*Spoilers!* A question about the ending - Calibre (2018) Discussion

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Not exactly. They wanted the other guy dead but couldn't do it themselves. So they decided to use Vaughn as a tool. I mean they would prefer killing them both, but the whole situation in their town/family was already complicated enough and bringing in the police would only complicate things. In a way they've killed two birds with one stone: one of the guys was dead, the other one could be blackmailed any time (apart from the fact that from now on he will live like a killer and a spineless moron that he is, yes).

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2478) 7 years ago

I disagree with your consensus that Vaughan was a "spineless moron". I think he was basically a good man and basically representative of most of us, an every day man.... caught up in a situation spiraling rapidly out of control.
The real question is...what would you do?

[spoiler]Vaughan accidentally kills the boy and his friend reacts swiftly at the threat of the father. But was the father really going to kill Vaughan and was his reaction necessary?
Maybe if his friend hadn't killed the father than Vaughan would've taken his due..But then again, would they have survived the anger of this backwoods village in the first place. Would they have been condemned anyway without the cover up?
Who knows?
All of these are unknowns.
Very few people would go to the drastic extent of his friend and I think it was obvious it was not likely to work out.

Vaughan still wanted to do the "right thing" even after his friend had killed the father but no longer felt his say was enough since his friend had dug a deeper hole for them both and they were now beyond an accident and actually guilty of murder.
They could've pleaded self defense but it might've been a hard sell.
So once his friend killed the father there was little they could do.. There were no good choices.

In the end it was he and his friend both dying or saving himself..
What would you do?
Vaughan will suffer with this for the rest of his life so maybe his friend really got the easier choice. He is probably going to wish many times in the future that he had died with his friend..[/spoiler]

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

So how would you describe a 'spineless moron' then?
Or maybe such a type doesn't exist for you at all and there are just various degrees of an every day good man?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

@bohemianroxie

I would never aim a gun at an innocent, majestic, beautiful, and dear (pun intended) creature such as a deer. The point I was trying to make was that Vaughn was finicky. He believed killing deer was unfair, but he still let his friend pressure him into doing it. And that lack of backbone on his part led to their debacle. He had the right ethics, and a good heart, but his failure to act on what he knew was right in his heart led to the deaths of innocent people.

Killing an animal for the pure joy of the hunt is repugnant to me. It is not like they were doing it for survival... because there was nothing to eat and they needed food. They did it to lord over the creatures of the wild.

Don't get me wrong... I did feel for Vaughn. But he reminded me of my former self, who would just let random strangers peer pressure me into doing things that God - my conscience- said just weren't right for me to do. No need to get into that, though. We've all been guilty of just following the wicked urgings and advice of our best friends/ family, etc..

"Calibre" reminded me of another movie about a similar topic: "Walking Out".

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2478) 7 years ago

Well, I totally, totally agree on the hunting aspect..and have never understood the sport of it at all. I find it disturbing and painful to even think about and I'm such a opponent of the "sport" that it very nearly put me off seeing the film.

But here's where I try to be open minded...I try not to judge everyone by my standards..Especially males (as I am female) and how it has often been presented as a form of macho bonding in film. I may not like it but everyone is not like me.

I did like Vaughan immediately better when he made that statement at the beginning (and they didn't take it for granted that he was gung-hu) and was hopeful that he either wouldn't participate or would only pretend to participate but would intentionally miss. Maybe that's kind of spineless but it's a way to appease a buddy. Maybe that's how it happened..Maybe he did try to "miss".

Yes..if he'd just owned up to his statement in the car and not shot at all than maybe all the tragedy could've been avoided. And so would this movie...

But it was simply an accident and even one that could have happened to his buddy Marcus. It could probably happen to anyone out in the woods shooting off a gun. And if they had been in a more civilized setting then it would've been a tragedy easily explained away. But that's not what happened and whether it could've happened to his friend is just semantics.
It needed to happen to Vaughan because of the sense that he was more morally driven than his friend Marcus and Marcus needed to shoot the father to further cut off any coherent options for these guys.

I think the main point of the film (besides being an excellent thriller) is that it should make one think about what they would do after that first shot is fired..not whether that shot is fired at all.

And I think it does a good job of creating a situation where all options seem destined for disaster.
There just aren't any good choices.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Thanks for the reply to my reply, bohemianroxie.

The way I see it, Vaughn had to go through the experience to learn from it and reflect upon it. Maybe now he will put his wife and children first, rather than a friend who is (was) a degenerate. The movie kept showing us how Vaughn's friend did morally questionable and reckless things. A big example: killing Sammy's father. There was no attempt made by him to express remorse, get understanding, share his point of view ... nothing.

I know that you want to see Vaughn's friend in a favourable light, given that he was trying to help Vaughn, but going about it in that trigger-happy way of his was just not the right thing to do. How could he so easily kill a man?? Just POW! Just like that?? He had it coming to him!

All I'm saying is that there are consequences to our actions. I'm 30, and like you I am a female. And to live in a world where men are not true men - where men cannot see the innocence of God's creatures - is a disheartening and scary thing. I would never take a man who "goes hunting with his boys" seriously. My husband is not such a man, and even he agreed with me that Vaughn's friend was scum.

But then, I'm partial to beautiful-looking creatures. So whether you agree with me or not depends on whether you love the type of animals I love and don't wish to see them eaten.

I see no problem in eating meat. I understand that an animal has had its life taken so I can be nourished. I see it as a gift from God and give humble thanks for it. But killing animals for sport and getting a sick pleasure from taking life is something I can't stand. So many beautiful creatures are now endangered because mankind cannot see animals as having dignity.

"Calibre" is a movie about the sanctity of animal life. It's easy to miss that once the first shot is fired...

reply

[–] bohemianroxie (2478) 7 years ago

I may agree with you about your love of animals. I do share that feeling.
...But I'm always careful not to stereotype and paint groups of people with a broad brush..That is; all whites or blacks or males or females or liberals or conservatives...etc..etc..or even hunters...are not just one thing and we discredit ourselves, I think, when we make others only one thing.
I can judge sociopaths or deliberately cruel people but I don't think Marcus falls under this category.
I do think one of the biggest problems today is that people make their minds up about people simply because they are different than themselves or have different values or opinions. It's easy to judge from our easy chairs and believe we, ourselves, are made of a higher moral fiber and would always do the right thing.
But are we and would we?

I think what this movie is about is how most people are not one thing but many things; good and bad. Vaughan seems the most moral because of his ambivalence towards hunting and his resisting the temptation of a nice girl that he connects with.. Some guys would go for it. He seems nicer because his first impulse is to do what most would consider the right thing..
Marcus seems a bad influence toward impulse and reckless behavior and maybe he is. But it seems to me he suffered as much for his decisions as Vaughan. He did not seem to take those choices lightly without emotional fallout. He may be someone that is flawed but he isn't evil.

Yes, maybe it all could've been avoided if Vaughan had been true to himself and not taken that shot in the first place..Maybe he was too easily influenced. Maybe he was weak.
But I really think the film is about what even the best of human beings might be capable of when their back is up against the wall..We like to think the best of ourselves but are we sure we would always do the right thing if seriously challenged?

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

@bohemianroxie

Thanks for your reply, again.

I believe that the most poignant movies have something to say about morality. So... if you think of the movie as a morality play, then you'll see that it makes a statement about the truth - not belief, but truth - that bad company corrupts good morals. And, don't kill innocent animals for the sick pleasure that it gives you.

You put yourself in the characters' shoes, and I admit that I have a tendency to do that too. We like to think about what we ourselves would do in such situations... But all great cinema - and this was a FINE piece of film-making- will have something to say about how we can live better in the world.

The movie gives the immoral amongst us food for thought. Actually, more than that, to me, this movie flat out said: "If you hang out with people who believe in and display signs of violence and general immorality, you will bring that violence right to your front door. Chaos will come 'a-knocking!"

This movie just stands to me as a emblem of the Truth and the primacy of Natural Law. All those who don't adhere to the natural laws of the universe will be punished with suffering as their lot.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

QUOTE:
"but he still nearly took the life of an innocent creature (the deer)."

^^^ Good thing the only life he took was an innocent creature (the little boy), and not your precious deer.

If the friend is a degenerate, it's not because he guys animals. Morality depends on the culture and time period, for many you yourself may be immoral so it's subjective.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

@ vicky_lc2001

If you have no understanding of Natural Law, or believe that truth is relative and not absolute, we will disagree indefinitely, my friend.

All I gotta say is that the initiating action - the cause for their misfortune - is (was) the intention to kill the deer. The effect was Vaughn's friend's ultimate demise at the hands of his own buddy.

Just think about it for a minute. Look at the chain of events that took place. Cause and effect is a fundamental principle of Natural Law. If they hadn't done that one thing - gone hunting - they wouldn't have landed in their shit-storm.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

Morality does not equal truth.

As for the action initiating the killing of the boy, you could also say that it was due to both heavily drinking the night before. You cannot judge people for hunting, a practice that has been consistently done ever since men/women walked the earth. And a tradition still continually done which has no bearing to morality in many cultures. Also I can never understand this Western empathy for animals yet they cannot extend the same empathy for their fellow human beings, ex. The boy killed.

You could also say if they hadn't met when they were 12 in boarding school, none of this would've happened. If you're going to use cause and effect, use it rationally and point to an irresponsible act which was their drinking and Marcus loaning his rifle to Vaugn.

If you really think about it, Marcus would've gotten little time if he had not covered up the bodies and they went to the cops. What exactly did he do that he could not get out of? He killed the father thinking he would shoot Vaugn and that could be easily argued on his defense. What is inexcusable is their reckless irresponsibility of binge drinking and him loaning his rifle to Vaugn which makes him an accessory perhaps? Vaugn would've gone to jail for a long time perhaps, especially given the irresponsibility that led to the act.

A lot of people hunt for their food or clothing, I see nothing wrong with it nor will I judge them for that. And I don't see that as either immoral or amoral.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

@ vicky_lc2001

Please get this straight: I do not think of the deer as more important than the boy. Twice now you have accused me of saying this. Nowhere did I make that comparison. I would say that the innocence of the deer is AKIN TO the innocence of the young boy. They were BOTH innocent - which is my point. (I have a great regard for children, having been a teacher for a good 8 years of my life.)

Now, you said: "Morality does not equal truth."

So what is Truth in your eyes, my friend?

You also said: "You could also say if they hadn't met when they were 12 in boarding school, none of this would've happened. If you're going to use cause and effect, use it rationally and point to an irresponsible act which was their drinking and Marcus loaning his rifle to Vaugn."

You think their DRINKING led to their debacle? They had GONE OUT with the INTENTION of HUNTING! Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understood it, they weren't in the forest, starved, with no food.Then the killing of the deer would have been okay. They would have been doing it as a means to sustenance.

But they went out with BLOODLUST - Vaughn's friend (Marcus) much more so than Vaughn. Vaughn abandoned his pregnant wife and went with his degenerate friend into the woods, hunting, with the intention of taking a life that he had no right to take! In his heart and mind, he believed that killing animals was unfair, but he couldn't translate this principle into ACTION. He still listened to his puppeteer of a friend, lined up to take his shot, and FIRED... killing an innocent boy instead of the deer.

That was not an accident! That was Natural Law in motion. And it was quick!

I kept saying three things in my previous posts to bohemianroxie (the previous poster). Did you read them before replying to my original post? I assumed you did, but I will make those points again:

#1) Bad company corrupts good morals.

reply

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

The implication is made on your first post when you expressed relief from the killing of a deer as if the killing of the boy is not of worse merit.

That's the second time you refer to Marcus as a degenerate for hunting. Now you describe him and Vaugn with bloodlust. I sometimes wonder when you guys make such preposterous observations and over the top proclamations, as if perspective does not exist where you come from. Many hunt for survival and many do still without that need, but still both experience the thrill of the hunt, is it blood lusting? Idk but it may be a skewed view of enjoying the sport or act of hunting. The English royal family still hunt I believe, are they all as you say in a blood lust?

As for morality, for many abortion is immoral, evil even but for you perhaps and many from your country, you may even consider it moral. Because fetuses are not seen as human and therefore less worthy of empathy than an animal's. The Romans also had a similar view of infants and many were killed or thrown away so for them, morality is dictated by the values and traditions of their culture. In other cultures, all children are not considered human and so their morals differ.

So our values are not the same as all as I see yours as marred by PC and SJW culture, both which I can sympathize/empathize with but cannot abide with.

Imo binge drinking and nursing a hangover when doing a dangerous sport/practice is irresponsible and immoral but you clearly do not have the same hang ups as I do with binge drinking and irresponsibility because in your view both are acceptable, except for hunting which you find to be a degenerate act. And

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

# 2) Hunting an animal in the spirit of bloodlust - for the sheer sport of it - is wrong.
# 3) Natural law = the law of cause and effect = karma = you reap what you sow
I will add here that Natural Law operates whether you know it is in effect or not. It is a fundamental law in the universe. It is a law that governs human behaviour.

You don't really give a damn about the lives of animals - lions, tigers, deer? Poaching is a-ok to you? The fact that so many majestic creatures are killed for their fur and other body parts - because of human greed and idiocy?

At least you agree with me that Vaughn and Marcus should have ran to the police, confessed all, and pled for mercy. That would have been the morally right thing to do. Yes, we are in agreement there.

At the end, Vaughn escaped the situation by the skin of his teeth. God knew that even though he was a tool, he wasn't an outright murderer. So his life was ultimately spared.

But, I'm going to maintain that it was the attempted murder of the deer that started everything. Before that, those two douche-bags were FREE.

I recommend watching "Walking Out" and "The Legacy of a Whitetail Deer Hunter" (both are on Netflix and both are cinematic masterpieces). Those two movies are also about the sanctity of animal life. Once again, killing for sport versus killing for sustenance - big difference!

reply

[–] howgamer (3988) 7 years ago

I think the villagers expected that Vaughn wouldn't kill his friend and therefore bloodthirsty Brian could kill both.

I thought he would either have killed himself or Marcus rather than do nothing.

In the end, it made sense that he killed Marcus as it went along with his character and the theme of immoral acts throughout the film. The only character with a shred of morality was Logan.

reply