MovieChat Forums > Falling Down (1993) Discussion > These are the flaws of why D-Fens is ult...

These are the flaws of why D-Fens is ultimately a bad guy and his behavior is unjustified.

posted 10 months ago by Patman111196 (1775)
46 replies | jump to latest

For those who still think that D-Fens has any justification for his behavior, here is my list of why he does not.

1. He is a hypocrite who demands respect from other people, yet he doesn't care to show much respect for them, criticizing them for doing things that he easily does (calling out the shopkeeper for being a thief and then stealing his bat for basically no reason, calling out his ethnicity when he later criticizes the Neo-Nazi for doing that).
2. He becomes disproportionately angry over petty incidents (no change for the phone and not being able to have breakfast when it's lunch).
3. He has no problem using force to get what he wants, showing that he is aggressive and entitled.
4. He never explains to his ex-wife that he can't pay for child support because he lost his job, and also lies to his mother he is still working.
5. He repeatedly showed up in the middle of the night without permission and knocking on the door, disturbing his wife and possibly freaking out his child. He then continues to try and establish contact with them after the restraining order has been served.
6. He blames his mother for the divorce and losing custody of his child, even though there is nothing in the film that indicates that she had a big hand in it. He is also very cold to her and shows a lack of consideration for her. It is likely that he hates living under her roof, and can't even be grateful that she gave him a place to stay.
7. He casually steals weapons and items from multiple scenes. Morally, you have no right to take something that you know belongs to someone else, even if they aren't present. Nothing indicates this was caused by his mental breakdown.
8. He shoots the guy in the leg who tried to kill him just to rub it in his face, despite knowing he can ignore him as the dude will likely be arrested.
9. Prior to him passing "the point of no return", he blatantly has no regard for the restraining order against him, despite knowing it could get him in trouble, showing he doesn't think of the consequences of his immoral actions.
10. Has no empathy for the guy who is having a heart attack, and taunting him after realizing he can't help him.
11. He embraces and kisses his ex-wife despite her lack of consent and tells her that they are still married. This show he is obsessive and delusional.
12. He pulls out a gun in front of his daughter, despite knowing that she's in his presence. No parent would do that if they were sincerely devoted to their child. It's possible he may have been planning on murdering his wife, even if not his child.

I think that's the most I can think of right now for the moment. D-Fens may not be an evil person, but he certainly was willing to do evil things for his own personal gain.

[–] BKB (9880) 10 months ago

Your complaints basically read like someone from the Zoomer generation seeing this for the 1st time and clearly, it's a difference in how you perceive this movie and what YOU would've done VS how D-Fens handled it.. If we did it your way, the movie would've been panned

[–] Patman111196 (1775) 10 months ago

He's not supposed to be as sympathetic as everyone makes him. If you remember, he was always like that, but didn't openly show it until he needed a very good excuse. It amuses me to how people in today's world think that mental unhealthy individuals should be given a chance when they decide to resort to harm against others when they don't show much remorse for it. Saying they deserved it is hardly an excuse unless it's the gangsters or Neo-Nazi. D-Fens had multiple opportunities to try and make the best of his shitty life in a proper way or change his mind about the chaos he started, and he chose not to do both.

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1935) 2 months ago

You mean like the "Not economically viable" guy tried to?

[–] [deleted] 3 months ago

Yup.

[–] cyguration (3951) 10 months ago

I don't have time to address everything but this one in particular...

Has no empathy for the guy who is having a heart attack, and taunting him after realizing he can't help him.

Give the best of what you can take.

The old man gave ZERO empathy, grace or consideration. What if Bill had been dying and needed to cut through the golf course to seek help? The old man didn't know and didn't care. He was callous -- and so in return, Bill was callous to the old man.

I can definitely say that the old man got what he deserved. If the man had been remotely gracious, consider that he would not have suffered a heart attack, and he may not have died. Ultimately, the man killed himself by being inconsiderate, selfish, and without grace.

[–] Patman111196 (1775) 10 months ago

I agree he's one of the more despicable characters. But D-Fens laughed in his face when he really could have just said "I'm sorry, but it's your fault that I shot your cart and you should have known better" and been on his way. Instead, he takes his time to gloat which makes it apparent that he takes delight in when people who has actually or whom he perceives to wrong him suffer payback.

And if D-Fens had to be angry and confrontational, he certainly didn't have to waste time pulling out that gun and especially shooting that cart. He was just using the incident as an excuse to continue the fight to he could feel more better and powerful. He never seems like the type of man who just wants to walk away safely when someone annoys him. Society has taught us you walk away when you are irritated by someone when you still have a chance to do so. I doubt the old geezer was going to waste his time looking for a fight with D-Fens and just continue his lovely golfing session. He was certainly wrong and evil to D-Fens, but I feel D-Fens was more wrong and evil in that scene.

D-Fens mindset is the problem which is wrong with today's society. Much of us all now think we have excuses and justifications for behavior that would normally be seen as questionable and potentially harmful towards others.

[–] cyguration (3951) 10 months ago

It's interesting, because I was watching a video recently doing a whole essay-style breakdown of the film, and there were some people who felt like your summation of the film -- or how the film sums up the end of Bill -- coincides with your point that people need to just suck it up and move on, and accept either becoming a cog in the machine or a relic of a bygone era. They felt this line of thought is antithetical to how things should be, and I agree.

Society has taught us you walk away when you are irritated by someone when you still have a chance to do so. I doubt the old geezer was going to waste his time looking for a fight with D-Fens and just continue his lovely golfing session.

The thing is, he could have continued that "lovely" golfing session had he just let Bill pass through, but he couldn't. In fact, he antagonised Bill all the way up until Bill pulled out the gun and shot the golf cart, and then in a desperate attempt to retain his life, he begs for help.

You're right, Bill could have simply walked away. He could have simply gone on, but he stopped to gloat because everything he said about the man was right. Even in such a short scene we -- the audience -- could decipher that this man has been entitled and supercilious to other people his entire life. The old man was never going to change, and Bill confronted him about his life-long (ill) treatment of others as a way to mock him while the man lay there helpless; in a situation that he himself created by berating and being unkind to the helpless.

As part of the movie's overarching themes about the antipodes nature of irony -- and the lack of grace we afford others in society -- the only reason the old man had a heart attack was because of his lack of grace showed to Bill, and in turn, when Bill also did not show the old man any grace, the old man died. Peak irony.

[–] blue1981 (7735) 10 months ago

#10 is hilarious and one of my favorite scenes in the movie. "Now you're gonna die wearing that stupid little hat. How does it feel?"🤣

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) 3 months ago

LOL at your little crusade on this subforum, White Knighting for the insufferable ex-wife and condemning Bill.

Nothing would have happened that day if not for the assholes. He would have already been invited to his daughter's birthday party, therefore no reason to call her, therefore no need for change for the payphone, and so on.

Even if his ex-wife had been the only asshole impediment in the movie, not much would have happened.

The Korean store owner would have simply made change for him so there would have been no trouble there.

The Mexican gang member thugs wouldn't have even approached him, so no trouble there.

He would have bought a pair of boots at the military surplus store without incident, because there would have been no reason for the cop to come in the store asking about him while he was trying on the boots and the store owner wouldn't have had any preconceived notions about him because there wouldn't have been anything on the police scanner about him.

He would have no doubt been irritated about not being able to order breakfast at the burger joint, but he wouldn't have had any weapons on him nor a series of earlier encounters with assholes pushing his buttons, so nothing would have come of that either. Plus, if not for the asshole encounters, he would have arrived there earlier anyway, while they were still serving breakfast.

And so on.

The worst that would have happened was, he shows up unarmed at the house that some asshole family court judge stole from him and then gave to his ex-wife, and the cops enforce the fraudulent restraining order against him. The end.

[–] Patman111196 (1775) 3 months ago

Yes, you are completely blaming every single person he comes with conflict with except for himself, missing the fact that he's just as sick as the society he's complaining about. His backstory in the second half of the movie makes it clear he was delusional and mentally unbalanced from the very beginning. Did you miss that part? Losing your job and family that you loved so much doesn't suddenly turn you into someone who threatens or intimidates others to control other people with little regret.

His wife DID NOT steal his home or child away from him. Why don't you stop making this crap up? He had an explosive and controlling temper during the marriage. After they divorced, he continued to try to maintain unwanted contact with his wife and made her feel further uncomfortable. That is called stalking and harassment. Even if she wasn't perfect and overjudged the situation, she at bare minimum had the right idea of wanting to distance herself and their child away from him.

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) 3 months ago

"Yes, you are completely blaming every single person he comes with conflict with except for himself"

The person who starts shit is always to blame, obviously, and it's nice to see them get their comeuppance, also known as "instant karma." Much of the movie is an illustration of the saying "fuck around and find out" or "play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

There was no good reason why the Korean store owner couldn't make change for him; doing so is just a common courtesy, like giving someone the time of day if they ask. And even if he's given a pass for that bit of assholery, he shouldn't have drastically escalated it by grabbing a baseball bat over a verbal argument. When Bill refused to leave he should have just called the police.

"missing the fact that he's just as sick as the society he's complaining about."

I haven't missed anything, given that you've established no such thing (it's certainly not a "fact"), nor is it even relevant to anything I said.

"His backstory in the second half of the movie makes it clear he was delusional and mentally unbalanced from the very beginning."

It did no such thing, nor is it even relevant to anything I said.

"Did you miss that part?"

See above.

"Losing your job and family that you loved so much doesn't suddenly turn you into someone who threatens or intimidates others to control other people with little regret."

Again, that's not relevant to anything I said.

"His wife DID NOT steal his home or child away from him."

I said the judge stole his house, so she was the recipient of stolen property.

"Why don't you stop making this crap up?"

Negated by your reading-deficiency-fueled false premise (see above).

"He had an explosive and controlling temper during the marriage."

There's no evidence of that in the movie (mere assertions from the ex-wife don't constitute evidence in any way). Also, it's not relevant to anything I said anyway.

"After they divorced, he continued to try to maintain unwanted contact with his wife"

He had a logical right to see his kid, regardless of what a corrupt, thieving judge said.

"and made her feel further uncomfortable."

If she was feeling "uncomfortable" she should have taken a laxative.

"That is called stalking and harassment."

He had a logical right to see his kid, regardless of what a corrupt, thieving judge said, and regardless of what you think it's called.

"Even if she wasn't perfect and overjudged the situation, she at bare minimum had the right idea of wanting to distance herself and their child away from him."

No, she had no logical right to keep their kid away from him. She was only one of two parents, and both parents should be able to have contact with their kid, obviously. She admitted that he'd never been violent toward her or their kid, therefore she and the corrupt, thieving judge were in the wrong.

[–] Patman111196 (1775) 3 months ago

The movie makes it clear in the second half he was emotionally abusive to his wife and mother. He didn't show any signs of improvement at all and took his misfortunes out on many people who had nothing to do with his problems. He was ultimately an emotionally unstable sociopath who finally decided to come out of his shell.

"There was no good reason why the Korean store owner couldn't make change for him; doing so is just a common courtesy, like giving someone the time of day if they ask. And even if he's given a pass for that bit of assholery, he shouldn't have drastically escalated it by grabbing a baseball bat over a verbal argument. When Bill refused to leave he should have just called the police."

I can agree on this point, though we don't know for a fact if he was going to actually attack him. He may have been trying to play tough guy (which like you said may have been an unwise idea). Still, Bill was the one who initiated playing tough guy before the shopkeeper did.

"There's no evidence of that in the movie (mere assertions from the ex-wife don't constitute evidence in any way). Also, it's not relevant to anything I said anyway."

No, it was strongly implied from the wife that it was a routine cycle of anger issues that he wouldn't tone down and that he kept bothering her after the divorce. There's no reason to disbelieve that even if he wasn't violent.
His disproportionate reactions at the very beginning to his mother, as well as the Korean shopkeeper and fast food service in reaction for not showing a very simple (not a huge one) act of compassion, long before he has reached the peak of his breakdown support this.

"She admitted that he'd never been violent toward her or their kid, therefore she and the corrupt, thieving judge were in the wrong."

I think she would have actually had to have provided some credible evidence to submit the restraining order for the final process, especially three decades ago. That probably happened before she started having second thoughts about provoking him and the judge told her it was best to make an example of him. That's not completely on her.
It seems like a lot of people who defend D-Fens believe the myth that it's not abuse if you aren't physically aggressive or violent. His backstory in the end showed he was fairly entitled and controlling to a degree long before he snapped. He completely fails to understand over the course of the story that he bears as much responsibility for his own misfortunes as much everyone else who he blames.

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) 3 months ago

Nothing you posted is relevant to my original post, the gist of which is: nothing would have happened that day if not for the assholes. His ex-wife was one of the assholes, and even if you keep her assholery in the story and get rid of everyone else's, nothing significant would have happened that day.

I'm not going to play along with your tangents again.

[–] Patman111196 (1775) 3 months ago

She was emotionally ABUSED, even though he wasn't violent, and that video shows him forcing his daughter into a potentially dangerous or risky situation on that horse. You dumb misogynistic abusive fucks pretend that didn't happen because he didn't strike her.
HE was an asshole too just like the others assholes he encountered in his life, one who deluded himself into believing that he wasn't an asshole and everyone else was. You pricks really don't understand psychology or human nature of society.

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) 3 months ago

"She was emotionally ABUSED"

Your mere assertion (and psychobabble) is dismissed.

"and that video shows him forcing his daughter into a potentially dangerous or risky situation on that horse."

LOL!

As for the first part of your sentence, it shows no such thing, since it never shows the kid getting on the toy horse. It only shows an argument between the parents, a very minor one at that. As for the second part of your sentence, LOL! (again). You're quite the delicate flower, aren't you, Nancy?

"You dumb misogynistic abusive fucks pretend that didn't happen because he didn't strike her."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, cuck.

"HE was an asshole too just like the others assholes he encountered in his life"

What of it? They were an asshole first, and Bill obviously doesn't subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" policy.

"one who deluded himself into believing that he wasn't an asshole"

LOL at you making shit up again. You don't know whether he considered himself an asshole or not, obviously.

"and everyone else was."

Wrong. He didn't think that anyone in that family at the plastic surgeon's house was an asshole, because they weren't.

"You pricks really don't understand psychology or human nature of society."

Your non sequitur is dismissed, and LOL at your status as an armchair "psychologist."

[–] Patman111196 (1775) 3 months ago

"Your mere assertion (and psychobabble) is dismissed."

No, it isn't. He was mentally unstable the whole time. He kept trying to come back and reunite with his family after the divorce because he was obsessed with them.

"As for the first part of your sentence, it shows no such thing, since it never shows the kid getting on the toy horse. It only shows an argument between the parents, a very minor one at that. As for the second part of your sentence, LOL! (again). You're quite the delicate flower, aren't you, Nancy?"

That's not a minor argument. Perhaps you missed the part where he didn't give a damn one bit that his child was freaking out and resisting over being put on the horse, and his wife very clearly pointed that out to him and that he shouldn't force her on like that. He didn't listen and became more angry raising his voice and continued to demand her to be put on the horse.
His wife was later shown crying on the pier and he asked her "Why do you do this, Beth?". As if he expected her to forget about what happened earlier. This was not the first or second time he did this crap.

"What of it? They were an asshole first, and Bill obviously doesn't subscribe to the "turn the other cheek" policy."

So he was justified in insulting that shopkeeper and vandalizing his store and pulling out that gun in front of innocent civilians just because of the crime that they wouldn't do one simple thing for him and were a little disrespectful to him? He was more or less asking for a fight and literally extorting them via potential threats of violence to get what he wanted. That doesn't sound very prosocial or sane at all, even if he never really intended to harm anyone.

"LOL at you making shit up again. You don't know whether he considered himself an asshole or not, obviously."

No, he had a massive victim complex. He referred to himself as innocent numerous times while blaming everyone else for "lying" to him and creating his problems, when he was guilty of quite a bit. That's why he is legitimately confused at the end when he is told that he's the bad guy. He rationalized all of his questionable behaviors and firmly never believed at once that he was truly a bad guy or an asshole.

"Your non sequitur is dismissed, and LOL at your status as an armchair "psychologist."

No, I have a legitimate interest in psychology, and D-Fens is often cited as an example of comorbid Antisocial and Borderline Personality Disorder. He was not some random hard-working guy who got screwed over for no reason at all. His growing inability to cope with his mental instability contributed to his downfall and dangerous behavior towards others.

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) 3 months ago

"No, it isn't. He was mentally unstable the whole time. He kept trying to come back and reunite with his family after the divorce because he was obsessed with them."

Your mere assertion (and psychobabble), which is also an irrelevant assertion and therefore a non sequitur, is dismissed.

"That's not a minor argument."

Yes, it was, delicate flower, and even if it was a major argument (it wasn't), it's still just an argument.

"Perhaps you missed the part where he didn't give a damn one bit that his child was freaking out and resisting over being put on the horse"

Oh no! A toddler threw a tantrum!

"and his wife very clearly pointed that out to him and that he shouldn't force her on like that."

His wife was on a path to spoiling the kid rotten, i.e., teaching the kid that if she throws a tantrum she gets her own way. You obviously kowtow to women and children, but Bill didn't. It was just a rocking horse.

"He didn't listen and became more angry raising his voice and continued to demand her to be put on the horse."

Oh no! He raised his voice at his no-account wife!

"So he was justified in insulting that shopkeeper and vandalizing his store and pulling out that gun in front of innocent civilians just because of the crime that they wouldn't do one simple thing for him and were a little disrespectful to him?"

With the store owner he was logically justified, because responding to assholery with assholery is in accordance with the Golden Rule, i.e., the store owner was an asshole to Bill, therefore he tacitly, and logically, wanted Bill to be an asshole to him.

The burger joint incident wasn't logically justified, because the manager wasn't being an asshole, he was just doing his job, plus Bill's actions included false imprisonment of people who had never done anything at all to him.

But again, that's all irrelevant to my original post, i.e., nothing would have happened that day if not for assholes, and in every case except for the burger joint incident and the cop-shooting incident, they got what they asked for, in accordance with the Golden Rule. Also, he ~redeemed himself at the end via suicide-by-cop so his kid could get the insurance money. His shady ex-wife never redeemed herself in any way, which results in Bill being by far the more likeable character of the two.

[–] Patman111196 (1775) 3 months ago

"With the store owner he was logically justified, because responding to assholery with assholery is in accordance with the Golden Rule, i.e., the store owner was an asshole to Bill, therefore he tacitly, and logically, wanted Bill to be an asshole to him."

Ok, but that doesn't justify trashing his store just because he feels like he's entitled to make a point. He could have just asked for the $0.50 again without doing any of that since the shopkeeper told him to take the "money". In fact, what Bill did might even cause the store to further drive up prices due to the loss

"But again, that's all irrelevant to my original post, i.e., nothing would have happened that day if not for assholes, and in every case except for the burger joint incident and the cop-shooting incident, they got what they asked for, in accordance with the Golden Rule. Also, he ~redeemed himself at the end via suicide-by-cop so his kid could get the insurance money. His shady ex-wife never redeemed herself in any way, which results in Bill being by far the more likeable character of the two."

That's debatable. He had already been living with his mother for months and had been extremely cold to her and didn't ask anyone for help finding a new job. He was probably already going to snap sooner or later. Most people know how to move on from misfortunes like that. He more or less let his mind take over his body instead of trying to fight it and cope with the reality of the circumstances.

Also, him committing suicide to support his daughter might have been him wanting to do good for his daughter, but it was also a way to show he didn't have any more faith in his own existence. He chose to suffer for a long time instead of actually doing the right thing and taking accountability for his own failures and personal problems, and not once did he try and ask for help from anyone to get back on his feet.

[–] MaximRecoil (4597) 3 months ago

"Ok, but that doesn't justify trashing his store just because he feels like he's entitled to make a point. He could have just asked for the $0.50 again without doing any of that since the shopkeeper told him to take the "money"

It wasn't just about the refusal to make change for him and the high prices anymore when trashed his store. It was also about him being threatened with a baseball bat for no good reason. Threatening someone with a weapon is only justified in cases of self-defense, and Bill merely refusing to leave the store when he was told to isn't a self-defense scenario.

"That's debatable."

No, it isn't. I already described what would have happened that day if not for assholes.

"He was probably already going to snap sooner or later."

There's no way to assign any sort of probability to that bit of speculation. He could have found a new job the next day, or even that very day if not for the assholes who were causing the traffic jam by "fixing" a road that didn't need to be fixed. With his life getting back on track he wouldn't have been so close to his boiling point.

"Also, him committing suicide to support his daughter might have been him wanting to do good for his daughter, but it was also a way to show he didn't have any more faith in his own existence."

He knew he would have gone to prison for a long time, so no, he didn't have any "faith in," nor desire for, that kind of existence.

Bill: "You have two choices. I could kill you or you could kill me and my little girl can get the insurance."

Prendergast: "Don't you want to see her grow up?"

Bill: "Behind bars?" (shakes his head no)

"He chose to suffer for a long time instead of actually doing the right thing and taking accountability for his own failures and personal problems, and not once did he try and ask for help from anyone to get back on his feet."

You don't know if he did or not, nor is it relevant.