Frank sits around, drinks beer and watches television all the time because he is in a deep, dark depression and he's lost to the world. He sees it (America mostly) as a cesspool and it's destroying him. Stewing in self-pity is just another symptom of that. Then, he finds what he considers to be the answer to his problems and he dives right in to solve them. That's neither laziness nor self-pity.
The next question is "Is he selfish?". Of course he is; I'm not going to contest that. This doesn't necessarily make him a terrible person; a lot of people I know are ridiculously selfish, yet they all have good qualities, as well and I'm sure most of them would be considered "good people", but you have to realize it was done on purpose. Goldwaithe wrote him this way to mirror the self-righteousness and hypocrisy in a lot of real people's character. How many times have you heard a co-worker say "Oh, I don't do drugs." and then see them at the bar hammered and chain-smoking a pack of cigarettes that very night? Sugarcoat it anyway you want, but the fact of the matter is that alcohol is the number one killer of Americans when it comes to drugs, illegal or legal. Cigarettes account for their fair share, but that's not really the nicotine as much as it's the pesticides and such the tobacco companies use on them. In fact, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now if you weren't being immensely self-righteous with your post. Do you really think anybody believes you are nice 100% of the time to everyone you meet? Not once have you ever flipped someone off or called somebody a name or talked about somebody behind their back? I'm a man grown; you can't fool me like that. The fact of the matter is, we are all a part of the problem at one point or another.
Another key point you're missing is that Frank is not meant to come off as a hero; he's an anti-hero. Certainly not a villain, but sometimes does things that will be considered by some to be villainous. Realistically, the big difference between a villain and an anti-hero is villains are only out for themselves and act maliciously towards their neighbors, while anti-heroes are acting on behalf of the greater good in order to save their neighbors. Think about Brad Pitt's platoon in Inglorious Bastards and you'll know what I mean; they are anti-heroes. This brings up an interesting question. Would you have had a problem with this film if it were Nazis or terrorists being shot and killed?
You could certainly argue that Frank is only out for himself, but I feel that argument falls short when you consider the fact that he is only killing based on what we are supposed to consider to be social obligations; be kind and respectful to your fellow human, don't spread unwarranted fear, and certainly never spread hate. Yes, I realize he does all of these things to an extent; please refer back to paragraph two for the explanation. Nevertheless, these are his principles and he has decided to punish, to the fullest degree, those who break them.
You're fairly quick to condemn this film by saying, "kindness is contagious", but that's not what this film is about. At it's core, it's about serious social change and "kindness is contagious" doesn't cut it in the real world. The phrase, "The death of one is a tragedy, the death of millions is just a statistic." comes to mind here. You seem to ignore the fact that there is rarely serious political change without some form of violence. You may be able to come up with a handful of scenarios where there was none, but each of those particular situations is only a minor part of a much, much larger campaign. If you consider the entire path to the country in question's political change/failed coup, you will be able to point to numerous examples of violence on both sides.
You have a very optimistic viewpoint of the world and that is commendable, especially given the age we live, but please don't let it blind you to how the world really works; your statements make you seem naive and there is no excuse for naivety when everything you could ever want to know is at the click of a mouse.
This is an incredibly important film. The social commentary within is fantastic and it saddens me greatly that critical thinking skills have fallen so low that the majority of people can't even read between the simplest of lines anymore. No wonder talentless hacks like Micheal Bay and Seth McFarland are multimillionaires. Blowing things up and making references are not plot-lines, gentlemen.
reply
share
j_money77
12 years ago
Understanding this film doesn't take any "critical thinking" because there are thesis statements coming out of Frank's mouth the entire time. He even addresses the "camera" directly to tell the audience what he wants them to know at the end. Or how about lines like "what's the point of having a civilization if you won't act civilized," yea, very subtle.
reply
share
bigheadrhino
12 years ago
You make some valid points, but I think you are making very broad assumptions about me based on a few of my opinions. I don't claim to be nice to people 100% of the time, I said that when I'm in a bad mood, a nice gesture cheers me up which in turn usually ends up with me cheering somebody else up. From that statement alone you should be able to infer that sometimes I'm in a bad mood.
My initial post is about Frank's character within the context of the film. I think you mistook the post as a critique of the film as a whole. So basically I was carrying over the suspension of disbelief into my post. I'm playing, "let's pretend Frank is a real person, and this is what I think about him." Yes, I understand that this is a film, and that it is a social commentary (there's no need to read between the lines because it's very obvious), but that's not what this thread is about.
I stand by my belief that being good to people in general has an overall positive impact on the world no matter how small. I don't believe you are illogical enough to disagree with that statement, so I'm going to assume that you thought that I was saying that this was the ONLY way to make the world a better place, and that issues like world hunger and genocide would magically be resolved the next time I hold the door open for an old lady, which I was not. I was simply suggesting a more logical course of action towards Frank's objective of making the world a "nicer" place.
reply
share
bing-57
12 years ago
> I was simply suggesting a more logical course of action towards Frank's objective of making the world a "nicer" place.
I guess it comes down to whether a person thinks that the best way to make the world a better place is to add sweetness or remove sourness.
In this movie, the representations of the decay of society were magnified by them being on television. By killing them, Frank sets the counter back towards "good" far more than he would have just by being kind to his terrible neighbors.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
reply
share