[lit-ideas] Re: Mr. Brooks
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:31:12 -0800
JL
Okay, I watched it again. I noticed several things I didn’t notice the first
time around. First, she wasn’t raped, but I think it possible she may have
been lying about who the father of her child was, that it wasn’t a married man
but someone in her dorm who dumped her when he found out she was pregnant.
There is no justification in the movie for that theory. Marshall and Brooks
both say she had inherited the it-is-fun-to-kill gene from her father and that
was her motivation. Marshall says she got off on killing and Brooks doesn’t
argue with that. I listened to a bit of the commentary, commentary by the
Director Bruce Evans and the script-writer Raymond Gideon. One of them said we
are learning new things every day about what can be inherited, musical ability,
painting ability, implying why not murder? So that remains the primary
explanation for Jane. But Evans and Gideon are a bit cagey about what is going
on with her – as though they aren’t ruling out other possibilities. Even so,
they imply, serial killing might one day be determined to be an inheritable
characteristic.
Also, they get into the matter I started to explore when I hit a wrong button
and posted my note before I was ready to send it, namely the morality of making
movies that present despicable matters as being somehow acceptable, easing your
frog-viewers into the water of evil and slowly bringing it to a boil. They
describe an anecdote about the writer of Silence of the Lambs who took the
story to someone who rejected it. Years later after it had won several awards,
the writer saw this guy again and the guy said he would have rejected Silence
of the Lambs all over again because movies like that should not be made. The
writer and director of Mr Brooks are therefore aware of that point of view, but
they don’t do any more than mention it before moving on.
And no, I don’t recognize Steve Coulter or remember who Roger was. Maybe he
was one of the FBI guys, there were a lot of those.
You posted a review: http://www.craigerscinemacorner.com/Reviews/mr_brooks.htm
Which I wasn’t at all impressed with. This Craiger guy undoubtedly watches a
lot of movies and knows a lot about the making of them, but I had just watched
a movie that seems universally accepted as a superb artistic masterpiece, Le
Samourai, made in 1967 and everything Craiger says about the unbelievability of
Mr. Brooks could be quadrupled when applied to Le Samourai. I didn’t find
Costner miscast as Mr. Brooks, but I did find Alain Dulon miscast as Jef
Costello. Craiger says Costner was miscast to play a sleazy serial killer.
That would be true, but Mr. Brooks is not a sleazy serial killer. He is a very
sophisticated non-sleazy serial killer. Craiger wanted to force this movie
into his own conception of what it ought to be rather than evaluating t for
what it was.
Lawrence
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 4:20 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Mr. Brooks
>Raped?
Wow -- that was a good marine reaction! :-O and :-).
Helm also writes:
>You too readily
and perhaps I did!
----
Anyway, this just to warn you that perhaps you want unmiss the bit you missed,
because perhaps it was my imagination.
Too many films, these couple weekends, and they all look the same -- actors!
Anyway, you're right that the alleged (by me and me only) raper was a married
man. Apparently, he is
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0183548/
Steve Coulter
-- check if you recognise him, as I fail to remember a boring face.
In any case, if he was a married man, it was like some kind of figurative rape,
because he was giving sperm to almost a minor (wasn't he her teacher, too?
That's repugnant! She wasn't even a grad student) and
NOT PROVIDING all the requirements that a 'wannabe' (to use \
your expression) dad is supposed to provide
-- such as board and shelter for the 'kid'. But then perhaps he never knew he
was a would-be father, but then his fault too in not checking contraception.
In one site I read this reference to the character described as a 'loser'
boyfriend -- aren't we all -- I hate the phrase, 'boy-friend', except as
uttered by Julie Andrews in "We have to have THE BOYFRIEND!" (song).
And as you rightly points, this online site also suggests that we are not given
direct evidence of the thing but only the 'rapport' or report of it by the
possibly genetically distinctively perverted daughter. You are right that these
things _do_ get inherited, and this would explain the nightmarish ending to the
film. Very good.
Cheers,
JL
---Refs:
http://www.craigerscinemacorner.com/Reviews/mr_brooks.htm
Earl is faced with another real challenge when his daughter abruptly returns
home from college because she became pregnant via her loser boyfriend…or is she
just saying that?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0183548/
Steve Coulter
_____
Check out AOL Money & Finance's list of the hottest
<http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001>
products and top
<http://money.aol.com/top5/general/ways-you-are-wasting-money?NCID=aoltop00030000000002>
money wasters of 2007.
Other related posts:
