When he finally mouthed off once too often at the prison guard and he hit him with the baton, finally someone being violent back to him rather than speaking to him, he just shut up and sat there, shocked. He just needed someone to stand up to him.
shareman, the cop just smacked him on the knee with a baton... i reckon he was probably in too much pain to speak. you can see him go redfaced and sit there in obvious agony
shareLook at his face at the end of the film though, he just doesn't give a *beep* it didn't change a thing, in fact I think he thrived off someone trying to control him.
shareRememebr though, Trevor was just a 16 year old boy. His fear and anger manifested itself in violence.
I think the batton scene symbolised the begining of the end for Trevor and the beginning of aerpetual cycle of prison...violence...(just like in the super's blackboard talk).
Fruit.
The fact that he could just sit and grin when he had been told that he would basically be in prison for the rest of his life suggests that he does have the courage of his convictions.
shareHe's hardly going to go to prison for the rest of his life for Taking and Driving Away offences. Probably would have ended up with 5-10 years i reckon.
I think at the end he does realise he's in real trouble and he's just being stubborn to the end not to show the authorities that they've broken him. I think this would have been a real turning point for Trevor's behaviour.
p.s: How scary is that cop who beats him!?
I don't think he's even bothered that the copper beats him, i think he as only bothered by the pain.
sharewere you up getting a drink during the blackboard scene?? of course he's not going to prison for the rest of his life on these particular charges. but he will be in and out of prison for the rest of his life because of the cycle these charges will set him on.
it's a shame he waited until it was too late to accept the fact that he was in trouble. he had more than enough people willing to help him before it got to that point.
No! It just meant he was too stupid and ignorant to actually come back with something witty OR lacked the balls to hit the copper back. Either way don't make him out to be something he's not. He was a class A noompty.
I have enough faith in my judgment to recognize a stinker.
[deleted]
I dont think he was all talk he was rather pro-active. He smashed up the windows of immigrants and the establishment.
shareIMHO being locked up and hit with the baton was basically the catalyst for a vicious cycle of further disobedience, violence, prison, substance abuse, and ultimately death for Trevor, and why have any sympathy for him?
Someone so sorely lacking discipline and blatantly indifferent to authority would have little chance of rehabilitation. I don't believe any amount of violence or incarceration would change Trevor's views\beliefs or behavior in the slightest.
Thus raises the question what *should* society do with these types of people? As explained to him he had many chances to turn things around but he was dead set on the path he had already chosen. He was a smart guy, he knew well what chances and options were available to him at all times.
Personally I believe society should remove the "problem" all together instead of wasting endless taxpayer money trying to force them to fit in, which has absolutely no utility. Furthermore punishing his parents (ultimately the source of the problem) starting with perhaps forced sterilization (at the very least) as why risk further such threats to society existing in the first place?
But of course the truly disgusting levels of political correctness of the western world today could never "appear" to condone such ideas.
When civilized society crumbles (hopefully, and lets face it most likely, during my lifetime) I will take great pleasure in delivering the biggest "I told you so".
Incredible, completely convincing and intense performance by the great Roth by the way...
That's foolish. the system as it is works well with guys like Trevor. His ideas are not all bad but they arent that popular either and the way he carries them out is very bad. There are guys like him in prison who just rot away for trying to take on the system head-on. It may be admirable that they have the courage of their convictions and everything but in the end we lock em up and never hear their stories. We don't have any empathy for them and its not just because they are locked up and out of sight/mind. Nelson Mandela is an example of someone who was locked up for the purpose of being silenced bit it did not work. His ideas were popular while challenging the power structure and therefore he was not so easy to silence. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is a similar case. Trevor's ideas also challenge the power-structure and may have some merit or make sense on a certain gut level but they are not popular enuff to warrant us caring how deep in the prison system he gets buried.
It isnt his indifference to authority that is wrong. Always be critical of authority. Notjing wrong with that. It is his indifference to popular authority that shows contempt and a type of sense of superiority to the man in the street.
[deleted]
What? eeax2 : That AND stealing people's cars (your car mate or your mum or dad's car) also terrorizing your neighbourhood and throwing bricks through YOUR window and littering in your city that YOU live in.
Yeah, I think you are a *beep* idiot yourself mate.
I have enough faith in my judgment to recognize a stinker.
[deleted]
Hey resurrection man
I haven't this film in ages, it's sitting in my DVD collection somewhere.
Wow what a rant I was on! Forced sterilization? I was probably drinking Sounds suspiciously like something Jack Daniels would say.
Nothing Trevor does will change the way the system works and nothing the system tries to do to help rehibilitate him will work either.
So what do you propose as a solution?
Seen many other Allan Clark films? I have Scum on DVD but I haven't been able to track down The Firm with Gary Oldman yet. Have you seen it? Football Hooligan flick.
UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH
[deleted]
I don't think I can propose a solution.
Everyone and anyone can, it's called philosophy
There are tens of thousands of alleged experts across the globe who have been working on a solution since the dawn of man but none have proved to be very effectual.
As you say there are many "alleged" experts. What does this prove exactly? That there are no solutions to human problems?
We can hold their hands and try and nurse them through it or just take them to the gallows but neither are ideal are they. Maybe its just a case of riding out the storm and waiting for the next phase of evolution to kick in and sort things out for us.
It depends what you define "ideal" as. Different from person to person no?
The attitude of "riding out the storm" or expecting something outside your control (government, god) to take care of you, your family, and your country is a cop out IMHO. Isn't this responsibility yours alone?
Yes, I've seen both versions of Scum (one was banned by the BBC for being 'too realistic' so a reshoot was made which was practically identical except one of the actors for one of the roles was changed)
Yeah I've heard of the television version Clarke did for the BBC, never seen it though. Only the film.
I've seen The Firm with Gary Oldman many times and have it on DVD. It's fairly easy to come by on DVD in Britain? I presume you're in America?
You presume wrong. I'm in Canterbury, NZ.
Have always wanted to see this flick, big Gary Oldman fan.
UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH
[deleted]
Hey man. Apologies for taking so long to get back to this one.
Excellent post by the way. Uncharacteristically, I haven't got much to say or add to all this as your comments mirror my own beliefs. I've come under fire over the years for promoting similar controversial solutions and others (including soylent green to ease world hunger etc). But typically left-wing or liberal idealogy lacks (for want of a better word) balls. The world will forever struggle with social freedom v security and order (left wing v right wing). I personally believe without security and order, freedom cannot survive in the same ballpark as it currently exists.
Well alright. Seeing as a return to medievil physical punishment would never be implimented by todays politically correct moral climate society i.e. caught theiving we cut your hands off etc, and seeing as the 'softly softly' approach always seems to wind up with hooded chavs exploiting the system because they're getting no discipline to speak of, two things I think stand out. One, conception licensing, similar to China whereby laws are imposed on parents who want to have children.
In total agreement.
You have to apply for a license to drive a car and thats something basically a monkey can pick up. Raising kids takes a little bit more effort. Again, that process would bring up all sorts of Clockwork Orange late night political chat show debates about humanities freedom to choose but lets face it, the population is out of control because its not policed the same way society would be out of control if it wasn't policed and this endless consumption is killing the only planet we can survive on. My solution is to legally stop fifteen year old kids getting knocked up so they can drop a couple of sprogs and live off the state by making them 'apply' to have children. Things taken into consideration in the application would be; age, financial status, health, marital status etc. Exactly how enforced this application is would be decided in parliament by the currently elected government.
Absolutely. Naturally the "sacred life protecting" Christian organizations would be up in arms about restricting such a basic "God given" right as giving birth to however-many-kids they want, while poor Catholics give birth to 9-10 kids they can't support. More determent to society.
It seems like an outrageous idea at the moment, but a form of it already exists in China. Besides, most radical changes are met with public hostility at the time they are imposed but accepted in hindsight a couple of decades later when the benefit of those changes are evident. This license would mean fewer people, with better chances because they'd come from homes with people who care enough to go through the labours of getting a license and being able to satisfy its criteria i.e. a couple with some life experience and stability.
Quality over quantity. Sounds logical to me.
Naturally their would be a public outcry about their freedoms being dictated to them, but it could be pointed out that until now they have abused that freedom by failing to keep their pants on for five minutes and having half a dozen kids they can't support. Responsible adults can be trusted to make the right decisions about having children, but how many responsible adults do you know? That's all this license would do, allow responsible adults to have children as is currently the case and stop irresponsible adults having multiple children they can't support, which is also currently the case and which is wrong.
In total agreement. However, how would you go about enforcing this law? What would be the state's punishment for women or couples who were giving birth in secret without a license? (I can imagine some kind of underground being developed by a hard core of fundamentalists). Forced sterilization? Fines? Jail?
The second thing I'd do it bring back the military draft because kids need discipline and ideally they should get it from their own home, but as a safety net for those who don't, a couple of years service in the army will set them straight.
Got your head screwed on right man, IMHO.
Now, the irony of me making these two points is that I was born to a single mother who was twenty when she gave birth to me. So by my own conditions, I wouldn't even have been eligible to exist, thats about how strongly I condone the idea, at my own sacrifice.
Good moral strength there
I also advocate laws that would potentially disadvantage myself.
The second irony is that I would absolutely loathe the idea of joining the army, from and individual point of view I'm very anti-joining the army and never would whilst its still a choice but in spite of that I can see why a couple of years in the military might do me some good as much as I'd be reluctant to it.
I've been a big supporter (and often a promoter) of military and military service over the years. I've seen (first hand) the results of teenagers and young adults with serious behavioral problems and discipline (lack thereof) issues. Two years in basic and they come back a different person. Respectful, civil, loyal, mentally ordered. Take somewhere like Switzerland with compulsory military service and look at their general quality of life. One of the "highest" in the world?
I strongly condone a compulsory two-year stint in the military for all kids straight out of school where they can be taught how to become a civil and effective member of society through personal responsibility. Something perhaps not taught at home or at school (the grim reality). From here they could be given direct career options in the military, or seek employment or further tertiary\university level education from there. Sure they would be doing it two years later than they usually would have but the foundations and personal skills are set for life.
That's why it remains to be a problem, I believe in evolution and believe that an evolved species won't have to worry too much about these things but for the time being, it is certainly a problem.
For sure, without conflict and suffering there can little or no invention\advancement (evolution).
There are solutions to all problems, some are easier to discover than others and some are easier to implement than others. I'm not saying there isn't a solution, I'm saying that no one has found one yet that works as well as it should.
Indeed, or as Stalin said "Death solves all problems, no man, no problem".
Another reason why it remains a problem because what is a solution to one person is an extention of the damage to another and vice versa. If there was a solution that truly was flawless, then I think regardless of personal opinion, it would be accepted and implemented.
Implemented by the government with the largest and most funded military (who may or may not be one in the same).
Sure, I don't have children but if I did I would accept the responsibility of raising that child to the best of my abilities and wouldn't rely on any outside help or influences. At the same time, I'm no world altering crusader who is going to run around trying to solve other peoples problems. I don't care enough about people to do that I'm afraid.
Likewise. Philosophy is about theoretically solving the problems of the world's societies as much as it is personal discovery and understanding. But with this additional knowledge often comes cynicism and misanthropy. Bit of a catch 22 eh.
Both versions are practically identical, a virtual shot for shot remake. At first I couldn't understand the logic behind it. Here is my very unofficial theory: The BBC commissioned or financed Clarke to film a hard hitting drama about life in a borstal. Clarke did such a good job of it that the BBC would scared of the controversy caused if they screened it and quietly asked Clarke to do a softer watered down version. Clarke, middle finger to the establishment, agreed on the surface but part of his protest was to waste the BBC's time and money shooting exactly the same film. I should point out that this theory is absolute speculation and based on no fact at all.
Interesting! I'd like to see this other version though for comparison sake.
A lot of people who have trouble locating certain films are often pointed towards online DVD rental companies that appear to have a wider choice. Netflix, Lovefilm etc. Alternatively, you could purchase it from the UK branch of Amazon and have it shipped. It'd take time and money but as a devout Oldman/Clarke fan, it would be worth it I imagine. I don't know if you have seen Oldman's earlier films Meantime (plays a skinhead with Tim Roth) or Sid & Nancy or his directional debut with Ray Winstone, Nil By Mouth but I'd recommend them.
Sweet, thanks for the recs. Haven't heard of Meantime so I'll be checkin that out. I saw Sid & Nancy a while ago and Nil By Mouth has been at the top of my "list" for some time now. Need to get around to watching.
Cheers.
UNCOMPROMISING UNDERGROUND FILTH
'When he finally mouthed off once too often at the prison guard and he hit him with the baton, finally someone being violent back to him rather than speaking to him, he just shut up and sat there, shocked. He just needed someone to stand up to him.'
Hardly. Being smashed on the knee like that with a police baton is extremely painful, you wouldn't instantly react when being caught off guard like that. Plus, do you not recall the scene where the chef goes to attack trevor, and trevor floors him with a kick in the balls.
Yeah, a wimpy slow moving old chef or a "hardened" armed officer of the law. Trev was "Well 'ard" weren't he.
I have enough faith in my judgment to recognize a stinker.
[deleted]
Violence doesn't solve violence. It doesn't address the issues that have caused his contempt for authority, instead it is the only language he recognises and therefore he will be beaten into submission. Violence kills the spirit and only further damages an already disturbed young man.
"It's all in the beans ... and I'm just full of beans."