MovieChat Forums > Redbelt (2008) Discussion > You won't get it just watching it once

You won't get it just watching it once




This isn't a simple superhero movie; it's not an action film. It's a character study, a film about a man who's a teacher and spiritualist committed to his craft and moral code, whose ambitions are not to become the best jiujitsu fighter in the country, get rich & famous and open a chain of academies all over the world.

Mamet, like most good screenwriters, doesn't tell you everything though much is hinted at by action and dialogue throughout the film.

Who is Mike Terry? He used to drink; he quit. He was in Desert Storm, a former military man. When he visits the set for the first time and meets up with an old friend who is doing the stunts, his friend asks him "did you tell them what you did (in the war?)." "no," Terry says, "I didn't tell them."

War is one of the most traumatic events anyone can go through. I suspect that Mike performed heroically and evolved spiritually as a result. His wife's brother refers to him as "the soldier" in that "the Brazilian princess married the soldier and now 10 years later he's pumping gas." They expected him to chase the dollars, to use his skills to become rich and famous...which is what his wife really wants and expected, too, underscored by the glance of newfound respect when Terry gets the invitation to Chet Frank's house, the big movie star. She thinks that now they are on their way to fame and glory and does her best to encourage him to stay on that path. But faced with losing that dream after coming so close, she sells her husband out symbolized by her sitting with the Franks at the fight where she will enjoy her husband as the trained dog in the ring. It's the atty, who's just been through her own war--the traumatic rape--who's on the same page as Terry and who ends up with the belt in the end.

I think it's fantastic that a writer can load so much into a film without spelling it out word for word. The hints are enough for you to fill in the blanks but no way would I have caught it all in a single viewing.

reply

All that you say is true, but...

None of it is really earned and the con makes no sense. I like the film thematically, but it doesn't really work. It's still better than most of the stuff out there, but it could have been so much better.

Are you chewing gum??!!!

reply



Sure it has flaws but the film successfully plays out its message. I had no problem with the con--when people see an opportunity to make a lot of money and that's what they care about above all else--they'll pull together to make it work. The lawyer knew he didn't have to actually have the Officer Joe's shell; he just had to know what happened and bluff others into believing he had the evidence to support his argument. Most cons are imperfect, unelaborate lies and sloppy betrayals (Bernard Madoff case in point) And most victims never know how easily they've been duped, and like Officer Joe, fold in despair rather than fight back (which is why Terry was slapped).

I found this film much more satisfying than The Wrestler and one I'd watch a number of times.

reply