (to quote Karl). So maybe I misrepresented myself in print. What I found debatable from a real life perspective was the script ...is it true that Karl had no other options in acting as a caring human being? ...the script leads the viewers effectively down that path and I wanted to let folks know that I live on a very deliberate path and ALWAYS question whether there are choices and what each choice means for me, for the group, for the society. Maybe I'm still not saying it. I suppose I went to alternate hypothesis testing because the movie was very straightforward to me. I had no confusion about the plot and was striving to offer a platform for discussion. How's that?
Boy am I stunned! Vicki your review took me aback.
Keith & I watched SLING BLADE again for the second time on Friday night. I really liked this movie. I cried when Karl was sitting by the lake with Frank and he put his arm around the boy. sob. I was really drawn into Karl's character and how mistreated and abused he was by his family. I understood more about what Karl was explaining to the high school reporter regarding his home life and the murder. It also made sense the second time that the baby was not his father's child and that is why his father wanted it dead. It was unfortunate that Karl was so young and had to be the instrument of death for the baby. I wondered if Karl also might not have been his father's child and that is why his parents banished him to the shed behind the house.
Initially it was hard to get past the hair cut, his outfit, and his VOICE. Trust me, the second time all you can think about is all the people who do Karl imitations. But I realized how hard it was for Karl to be re-introduced into society. I was amazed at how kind Jerry and Mr. Cox were to Karl. And how open Frank was to Karl's friendship.
I think that John Ritter did a superb job as Vaughn. When I see John Ritter, I always think of Three's Company, but he was nothing like that character. John Ritter had all the mannerisms; although it was hard to get past his hair as well. This must have been the hair/hands movie. Strange hair cuts and the wringing of hands was a little overwhelming.
I never actually thought of Karl as you did Vicki. I did see him as the specter which frees Frank and his mother from Doyle. Frank's mother and Doyle were in a terrible relationship from which she would never leave. This is one aspect which I had a hard time with. I guess that she stayed with Doyle out of extreme fear. Karl, as with his mother, saw that she was in "danger" and took the steps necessary to free them. I was touched by his sacrifice of his own freedom for theirs. Perhaps he saw this as history repeating itself.
Dwight Yoakim was exellent in the role of Doyle. It was hard to believe that this was the same country & western singer. Doyle was truly an evil person. He was cruel and sadistic. I do not see what Frank's mother saw in him or why she wanted to be with him. I guess low self esteem after her husband killed himself.
I never really questioned why Karl killed Doyle. It seemed inevitable from the structure of their relationship. But if Karl did not kill Doyle, then either Frank or his mother would have died eventually. Doyle was not a person who would go away and he certainly would not have taken his own life. He might have died drunk driving. It was just a situation spiraling downward.
I did not think that Karl would have ended back up in the same mental institute. Although I wished that he would have killed that sick bastard in the hospital. That guy was disgusting. Why was he in a mental hospital?
I don't know. What does everyone else think? I liked this movie.
kim :)
Well, Group,
I am actually participating in a video review. This will be short, though, as I still have "Midnight" waiting to be read, and sleep waiting to be "got".
I liked this movie. Though I doubt I can express my views as eloquently as dad (Mike), I will try to be clear.
This can most definitely be seen as a cyclical story of redemption. Karl is released from the "nervous hospital" to find his life being "relived" by Frank, his mother, and her beau, Doyle. Doyle is much like Karl's own father, brutal and abusive, and mentally off-kilter. He is a control freak, and finds his niche with Mary, the boy's (Frank) mother. Mary is a weak-willed woman, desperately seeking ways to combat her feelings of loneliness and inadequacy after the suicide of her husband. She allows Frank to verbally and physically abuse her and her boy, for whatever "I need him" reasons she may have.
Karl, simple-minded as he is, is surprisingly (and conveniently) perceptive. One of the reasons I liked this movie so much was that its concepts were extemely simple, much like the lives of its characters. This is why I don't think a complex moral philosophy can really be applied here. Good and evil and clearly defined in the film, and Karl's perception of the two is astoundingly astute. He thereby becomes the instrument by which the one wins out over the other. In the process, he redeems his own life by saving that of another (Frank). These filmmakers have forged a story in which it is almost difficult to hash it out philosophically. Karl was bad, though by no fault of his own, which absolves him (though he does do his "time"). Thus, Karl becomes Good, and is set free to play out his redemption. Doyle was evil...very evil, with not a shred of goodness to make one feel the slightest bit of pity when his head was sliced in two with a lawn mower blade. Frank was Good (and innocent to boot), thereby making Karl's choice cut and dry. Karl, unable and ill-equipped to save his own life, was given the opportunity to save Frank's, whose life may have ended up quite like Karl's had Karl not "taken care of" the driving force behind it.
Mary, on the other hand, was just there to piss us off, I think, and
to foster our hatred for Doyle. Mary's passive behavior served to
focus our attention on Frank, the justification behind Karl's final
act. After all, how could we not justify the killing of a bad one,
to save the life of a child?
Susan
Frank, a young boy about 12 years old, of uncommon wisdom and perception, thereby endearing himself to Karl and perpetually 'pissing-off' 'Roy'.
Mary, Franks mother, eeking out a living for herself and her son, while clinging to 'Roy' as the best thing she's got going for her.
Doyle, Mary's suitor, a sometime belligerent drunken sot and all-round ass hole, who hates Frank and Karl.
Vaughn, played by (John Ritter...!?), the obligatory 'gay' required to further arouse Doyle's ire.
Miscellaneous characters scattered about, mostly to elicit compassion and 'understanding' for Karl: "Som'bitch sure can fix an engine."
STORY LINE
The story: takes place in a small southern town.
Karl was reared by a couple much like the present day Doyle and Mary. Unloved (perhaps even abused) by his father, Karl was kept in a shed behind the house. Karl's mother would come to him with food (mustard and 'taters) and would read to him from the Bible. At the age of 12, Karl discovers his Mother and a local man (not his father) 'fornicating' on the kitchen floor. Karl, having been tutored by his mother (from the Bible), assumes that the man is 'having his way' with his mother. Upon killing the 'aggressor' Karl is dismayed that his mother bemoans the loss of her lover. Confused and outraged by his mothers display, Karl kills her too. Exactly why he kills her, I'm not sure...but he does.
Karl goes to the State Hospital for the Criminally Insane for 17 years.
17 YEARS LATER Karl returns to his home town, gets a job (with the help of the Director of the State Hospital!) at a local fix-it shop owned by a portly Christian man.
(It is not clear to me why the Bible and Christianity have prominent background roles throughout the story line...except without them, Karl would have no cause to commit the murders in the first place.)
(story continues)
Shortly thereafter, Karl meets and is befriended by a young boy, Frank (who just happens to be about 12 years old.) They trade philosophies and life-discovering issues on a daily basis...and the friendship grows. Karl is introduced to 'Mary' (Franks mother, also a Christian woman), who offers Karl their garage as a place to stay.
ENTER DOYLE: (what an opportune moment!) Doyle has his own 'Construction Business Pick-up Truck', a country/rock band, and likes to drink. Mary 'loves' him, in that small-town-pickins'-are-slim sort of way, and therefore puts up with a lot of his 'ways.' She even goes so far as to tell her son Frank, to stay clear of Doyle.
Doyle gets drunk and behaves aggressively toward Frank and Gary (the 'gay'). Eventually Doyle slaps Mary, and immediately becomes remorseful, promising to go home and straighten up.
After a while, Doyle 'sets things straight' between himself and Frank, by intimating that he (Doyle) will 'rule the roost' and Frank had better tow the line...or else. Karl, of course, picks up the 'meaning' of Doyle's intimations, recycles them through his prior (youthful) experiences and determines that this is his (Karl's) opportunity (dare I say 'obligation') to prevent a recurrence of his own (Karl's) fateful experience.
So, Karl, the retarded, Karl the Biblically informed, Karl the recently Baptized sets upon a course of action to assure that the house of Mary will be empty of all but the presence of Doyle this fateful evening. Karl asks Vaughn to take Frank away from the house that evening because he fears for Frank's safety.
As night falls, we see Karl sharpening the cutting edge of a lawn mower blade. Then he proceeds to enter Mary's house, where Doyle is sipping on a bottle of beer, and asks Doyle how one goes about using the telephone to call the police. Karl explains to Doyle that he needs to call the police because he (Karl) intends to kill Doyle. Doyle informs Karl of the procedure, and further suggests that perhaps a request for an ambulance should also be included in the call.
Whereupon Karl calmly, but with great deliberation hits Doyle over the head with the business end of the blade. When Doyle appears to be still alive (as heard by a moan), Karl hits him one more time. Then he places a call to the police.
END OF STORY
I don't know exactly why I liked it. I hate being emotionally manipulated.
Mike
It took me a while to piece together a few things because Mike (initially) had two characters in his listing that did not appear anywhere else.... and they were the characters that fit other people's descriptions. "Roy" who I think is Doyle, and "Gary" who I think is Vaugn, unless John Ritter played two roles). Now you know why I contend that Mike and I speak two different languages.
I hated this movie. I know you all liked/loved it but that, perhaps, is because you saw it from the beginning and were slowly wooed into emotions you would not necessarily choose. I suspect Vicki resisted the manipulation and therefore had a more concrete (less emotional) view of what was happening. However, Vicki's view/review did not form my opinion because the minute I heard the description of Mary and then the final action of Karl I was outraged. This female is the exact opposite of Eleanor of last week's fame. If you praised and admired Eleanor, why didn't you hate Mary.
And this was to me another example of the "evil" being located in the wrong place. Mary was evil. Any mother who can watch her child be abused is not weak, she is strong. Maybe not a strong mother but a strong female. And that female had men killing to protect her when she did not deserve to live.... and there were apparently two of these females (Karl's mother and Mary).
Kimberly's comment: "But if Karl did not kill Doyle, then either Frank or his mother would have died eventually" stunned me and took me aback! I think there was a great big option in between those two extremes. And that option would be for Mary to leave with her son so no one would have to die or live like that. If the response to that option is that "she couldn't"..... then I'd say we are all doomed because the Karl's will rule all our lives with their simplistic and violent reactions fostered by misguided emotions.
And that's my take on the movie I saw through all your eyes, ears, and filters.
Barbara