I am not sure if the OP was really serious in his post. But if the young hoods were asked to defend what they did to the couple, they would have used precisely the same arguments that the OP had made as the justification.
Thus the original post at least helped to explain why Steve and Jenny got into trouble. To answer quickly the question raised in the title, I don’t think anyone “deserved” to be tortured and killed, but Steve had behaved in such an idiotic manner that the tragic outcome was at least partly of his own making.
We see in the film a classic example of class conflict and clash between two cultures (which indeed could occur within the same country). Steve and Jenny were middle-class, educated, and had reasonably good jobs. They undoubtedly felt themselves superior to the people in that neighborhood. They probably had a sheltered life so far. By contrast, the local youths came from relatively poor families and their parents had low levels of education and thus were caught in dead-end jobs. As the OP suggested, Steve and Jenny – just like the developers that were about to come in to build condominiums and thus destroy the natural scenery – were looked upon by the young hoods as “invaders”. Steve’s biggest mistake was in expecting the local youths to think and behave in the same way he did. In fact their standards and values – and especially their concepts of right and wrong – were so different that they inevitably came into conflict. To Steve, the kids were wrong in making excessive noise and disturbing other people in a public place. To the youths, since a “public place” by definition belongs to nobody, they were free to do anything they wanted. When Steve complained about their noise, they regarded it as harassment. When he called Brett a dick and turned off the music himself, it was indeed regarded as a “declaration of war”.
I at least share the OP’s dislike of the Steve character. He was a wimp who tried to act macho. But when the situation began to get out of control, he chickened out and acted like the coward he actually was.
reply
share
Darkfalz1979
12 years ago
Agree with your analysis 100% except the last bit. He didn't "chicken out", he was badly outnumbered. You don't really expect he was going to "cut his losses" by letting them keep his car, phone and wallet do you?
My fiancee and I act a little like Steve and Jenny when we go to lower socio-economic areas on cheap holidays, cheeky looks to each other, raised eyebrows that sort of thing, however the last thing I would do is provoke one of the locals, let alone a gang of them.
That being said, say the stereo episode never happened, and skip straight to the car being stolen and go from there. It all falls apart here, because you can't argue he and his girlfriend weren't trust unfairly into a horrible situation with a pack of hoods with no regard for the law, for consequences, and ultimately for human life.
reply
share
michaeldecker
12 years ago
'....That being said, say the stereo episode never happened, and skip straight to the car being stolen and go from there....'
That's ridiculous - you can't simply strike out the genesis of the problem and pretend it started at a later point! The yuppies started the confrontation, and reaped the whirlwind - end of!
reply
share