For those of you who don't 'Get it'...

I would like to hear more about the things you are talking about, e.g. refs being paid off. Are you able to share more on this forum, or perhaps provide some links or references for further information?

The crowd didn't know why he was fighting, that's why they were stunned and silent the whole time. There was no "slow clapper" or spontaneous applause. Even as he walked into the ring and gets the belt from the Professor, there is no applause. Those people don't get it. The only two people who understand what happened are the Professor and the Asian guy that was going to fight and, most likely, was in on the whole rigging of the fight. The assumption can be that he realized he was wrong and was without true honor, thus giving the belt to the man that fought against greed and corruption. The Professor clearly knew the whole thing was a farce and a bastardization of the honor and beauty of martial arts; this is evidenced when Mike enters the arena before the climactic fight and sees the look on the Professor's face--one of true sadness, disgust, and lose of hope to see how far his art has fallen and how seemingly irredeemable it has become. When Mike triumphs, the Professor passes the mantle--or in this case the belt--to the true warrior.

Does that clear it up for you?

Remember, only two people really understand why the two are fighting and we are shown this by the way they react when Mike triumphs. The rest of the audience, the entire audience including the announcers, are just stunned and confused. They fight is not being taped because it is symbolic, they are taping it because to them it is just more entertainment. In fact, what I love about the ending is that it seems like Mike is going to go into the ring and make a speech, which of course would be over-done and uncomfortably preachy, but instead we get this moment of true humanity, true respect. The audience at the fight does not need to know why this is happening, because they are just as corrupt as the business and it would be preaching to deaf ears.

The only other person who reacts is the Laura (Emily Mortimer, a fantastic actress). She would not have understood things if she had not been closely involved in helping Mike--and being helped by Mike--over the course of the film. One also gets the impression that she was told by Mike that the whole fight was a sham in the parking lot and, when she slaps him, seems to be telling him to get in there and stand up for the truth. So, technically, there are three people who understand what is really happening at the end, aside from Mike and the people who rigged the fight (who clearly have all ducked out).

The crowd is not supposed to know why they were fighting. This isn't a movie about changing the world in that sense, enlightening the crowd. That couldn't happen. Mike tells Jerry (Joe Mantegna) "a cop died" and what's the response? "Everybody dies", now go make some money (paraphrase). Jerry represents what is underneath the crowd screaming for blood and spectacle. The crowd is a creation of the spectacle, of the fake. They cannot be changed, only denied. It is not about them, it is about the truth, honor, respect, etc.

Do you understand now?

This is one of Mamet's best, in my opinion. I haven't seen them all, unfortunatly, but I've seen most. It works on so many levels and it explores visual territory (martial arts) that I never thought Mamet was even into, let alone would make a film about. I also felt that dialogue and acting were exceptional and very engrossing. This is true of nearly all Mamet films, except maybe "The Spanish Prisoner", which was still an amazingly enjoyable film, but in "Redbelt" it is taken a step further, where it all seems so much more real in its understatement. It's hard for me to explain exactly what I mean, and I'm sure there are people who wouldn't agree with me on the acting and dialogue bit and that's fine. But the main part of this post is pretty spot on.

Are you really David Mamet?

My mistake...four coffins.
My Film Site:http://www.strikeaposefilms.com/

Listen.

Good stories don't need to be defended or explained. "Various dimensions" is, really, just a corny buzz-phrase used to mask weakness in a plot. It's pseudo-intellectual *beep* nothing more.

It's the same thing as saying, "Well, it's not so much of a story as it is a character study." Or, "The premise is rich with layers that <insert ridiculous and vague synopsis here>."

It's little more than an excuse, if not a guarded admission and apology.

Basically, if you ever hear a writer spouting nonsense like this, you can pretty much assume that for all his/her explanation and indignant resolve, deep down, he/she knows the idea went off the rails somewhere along the way.

Trust me on this.

And, just to respond briefly to this completely incoherent rambling:

"As for the swine upon which these pearls were cast, nobody was calling them morons for not understanding the film. However, for their derision, as if to vent frustration at being upstaged by a more sophisticated soul, I would call them so."

Lord Christ. Good thing my seat reclines because that almost knocked me out of my chair! How many hours did you toil over that one? Such sage words of wisdom. Is it available on papyrus scroll?

Maybe you shouldn't be so self-absorbed, slappy. Try to open your mind to the possibility that this movie just missed and you're not as insightful as you think.

If I were Mamet, I'd be insulted that you think I would really speak like this. How long did it take you to look up every other word in the thesaurus and pick a longer one?