MovieChat Forums > Street Kings (2008) Discussion > Moral of the Movie? Everything is a secr...

Moral of the Movie? Everything is a secret?

posted 9 years ago by josephson
6 replies | jump to latest

So we find out in the end, he goes from being one side's secret
to the other side's secret.

There are no good or bad cops. It's just all about who can take care of who
better and keep it a secret.

Isn't that the moral of life? Everyone just look out for themselves, and use
whatever leverage you have to your advantage to take care of your own needs
the your buddies.

Savings code: ZAM598 for $10 OFF at http://www.iherb.com/?rcode=ZAM598

[–] SolariS6 9 years ago

I considered Reeves the driving force of a cleanse to get rid of some bad blood, clear his conscience and get some sort of redemption in line with his innermost character. He was struggling with it the entire movie and needed to gain the clarity to really know the full extent of where he belongs.

I wouldn't exactly say it's a moral of life but a reality in walking the fine line of the dog eat dog world, especially in the concrete jungle like these characters inhabited. If you say it's a moral, I think you're justifying your own corruption and aligning with what Wander stated at the end, how everyone's bad. You have to fight it like Reeves even in the darkest of times. If you're doing something bad with your eyes closed, you're still redeemable, but once you awaken to realize it's bad and you continue to do it is when you scar yourself irredeemably. That's just my takeaway from this movie, yours may vary.

[–] MIJACology 9 years ago

The moral of this movie? Maybe it's just that police departments can have corruption too. Detective Ludlow wen't into the situation blinded by naivete. By the end of the movie he woke up to the truth about his police department.

[–] MarkAntney 9 years ago

I won't use Naive. He just didn't realize he was surrounded by more (corrupt) criminals in LE than he was fighting on the streets.

Because they too were (supposedly) fighting crime along with him and they were his friends.

Now, if he'd had reports/evidence of his friends wrong-doing earlier (which he didn't as far as I know) then maybe he could be naive.

IOWs, I don't consider judgement mistakes can also be "Naive" mistakes, if that makes sense?

[–] MIJACology 9 years ago

We don't need to use the word naive, but you get my meaning.

I also would like to add, the bigger moral, beyond the fact that police can be corrupt, is that supposedly society needs killer cops like Ludlow. The whole speech Biggs gave him at the end of the movie bore that out. It was basically a hymn singing the praises of police who go too far and commit extrajudicial killings.

[–] MarkAntney 9 years ago

I agree on that, someone mentioned similar which I commented on. It's folks (the Chief) justifying corruption and lawlessness from those that are supposed to be be anything but that. And I'm not saying "Don't Snitch" (the Hood and the mafia) is Right but where I'm from (the hood); it's also based on NOT Trusting LE, not just a code.

Regardless, movies like this, Training Day, Internal Affairs, Narc, LA Confidential, and Dark Blue,..are excellent movies to me.

Serpico and American Gangster were OK but not as "Gritty"; if that's the word?

[–] MIJACology 9 years ago

If you are using the word gritty in the sense of realistic, then I agree that American Gangster wasn't as gritty, even if based on a true story. Serpico struck me as incredibly gritty because it was filmed in old New York City, New York City being the traditional epitome of "grit", and the main protagonist (Serpico) not being a wealthy man living in a wealthy picturesque place. And yes, Street Kings is gritty. Ludlow was filthy, probably with dirty fingernails and all. Somewhat of a slob. But I do get your points overall.