Is that they totatly ruin the ambiguity of whether (jackson) is guilty or not halfway through the film. I think the suspense and the court room scenes would have been made all the more dramatic, if it hadn't been spoiled by the tape viewing. :(
shareYou know, you're absolutely right. I rented this movie along Paul Greengrass' Bloody Sunday, in a cheapdeal, sort of like the same subject, and I was disgusted by the patriotic garbage that was shown: The US doesn't (or don't, is US plural?) shoot at unarmed civilians, they're all terrorists, even the women and children. Luckily Greengrass' movie was better.
But the tapeshowing, yes, threw the level down from court-suspence to vomitbag. Not even good acting could undo that.
I completely AGREE! In fact, I wish the movie had started AFTER they all came back from Yemen. I wish we had no idea what the real situation had been - let us wonder, let us be in suspense, let the videotape have been captured by the mob - and Tommy Lee Jones find it on his trip - and play it for us for the first time at the trial.
We know throughout that he's innocent - and that really hurts the suspense.
"We know throughout that he's innocent - and that really hurts the suspense."
I think that's part of the idea. WE the audience knows Childers is innocent but all the physical evidences yells GUILTY!
Genius is the ability to put into effect what is on your mind.
-F. Scott Fitzgerald
It would be have been a lot better, if we really didnt know childers innocence. It would have played better on our emotions that way.
shareHm.. ANyone else have thoughts on this?
shareI think that in a way it makes it more suspenseful. It's like in a horror movie, you get more scared knowing that a person is about to turn a corner and run into the killer than it is if you're simply watching the character turn a corner and you have no idea where the killer is.
You know he's innocent but they don't know that yet. Any minute now she's gonna meet the killer. Why doesn't she turn around?
Those are my thoughts on it anyway.
Well, remember that the shooting is shown twice, first from the crowd's point of view and then from Childers', in flashback. The first gives the impression that Childers overreacted and the people who were shot were innocents fleeing for their lives. The second version gives the impression that the entire crowd is armed, including the girl who Hodges saw in Yemen, and Childers immediately gives the order to cease fire after the shooting on his position is subdued. The viewer has those two versions of the events to weigh. So yes, I think the confirmation of the videotape was not needed. But then most of the stuff with the national security advisor was a weak part of the film. And what was the deal with there never being a resolution to the subplot with the Ambassador and his wife ?
shareThe fact that Childer is innocent is a demand of US audience, during the sneak preview.
In the original cut you never knew what had happened to the tape, it didn't show the tape being destroyed and it didn't show what was on the tape.
The flashback scene where you see Childers actually seeing chidren and women with guns was then supposed to be ambiguous because it might have been what had happened or it might have been what he convinced himself had happened. It was only his point of view and not and objective vision of the incident.
Same goes with the ending text that explains us that the NSA guy and the ambassadory are going to be punished. It was added after the sneak previews because US audience wanted the "bad guys" to be punished.
I take all this from Friedkin's audio commentary.