was the dude that was released again at the end just an agent provocateur? after all, we see a tape playing, whose soudns mimick the screaming of the killed transvestite/prison sissy.
and the speech of the formerly isolated dude only enforces this point kinda as well.... releasing one, to imprison the rest of the world. or did I get this point completely wrong?
thx, and hope for your help :)
This is late, but the point is that prisons serve the dual purpose of putting the fear into people, and taking the fear out - the more you have around, bigger and better, the more apparent this becomes in public policy. Prisons also brutalise their core constituency, the lumpen proletariat (not to mention specific minorities like aborigines and black Americans), along with those they employ. Basically, crusty notions of 'reform' hardly play into it; if not by design, certainly necessity when there's a profit motive involved combined with political interest.
I'm not sure if your first paragraph refers to David Field or Nick Cave, but I think either the film or DVD mentions that Wenzil/Fields' character is something of a hardened criminal when he enters the prison. On the contrary he strikes me as a two-bit weakling which the prison brutalises and shapes into something more like Grezner (the American, clearly a stand-in for the irreparable Jack Henry Abbott), or Cave's crazed Maynard, who is definitely an agent provocateur. Wenzil basically exits the prison system a more dangerous shell of his former self, and is doomed to re-enter. Which in the long-run is agent-provocateur'ish, I guess. Check out "The Boys" sometime, which could be considered a Part Two of sorts.
They had about ten thousand people contributing to the script, so the film is pretty muddled in its characterisations.