MovieChat Forums > Dead Man Walking (1996) Discussion > This movie is WAY over most of your head...

This movie is WAY over most of your heads...

posted 15 years ago by cpalozie
30 replies | jump to latest

Any time I see a movie that I actually find to be truly thought-inspiring, I've made it a bit of a habbit to check the IMDB boards to just read around on different perspectives of the film.

I have to say that in regards to Dead Man Walking, I've found myself more annoyed than anything at how the majority of people posting have simplified this film and taken away everything that made it as fantastic as it was through ignorant and uneducated ramblings about the death penalty.

First off, capital punishment is a serious issue embodied with moral and ethical concepts that have been at war for centuries. Any person who can take a firm 100% position for or against the death penalty is either uninformed, uneducated, completely ignorant, or completely stupid. If you are one of these people, learn to RESEARCH, READ, and EDUCATE yourself on an issue through individual thought, self-questioning, and personal reasoning. You'll find that ANYTHING worth feeling strongly about is usually much more complex at the roots than it is at the surface.

Secondly, the magic of this movie was the director and actors' abilities to portray the depth of the death penalty issue on all perspectives... through the eyes of the victims, the perpatrators, and an outsider. The victims' famlies are one-sided, the perp is one-sided, and the outsider jumps back and forth.

Lastly, this movie's message is neither for nor against the death penalty. The movie's message is that there is no right answer, only the empty void of tragedy that is left when brutal crimes occur... and that tragedy is felt by much more than the victim.

[–] johnyjoe 15 years ago

This movie (story, I should say) is about way, way more than the death penalty debate, and it's certainly not something that can be 'way over someone's head', as every single human being is entitled to their own interpretations and perspectives. If someone sympathizes with one side, they will no doubt find enough in this movie to challenge them and affirm their beliefs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.

If that's what you were trying to say, then I'm sorry. I couldn't really get past the arrogance of your post.

Movies on IMDB are not overrated, you're just of the minority that doesn't bloody LIKE THEM!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] georgybutt 15 years ago

yes....arrogant, insecure, and wrong. The killer changed, a parent changed, but the "outsider" did not.

[–] jpc8024 15 years ago

This film is a serious film and that's why I don't understand it really well. This movie was so sad, so depressing and so grim and so scary I had to put on Goonies one night just to cheer me up.

[–] sweetpea18209 15 years ago

Totally agree!!! Most of the people who come on these IMDB boards are not here for giving a worthy opinion, they are here to say simple, stupid and spiteful things.

"Are you a girl, or are you not?"

[–] jameswball 15 years ago

I agree with most of what you have to say about the movie (it was very balanced and well made, although I had some minor problems with the direction) but I think it's pretty pretentious to say it's over MOST people's heads. Also, I think it's quite possible for someone who is informed, educated, and intelligent to believe that deliberately taking a person's life is morally wrong, no matter the circumstances. This is an opinion which cannot be proven or disproven, and its natural conclusion is that capital punishment is 100% wrong, 100% of the time.

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 2 days ago

"100% wrong, 100% of the time"

Even if say someone being executed is a mass murderer or even say genocidal dictator? Even if life is taken in self defence, and what, like, all 100 percent, like that?

And if it really is as wrong as we say it is, why did the law still organize it? And would you say life imprisonment for someone like Poncelet would've been a more appropriate punishment?

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 2 days ago

So in your opinion jameswball, even murderous evil psychopaths in general don't deserve to die and if we kill them, that alone in and of itself makes us as bad as them right, due to some kind of err universal principle even if it isn't always, for some or other reason, recognized even by what are meant to be professional legal establishments?

[–] zachanscom 15 years ago

this movie is about as profound as looney tunes. if you want to project things into that doesn't exist, feel free to do so. i watched it for entertainment. i'll educate myself by reading books and watching documentaries on the subject, not an embellished hollywood production. for instance, in the true story, sister prejean is the victim of a killer's exploitation. and to this day,she naively believes he actually changed. do some research and educate yourself. then maybe you'll learn that the death penalty is not only necessary, but utterly efficient. and forget about that propaganda about the significance of life. it's about as significant and as an amoeba. killing them doesn't bring the victim back, but it sure does save resources.

wake up from your media induced ideological coma. think reasonably. what's the point of keeping these guys around?

[–] lornamd-1 14 years ago

Actually the death penalty is not utterly efficient. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states without it and after Canada got rid of the death penalty the murder rate went down. It doesn't save resources either. The death penalty is more expensive.

There was more than one killer. With the first Elmo Sonnier Helen Prejean believed he was truly remorseful and since a prison guard says that if he ever saw a repentant and guilt ridden prisoner it was Sonnier she is probably right about that. With the second Robert Lee Willie Helen Prejean admits that he was a terrible human being and wasn't really capable of full remorse. She wasn't exploited by either.

The point of keeping these guys around? If they are later found to be wrongly convicted they can be released. Their families won't have to suffer the torment that their victims families have. When the serial Harold Shipman committed suicide many of the family members of his victims said they felt cheated of the chance to find out why he did it and the daughter of a man killed by the IRA met with her fathers killer and found great comfort in talking to him. Execution takes away the chance of family members to confront the killer.

[–] shewasmyrushmore 14 years ago

then maybe you'll learn that the death penalty is not only necessary

excuse me...um...wha??? if only that was tongue in cheek.

speaking from one of the more enlightened western countries that outlawed the death penalty a long time ago, i can assure you that it is NOT 'necessary' in any way, shape or form.
in fact my country fares better than yours in pretty much every human welfare/standard of living indicator that exists, most significantly in crime statistics.
so please explain how the death penalty is 'necessary', believe me, we seem to be coping a bit better without it than you do with it.

[–] Daizyglrl 12 years ago

zackanscom, you're my hero. My thoughts exactly, only I am too jaded by societal ambivalence on this topic to put them down. Resources...tax dollars. Nihilism is also a real possibility (one that I happen to adhere to, personally), and also a belief. Religious beliefs can hinder more than they help. The religious community is noble, but the fact remains that evolution is all about efficiency. Killers serve no purpose here in society. That's a very compact statement, yes, but whatever. I'm too tired.

Bravo.

[–] MrRazorz 14 years ago

Lastly, this movie's message is neither for nor against the death penalty. The movie's message is that there is no right answer, only the empty void of tragedy that is left when brutal crimes occur... and that tragedy is felt by much more than the victim.

While the old "it went over your head" angle weakens your point, you do have one. The film takes no sides. It's purpose (as I see it) was to make people think about the death penalty issue, not to preach to them about it.

[–] alithre 14 years ago

Mmm, no. Being closely related to one of the victims this fictionalized film is (loosely) based upon, I can tell you it didn't go over my head in the least. And yet I still despise the film.

Not because I didn't understand it - I understand more than what I ever care to know. But because Sobbins (and of course Sarandum and Pig-Penn) infamously tampered with the facts of these stories as always, to turn it into a bumbling mess.

I assure you, Robert Lee Willie shed absolutely no tears for his victims. There was no asking for forgiveness, and he was actually quite proud of the fact that he *beep* that whore to death" in his own written confession.

Perhaps Penn's portrayal is what Sr. Helen Prejean only wished she could have seen from Willie. But in reality he was not remorseful in the slightest. Not for Faith's murder, or the four others he committed before he got caught.

Furthermore, the parents of Ms. Hathaway never lived a moment of peace after their daughters murder, made only worse by this fictionalized film that Sobbins and Sarandum never ONCE consulted them about. I can tell you for a fact that the one time Mrs. Harvey (Faith's mother) tracked down Robbins, he said he "didn't have the time," for her. Now of course bumbling morons such as Sobbin' Robbins ALWAYS have time for themselves, but never EVER time for the real victims of the Dead Man Walking this film is based upon. I speak from experience.

Sobbin' Robbins, Sarandum and Pig-Penn will forever be holed up in their personal crusades for publicity (while depending on the simple-minded who don't know any better) to make their money. Guess they weren't planning on the internet all those years ago for people to speak the truth about their god-forsaken film packed with fantasy and lies.

Rather than touting this film as "based on a true story," Robbins should have boldly announced it more accurately as "My own personal fantasy further fictionalized and loosely based on the slight experience of Sr. Helen Prejean just days before an inmates execution." There.

That ought to do it. Because it sure as hell didn't come from the truth.

For the googler's of the board:

Faith Colleen Hathaway (victim)
Elizabeth and Vernon Harvey (parents)
Detective Mike Varnado (Investigator)

and waaay down below, far removed from good people (just like their burials in the graveyard) we have:

Robert Lee Willie (rapist, drug dealer, thief and murderer)
Joseph Vaccaro (rapist, drug user, thief and murder)

[–] macgirl66 13 years ago

To Alithre:

First, I want to say that I am really sorry for all the pain you and your relatives have suffered over this. I read what you wrote, it is clear how much hurt this has caused for you and yours.

I doubt it will help much to mention that this movie was made in the way that pretty much all movies adapted from books are made. The rights from the books are sold. Once sold, they can be re-written into anything the purchaser wants to make them into, to turn what was a written from a book into a film designed for entertainment. I can very much understand your eXtreme anger if this movie was telling the story of Faith Hathaway, murdered by Robert Lee Willie. Or the story of Loretta Bourque and David LeBlanc and Patrick Sonnier. Or both stories. But this movie told a story of Hope Percy and Walter DelacroiX and Matthew Poncelet & Carl Vitello. I'm not trying to treat you like an idiot. However, it is common practice to change names, combine characters, change locations, gives lines actually said by one person to a different character in the story if the screenplay flows better. I don't eXpect this to make you feel better. I really don't think the people involved with this movie made this movie with intentions to hurt the victims and their families, to intensify their/your pain. I understand if you continue to feel that way. Most people who option books for movies do so because they read a book that moves them, that they feel is important and interesting, that they feel would make a good movie, a movie that people would want to see, a movie that has something to say. This is definitely not the movie telling the story of Faith Hathaway, and I don't think it was ever meant to be. I think it was meant to be a movie based on eXperiences of Helen Prejean, they could not include all of them in her book, therefore they created one criminal situation based on her combined eXperiences and wrote the screenplay from that point of view. So in that respect, it is truthful. Prejean's name is the one that is in the movie as a character, so you would hope and eXpect that the movie accurately portrays her as she really is, or nearly so. The rest of the characters in the movie are fictional.

Someday, if Faith's family want her story told, they can write a book or have a film made that they feel tells her story. I'm guessing that rather than that, they would prefer to have themselves, (and her memory), left in peace. Again, I know you disagree, but I don't believe they made this movie to disrespect you and to cause your family pain. It sounds like you were eXpecting something different than this. I have not had murder, but seXual violence has touched my family. Violence and loss take a long time to heal from. I hope you find the peace you seek.

To each their own...opinion

[–] cthulhulurks 13 years ago

The film does have an anti-death penalty undertone. I think that I'd be one on the same side as the filmmakers not only because innocent people get executed from time to time but also because criminal justice is owned by a rich minority and clearly doesn't have anything to do with justice, it's just a way for the alpha-dog to show the meek who's the boss.

Having said that, I think that scumbag got away very easily. He gets to live his happy life of low life, raping and killing stupid kids, high on dope, *beep* his hos and instead of dying in a pool of poo from all kinds of old age illnesses being spat on by his own kids he gets free euthanasia. He's the lucky one. Hope he rots in hell if there is any.

my vote history:
http://imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=27424531

[–] macgirl66 13 years ago

I think the movie takes a miXed look at the death penalty. I know there are many who would agree with you and think it is pro-death penalty. After I saw the film, I read more about the stories the film was based on, about the nun, Helen Prejean. She has spent quite a bit of her life promoting anti-death penalty causes, so you might say that your impression could be true. However, the impression that I got from the film was that the crimes that the fictional Matthew Poncelet was responsible were so heinous that it is easily understandable by rational people that he would be sentenced to death. The evidence is clear that he was guilty, he had no remorse for his crimes, he seemed like a person who would be likely to reoffend, hence he would likely be a danger to the community and from what we are told, he committed previous crimes (rapes) before the ones he is currently sentenced for. The fact that he eventually realizes the gravity of what he has done doesn't erase the enormity of the damage done to so many people that can never be undone.

I think the movie is a very good study to make people really think about the total cost and devastation of capital crimes, and the total weight of what it means to take a life in response in payment for those crimes. What is the cost? What does it give the victims family(s)? What benefit(s) does it have for society? What price, if any, does society pay, both monetary and moral, for carrying out capital punishment? I thought the movie did a good job at touching on many of these ideas, even if they could not be completely addressed in one two? hour movie.

To each their own...opinion

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

Alithre,

Can completely understand a person in your circumstances of not liking the film, but Tim Robbins didn't tout ..."this film as "based on a true story."

He was at pains to do pretty much the opposite.

The end credits say it is "inspired by events written about in Sr. Helen's book and that characters have been changed and combined, which IMO serves to highlight the fictional aspects of the story.

Even you seem to accept this in your first sentence ..."this fictionalized film is (loosely) based upon"...but then you build a pretty vacuous argument featuring a good deal of personal abuse, as if the film was some sort of documentary which it clearly isn't.

Sorry for any pain you personally have felt, but I don't believe the Penn character is portrayed as being a saint and I think the fictional victims' families' pain and suffering is made very apparent, whether you agree with the filmed portrayal of that or not.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nearda 12 years ago

The movie's message is not that there is no right answer, but that we are wrong if we fail to think through the questions.

The main purpose seems to be to challenge us to find greater possibilities of empathy within.

Empathy is our true salvation, not the sacraments.

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 2 days ago

"Empathy is our true salvation, not the sacraments."

Does it ALWAYS work though, and does it apply to say mass murderers? While it may be needed, does it really like that work in all cases though?

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] liscarkat-2 10 years ago

This movie is apparently over the original posters head. The simple-minded continue to say that it presents both sides of the question equally, when it is obvious that it is strongly against the death penalty, making a martyr of the criminal, and addressing the sorrow of the victims' parents as a secondary issue. The murderer's mother is the subject of the most sympathy, while the victims' mothers and fathers are presented as unreasonable and hard-hearted. The nun invests all of her emotional energy in the killer, while paying visits to his victims' families as an afterthought that hadn't even occurred to her until she was reminded of them. At the very end, the rapist/murderer is presented as a crucifix symbol while the nun weeps and tells him she loves him. Yes both sides of the death penalty issue are presented, but it's obvious which side the film makers want the audience to side with. There is no balance.

[–] bpollen 10 years ago

That is not the way I see the movie. I agree with the OP that the movies DOES present both sides of the issue and doesn't take a position. I am in favor of the death penalty in certain limited circumstances, when the proof is beyond question, and preferably when there's an ironclad confession. The movie didn't come close to changing my mind. It presented the complex issue well, I think.

A person may not think both sides were presented IF that person wants only to see his position presented and doesn't want to see the other side, as well.

The murdere's mother is shown with sympathy and is in a lot of the scenes because she is, after all, the mother, and is more involved with the execution than the victims' mothers. It also shows a viewpoint from the criminal's family....how it affects them. They didn't do the crime, they think the crime was heinous, like everyone else does. Yet they love the criminal and that doesn't stop because he turns out to be bad.

The victims' mothers and fathers were portrayed well, I thought. A picture was painted of them and their children that was so heartbreaking I thought I was gonna cry.

I thought it was balanced. We already know a lot about victims, and our sympathies are already with the victims and their families. So they spent plenty of time on that.

As for the criminal's mother, my thoughts, also (contrary to what you seem to think...that she got a lot of sympathy), my thoughts were that she had a hand in creating the monster. She had obviously not done her job as a mother. She, too, had had bad parents, no doubt. And on and on. But it didn't escape me that she is probably partly to blame for his turning out to be evil.

The film was pretty well balanced on the issue.

[–] liscarkat (18367) 2 years ago

Very, very clearly, both sides are not presented equally in this movie. The criminal and his family are the focus of the majority of sympathy and attention, and the bias of the film makers is easy to see.