Comments by "Ash Roskell" (@ashroskell) on "The Vile Eye"
channel.
-
77
-
Yes, he seems like a perfect storm in that sense, like life conspired to play on his weaknesses and crush his strengths. Which is pretty much what lies at the heart of all great tragedies; that sense of, “If only.” The narrator of this video did a great job but overlooked the key element of the whole story, the very same thing that made The Dark Knight such a successful Joker too: He’s the quintessential, “Unreliable Narrator.” We cannot know by the end, how much of this story actually happened and, of the parts of it that did, whether they happened in the same way as he remembers them.
Like his love interest being a pure fabrication of his desperate loneliness, his unlikely meeting with Bruce Wayne and later his father, his murders, all of it could be all in his mind or just events he witnessed without taking part in them. Even his appearance on TV is brought into question. So, in that final scene, are we seeing nothing more than symbolic bloody footprints? Or are they the tracks of his latest, pointless murder?
We take on faith that this is the story of the genuine article, The Joker, Batman’s antagonist, or there would be no point in watching the movie. But, just as Joker told a different story to each person about the scars on his face in The Dark Knight, the very intrigue about him, and that we cannot ever be certain of the facts surrounding him are and that’s what makes Joker such a towering success.
People’s biggest concern about this film was that it might ruin the one characteristic about The Joker that makes him work so well, that he’s unknowable, a true agent of chaos and the antithesis of Batman, who seeks to bring order back to Gotham. Like a force of nature, he has always had no origin story, in the same way that banal evil is incomprehensible, giving him an edge that thrills the comic fans. This movie achieves the impossible, giving us that origin story to colour his narrative, but by making him utterly untrustworthy as the story teller, even to himself, we can still never really know what makes him what he is, or even if this is anything like the same story he would tell himself by the same time next week?
That’s the genius of this film and why it works so well. It respects its source material and doesn’t spoil the one great thing about what made Batman’s greatest antagonist what he was: chaos incarnate.
34
-
That’s a clever idea, and a neat twist, potentially. Is it yours? But it is an attempt to save Mills and to find a, “happier,” outcome. Yet that would have robbed the finale of its bleakness and ultimately, what made it so impactful. The fact that his plan worked, even when it was revealed and he was operating in plain sight, this is what makes him, the story and the final impact on the viewer so memorable and powerful. Remember when you watched it for the first time? Remember after that Hemingway quote and the sound of that distant helicopter fades, how you sat silently, contemplating what you’d just witnessed? Any other outcome to this tragedy would have robbed you of that moment. The reason this thriller is perfect is because it’s bone chilling in it’s inevitability. There is even a scene in the movie where Somerset tells Mills, “This won’t have a happy ending,” warning us, the audience, as much as the character in the story.
I would love to see a story about what became of the characters. Would you? Mills would not have been jailed but he would have been retired out of the police force. What would he have done with himself after recovering from the trauma? Hunted people like John Doe as a private investigator? Maybe avoided all such work forever? Could he have ever found love again? Could he have found purpose? And Somerset, who said he’d, “be around,” presumably to help Mills if he could? Did he finally retire and go, “far away from here,” wherever, “here,” is? The city is never named, so we could all see it as a city we know. What could bring these two men back together? A copycat? Wouldn’t you love to see that? It could be done disastrously, but if it was done well, I think it might be one of the most anticipated thrillers of the 21st century?
20
-
Fascinating observation about his emblem that I had never noticed, despite seeing the film multiple times. And your insights were really interesting. I’m curious as to how old you are? Only in terms of how close a contemporary of Bickle’s character you are? You certainly got a lot out of this movie.
In fairness to the narrator, if you pay close attention to his choice of words, he would be right. The police back then were worse than they are now, and that part of New York was a notorious den of iniquity, patrolled by a jaded, underfunded and openly racist police force. But, whatever legitimate criticisms you could level at them, they certainly would have payed lip service to their duty. They would naturally reject all criticism, which was all the narrator really said. I suspect that any adult living in the late 1970’s would have scoffed at the notion of going to the cops, but it had to be considered in terms of Bickle’s options.
I’ve given a lot of thought to Travis Bickle’s back story. Probably too much? It occurred to me, with the current vogue for prequels and origin stories, “Travis,” would make a great prequel movie or mini series?
I could picture the schoolboy who doesn’t fit in, but wants to who, just like in the movie, gets an even stronger rejection from women who find him shockingly weird. So, he joins the marines, thinking he’ll fit in and find friendship there, and is then sent to Vietnam. At first, he thinks he’s found the answer and wants to go career, training well, committing 100% and loving the routine and discipline. He even gets on well with authority figures and his fellow marines, and is looked up to by his squad, because he is able to disregard setbacks and injury in a way they all take for his inner strength.
But the contradictions of Vietnam soon hit home when he’s deployed in the field. The one guy he gets close to, intimate with, (another undiagnosed mentally ill person) gets killed, horribly. And it’s only later that he discovers that his friend was murdered by his fellow combat troops during a combat mission, because they found him to be such a weirdo, and because he threatened to tell on them for atrocities they routinely carried out. Travis being Travis, there’s a scene where he takes a souvenir from his buddy, a finger or an ear, and we see him cut off part of his friend, wrap it up, and we never learn what it was.
The story culminates in a shootout, at the end of a particularly gruelling battle in which half of his platoon was wiped out. The showdown occurs in the gap between the end of the battle and the wait for inbound choppers to pick up the survivors. The army can’t get the truth out of him about what went down, though they’re sure he’s murdered other troops. So, they can’t award him a Purple Heart for his wounds, without stating how, when and where he received those wounds, so they discharge him honourably, but that’s why he has no medals, despite having exit wound scars.
The whole thing could be told in flashbacks, from the interview in which the top brass are trying to get the truth out of him, perhaps? Before we meet Travis, we can see him being described by the other survivors of that final battle, painting a picture of a man who frightens them (possibly into silence) and of a man with deep intelligence, despite no formal education. All of their descriptions could build him up to be at odds with the man when we finally see him. We’re expecting a giant, covered in scars, with steely eyes, but we get a small, mumbling, average looking man, deepening the mystery about people who know him, versus the impression he makes upon first meeting. Another reason why so many seriously deranged people fly under the radar is that they never look like the, “monsters,” we expect. Having done several prison visits, I have always been struck by how normal and average everyone looks and acts when you meet them, regardless of whether they’re petty criminals or monsters.
Anyway, Travis ends with him showing up in New York and using his discharge papers and veteran’s experience to impress the guy who owns the yellow cab company, where he gets a job . . .
16
-
10
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
@TB688 : Yes, the story goes to great lengths to show us that Mills is a jock and a passionate person who can’t control his rage. And John Doe even tests that for himself when he pretends to be a reporter and narrowly escapes a beating from Mills. Mills kicks in Doe’s door, despite being persuaded that he could blow the whole case by Somerset; and he rages several times in the course of the story. We’re also shown that he’s not used to philosophical restraint, as he struggles with reading Dante, etc, whilst the smartest person he can think of in conversation is Yoda from Star Wars. While he is clever and witty, he is used to getting his way through his looks and charm and has never faced adversity, let alone such a life distorting tragedy as suddenly discovering he was instrumental in the murder of his own wife and manipulated by the figure of his own hatred. There’s even a moment in the car on the way to the finale where he nearly loses it, screaming at John Doe to, “sit back,” because he wants to beat him. The whole sense that Doe knew his men and exactly what they would do is what makes it all so powerful.
5
-
5
-
I noticed that tautology there too. However, the rest of it wasn’t so bad. It occurred to me, with the current vogue for prequels and origin stories, Travis would make a great prequel movie or mini series. I could picture the schoolboy who doesn’t fit in, but wants too, who just like in the movie, gets an even stronger rejection from women who find him shockingly weird. So, he joins the army, thinking he’ll fit in and find friendship there, and is sent to Vietnam. At first, he thinks he’s found the answer and wants to go career soldiering, training well, committing 100% and loving the routine and discipline. But the contradictions of Vietnam soon hit home when he’s deployed in the field. The one guy he gets close to (another undiagnosed mentally ill person) gets killed, horribly. And it’s only later that he discovers that his friend was murdered by his fellow combat troops during a combat mission, because they found him such a weirdo, and because he threatened to tell on them for atrocities they routinely carried out. Being Travis, he takes a souvenir from his buddy, a finger or an ear, in a scene where we see him cut off part of his friend, wrap it up, and we never learn what it was. And it all culminates in a shootout, at the end of a particularly gruelling battle in which half of his platoon was wiped out. The showdown occurs in the gap between the end of the battle and the wait for inbound choppers to pick up the survivors. The army can’t get the truth out of him about what went down, though they’re sure he’s murdered other troops. So, they can’t award him a Purple Heart for his wounds, without stating how, when and where he received his wounds, so they discharge him honourably, but that’s why he has no medals, despite having exit wound scars. The whole thing could be told in flashbacks, from the interview in which the top brass are trying to get the truth out of him, perhaps? And it ends with him showing up in New York and using his discharge papers and veteran’s experience to impress the guy who owns the yellow cab company, to get a job . . .
4
-
@Boxinghotspur57 : It’s certainly doubtful if the movie would have the iconic status it has today had it gone any other way. The twist is that John Doe truly is unbeatable. However, it was a very clever idea, and still would have made for a great ending, had it been done well. In a sense it was kind of genius, given Somerset’s status as being on the brink of retirement anyway. A self sacrifice, out of love for one’s fellow man, killing Doe before Mills could, would have been like the final check mate? The look of realisation on Doe’s face, just before Somerset announces what he’s going to do, that he lost the, “game,” and it was all for nothing, could have been set up by the dialogue on the journey there? That one thing out of place would mean failure? But, in the end, as you say, it works because of the ending as it is.
4
-
@Wattywatasaurus : Floyd’s idea was clever, genius even, and in a way, it’s almost like the story was set up for some kind of outcome like that, but when you think about it, it’s not as good as the ending we got. The whole point being one of, “inevitability.” And that he really did know these men and how they would react. That’s what left you pondering it afterwards, and what makes it stick in your thoughts now. Besides, Mill’s wife would still be dead and at least he gets away with a, “justifiable homicide,” and is unlikely to do any time for it, even if it ends his cop career? The tragedy cannot be assuaged by any sacrifice of Somerset’s? And robbing Mills of his wrathful vengeance might have done more harm than good in the end?
4
-
2
-
Well put. You’re right. It’s such a shame that the movie isn’t 100% successful, mostly because it has a foot in two camps, between camp horror and serious adult thriller. Not that it isn’t head and shoulders above most in either camp, but it does suffer by not committing to one or the other. And I loved that they not only have the two original actors who played both protagonists from the original movie, but that they are both supporting opposite sides of their original camp. Gregory Peck is sleazy as Max Caddy’s representative and Robert Mitchum is the straight arrow; beautiful touch.
I have one complaint about this otherwise great video. People always get that scriptural commandment wrong. It’s rare for an inaccurate Biblical translation to read, “Thou shalt no kill.”
It says, “Thou shalt do no murder.” Exodus 20:13. Even Christ understood that people would necessarily continue to commit, “homicide,” (in the strictest sense of the word) but that there is a big difference between killing in battle, as an executioner, or in self defence or defence of loved ones and the committing of, ‘’murder.”
We are not prohibited from killing, nor should we be. If we were, that would make every allied soldier who fought the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII unforgivable killers and self condemned to damnation. But they are not, because they did not, “murder,” anyone. Or, if they did and were found out, they were prosecuted for war crimes. This is why Jesus could do a miracle for a Roman Centurion with no conflict of interest, of fear of self contradiction.
None of this supports Max’s case, of course. But it’s an important distinction. Jesus, God and the Bible do not say, “Thou shalt not kill.” It says, “Thou shall do no murder.” And that’s different.
2
-
My guess, as to his honourable discharge from the army, and the wound he carries, is that he might well have been through a similar outcome as the one in this movie? His attempts to fit in are misunderstood. He’s joined up to find friendship and understanding, but simply can’t. He would have been more harshly rejected by girls his own age, as he was by women in the movie, due to his shocking dissonance. And I could see an awesome prequel possibility in that story, which culminated in his murdering a bunch of colleagues, who had just committed a series of atrocities in the jungles of Vietnam. That would explain why he has an honourable discharge, yet no Purple Heart, despite being wounded in the inciting incident that saw him discharged. The military, not knowing what to do with him, just got rid of him, rather than explore atrocities committed by their own troops at a trial. And they couldn’t award him a Purple Heart without explaining where and when he got wounded, or making something up. So, here he is, confused, isolated and lonely, with a worsening mental health condition, undiagnosed and ignored, a walking time bomb, waiting to go off, while he pursues his occupation as a taxi driver in what was at that time, one of the world’s worst sewers in America; downtown New York.
1
-
People always get that scriptural commandment wrong. It’s rare for an inaccurate translation to read, “Thou shalt no kill.”
It says, “Thou shalt do no murder.” Exodus 20:13. Even Christ understood that people would necessarily continue to commit, “homicide,” (in the strictest sense of the word) but that there is a big difference between killing in battle, as an executioner, or in self defence or defence of loved ones and the committing of, ‘’murder.” We are not prohibited from killing, nor should we be. If we were, that would make every allied soldier who fought the Nazis and the Japanese in WWII unforgivable killers and self condemned to damnation. But they are not, because they did not, “murder,” anyone. This is why Jesus could do a miracle for a Roman Centurion with no conflict of interest, of fear of self contradiction.
None of this supports Max’s case, of course. But it’s an important distinction. Jesus, God and the Bible do not say, “Thou shalt not kill.” It says, “Thou shall do no murder.” And that’s different.
1
-
1
-
I love your videos, and your voice. Just one criticism for this one. I wonder if you’d agree?
You overlooked the key element of the whole story, the very same thing that made The Dark Knight such a successful Joker too: He’s the quintessential, “Unreliable Narrator.” We cannot know by the end, how much of this story actually happened and, of the parts of it that did, whether they happened in the same way as he remembers them.
Like his love interest being a pure fabrication of his desperate loneliness, his unlikely meeting with Bruce Wayne and later his father, his murders, all of it could be all in his mind or just events he witnessed without taking part in them. Even his appearance on TV is brought into question. So, in that final scene, are we seeing nothing more than symbolic bloody footprints? Or are they the tracks of his latest, pointless murder?
We take on faith that this is the story of the genuine article, The Joker, Batman’s antagonist, or there would be no point in watching the movie. But, just as Joker told a different story to each person about the scars on his face in The Dark Knight, the very intrigue about him, and that we cannot ever be certain of the facts surrounding him are and that’s what makes Joker such a towering success.
People’s biggest concern about this film was that it might ruin the one characteristic about The Joker that makes him work so well, that he’s unknowable, a true agent of chaos and the antithesis of Batman, who seeks to bring order back to Gotham. Like a force of nature, he has always had no origin story, in the same way that banal evil is incomprehensible, giving him an edge that thrills the comic fans. This movie achieves the impossible, giving us that origin story to colour his narrative, but by making him utterly untrustworthy as the story teller, even to himself, we can still never really know what makes him what he is, or even if this is anything like the same story he would tell himself by the same time next week?
That’s the genius of this film and why it works so well. It respects its source material and doesn’t spoil the one great thing about what made Batman’s greatest antagonist what he was: chaos incarnate.
1
-
This depends on how you define, “greatest,” when it comes to, “greatest villains of all.” For utter psychopathic cruelty, mastery and sheer achievement, (nearly taking the entire Galaxy for himself) he is indisputably the greatest. But to me, the, “greatest,” screen villains ever put to the page are those in whom I can believe. This guy is too Saturday Matinee to be plausible, as is the whole of Star Wars. Not that there’s anything wrong with that at all; far from it. But the best villains for me are the one’s like the Corleone’s in The Godfather movies, who are very like the real people upon whom they were based; or at least how I imagine them. The most plausible villains are the scariest and most compelling, like Walter White, in whom we can believe and even understand, despite never seeing him as anything less than monstrous. The realistic evil (or just realistic enough to make them real) is the evil that haunts your dreams or occupies your waking hours, and that’s the greatest writing and acting you get. There’s also the most entertaining to take into account, for definition of greatest villain, like Alan Rickman in Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves, or Die Hard. This Palpatine guy is actually high on my entertaining list, because one cannot help but giggle at his sadism and Ian McDirmidt’s portrayal is enormous fun. And for me, there is also the villain we empathise with, like Roy Batty in Blade Runner, who kills psychotically, but who has a problem that would drive any of us to extremes: short life span. So I see the category as being filled with sub categories. For sheer levels of malignancy and power, Palpatine wins, but for the other categories, I’m not so sure. We haven’t even mentioned categories like Scariest? The ones that actually give you nightmares like The Thing, or John Doe from Se7en.
1
-
By the way, my suggestion would be The Thing, from the John Carpenter classic: Banal Evil is perhaps the scariest? The evil that either doesn’t care about you or doesn’t even notice you, let alone make value judgements about your right to exist. The titular Alien from the Alien movies is a case in point: smart, cunning, relentless and virtually indestructible, but does it have anything close to a system of, “values,” by which we could say it has morality or anything like that. A villain that cannot be reasoned or bargained with, or that has no rational capacity for communication clearly terrifies people, which is why the Terminator movies were so successful to begin with, and why zombie movie speak to people; the idea that your own friends and family can become your worst nightmare through a rapidly transforming contagion is terrifying, especially if they lose their personality as a consequence. See also The Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. The Evil that doesn’t know it is evil, nor have any comprehension of what evil is . . .
1
-
1
-
@petej6609 : But is he the scariest? He is everything described in the video, but that strikes me as a mere technicality, due to the, “what,” he is. He is still a comic book villain, from a Saturday Matinee, and not particularly, “scary.” These are U certificate movies after all. Aren’t the truly, “greatest,” villains the ones that we believe could be real, like Walter White, or Vito Corleone?
1
-
You did make a couple of errors in this one. We know from the third movie that Hans has a brother. That his brother is also a criminal and terrorist, more committed to the politics of his causes until later in life. So his brother is probably the one who got him his connections in the underworld. There’s a lot to mine from Die Hard three as to the roots of Hans Grouber. Also, it’s, “is the late Alan Rickman,” not, “was.” Assuming Rickman is still dead, he remains the late Alan Rickman. Not a grammar Nazi, but you’re making the kind of videos that people expect precision from, in diction and prose style. People notice such errors and it undermines your work, which is excellent, btw.
1
-
1