MovieChat Forums > Redbelt (2008) Discussion > You can explain away everything but this

You can explain away everything but this

posted 16 years ago by BigJohnPilgrim
5 replies | jump to latest

I liked this movie, good action flick, unique plot twists, plenty of real MMA/UFC characters, great acting, sleazy sleazeballs, ups and downs, great nuevo flamenco-style guitar soundtrack, you name it. The plot holes already inveiled can be overlooked and explained away, except for one I have yet to see mentioned:

No way would a true martial artist dream up the handicap scheme. And no way would a martial artist with even the tiniest bit of honor step into the ring with anyone who was not able to fight to his full potential due to an artificial handicap. There is no honor in winning under such circumstances.

Ah, well, I guess the writers needed some extra plot twist to put it all together. I still liked the movie, I just thought that was in glaring opposition to the theme of martial honor that this movie strove so hard to present.

ADDED: OK, for those who missed my follow-up, I concede the handicap is a valid training system. I think I was dozing at the point where it was explained and just thought it was presented as part of a discussion of competition, which it must not have been, so my bad there. But I absolutely stick to the point that no MMA fighter would fight someone in the ring, especially for title belt, if they were artificially handicapped in some way. If you think any MMA fighter would do that, you have a problem with reality. And something else occurs to me that bothered me during the movie. The whole picking of the ball scenario just didn't click, and it made for good theater to make the audience think that the magician could control the picks, but in reality any switches would be noticed pretty quickly, and in any event, a fixing scheme wouldn't stand up to scrutiny in such a wide-open arena.

Say what you will, like I said, I liked this movie. Any movie has flaws, some more, some less. Sometimes you have to allow flaws to keep the plot line intact, as in this case. But I don't take anything away from a very good movie. And BTW, I think Chiwetel Ejiofor's performance was awesome, as is becoming his standard. He seems to be becoming the next action hero, only on an exotic level with his mixed heritage and British accent. His performance in the very awesome movie Serenity was chilling, gripping, and eventually, heartwarming.

So, if this opinion has insulted anyone, I apologize. Just an opinion, people.

Come see a fat old man sometime!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] BigJohnPilgrim 16 years ago

Yes, he had a philosophy and training approach that there is always an out, that no matter what your handicap you can always overcome the odds, and I suppose that explains the "three stones" training system to provide an unexpected handicap. However, it seemed like when he explained that system, the orientation was towards competition and not simply training. It would have made more sense if someone had overseen the training system being used and stolen it, instead of the lame way his wife and he explained it as if it were always intended for competition, then giving it away.

Come see a fat old man sometime!

[–] blackbrown 16 years ago

1. They don't explain in any way that implies it was meant for competition.
2. They don't give it away. Terry is hired on the movie and he essentially sells it to the movie where it was meant to be portrayed as an Army training method. It is unlawfully sold to the fighting commission. Terry was never supposed to know that Joe Mantegna and Ricky Jay were in business together.

[–] blackbrown 16 years ago

To the OP,

1. I'm not trying to argue your point, but this is in no way, shape, or form a plot hole, which you seem to be lumping it as. Maybe in real life someone wouldn't agree with it, but since it is the very first thing we are shown in the movie and it is a major theme throughout, it defies no logic within the movie and is therefore not a plot hole.

2. Another major theme in the movie is about how making money is more important than having integrity/honor to many people. In fact, this is the central theme of the movie. As a training method, you have no argument since it would be a valuable and honorable training method to any martial artist. As for the fighter's in the ring during the tournament, how many more examples of greed would you need to be shown within the movie until you understand that a fighter may not respect his discipline's code of honor? According to the movie, even competing in a tournament is a somewhat disrespectful practice.

3. The plot holes in this movie are intentional and do not need to be explained away. This movie is a clear fable. It is supposed to be wildly fantastic, but that fantasy is juxtaposed with realism. At no time ever in the real world could events unfold the way they do within this movie. Even the beginning is absurd - the cop had absolutely no feasible reason not to report the shooting - but that doesn't mean that the movie has to make a choice between portraying realism or fantasy. Mamet is perfectly free to blend both elements and he does quite effectively. Unfortunately, everyone seems to need everything spelled out for them so movies get attacked if they blend realism with unrealism because of a profound lack of imagination on viewers' parts.

[–] freak-65 16 years ago

I'd have to disagree... Mike Terry used the 'handicap' scheme as a teaching/training tool and it's use as such makes perfect sense. Why would you limit yourself to moves and counters that you can make at 100%? Learning to fight and defend yourself in handicapped situations is extremely valuable.

As far as it being taken mainstream for public consumption... yeah, that was kinda hard to swallow though. But it made for good cinema.