What sin did Tracy commited?
share
No sin. Doe committed the sin of envy when he murdered her. He never said that he only killed sinners or that all sinners were supposed to die.
share
MovieChat Forums > Se7en (1995) Discussion > What sin did Tracy commited?
What sin did Tracy commit?
? Being Gwyneth Paltrow. HiiiiiYooooooooo!
Seriously though, she committed no sin, but she was a part of John Doe's plan to complete the Se7en deadly sins. He already had demonstrated lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, and pride. He just need envy and wrath. John Doe's sin was that he envied Detective Mill's life and his pretty little wife. And Mill's sin was wrath over the extreme anger, Doe know the Mills could not control. Completing his masterpiece.
being the wife of brad pitt's character.
shareFor some extremists ( not me!) , maybe plotting an abortion. She didn't tell Mills after all. but there was no way for Doe to know so maybe Walker left that for us to discuss.
-You may have a coronary..
- A coronary? My heart wouldn't dare attack me!
Doesn't work, since "considering abortion" isn't one of the deadly sins.
Doe didn't kill her to represent one of the deadly sins. He killed her because he knew her death would lead him to become wrath.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
Actually, her death represented "envy".
shareTracy's murder, as horrible as it was, on it's own, was painted even more tragic due to the unborn child also being murdered. What's interesting is you non-"extremists" don't bat an eye if that same innocent baby is sucked out of the womb of the mother, murdered and sold as parts, by Planned Parenthood. Seems to me that if a pregnant mother is killed, why would the pregnancy and unborn child even be mentioned? According to you "non-extremists", the baby isn't a human. It's just a mass of tissue. According to that logic, we'd be hearing news stories like "Woman (or man) and her tumor were murdered, late last night." If you say it was tragic because she wanted the baby, you just proved my point.
shareNone. Doe killed her to incite Mills' wrath.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
That too but also because she represented the object of his envy. He clearly told Mills that envy was his sin, that he envied Mills' family life.
-You may have a coronary..
- A coronary? My heart wouldn't dare attack me!
Yes, but the point is, she committed no sin. She was killed in order for Doe to complete his work. So he could create Wrath.
The new home of Welcome to Planet Bob: http://kingofbob.blogspot.ca/
She was envy.
shareShe was wrath - by proxy. Back in Dante's day, if a man was condemned to death his wife and children could be killed instead and the man left alive. So David was the wrath victim but instead of taking his life Doe took the life of his wife (and, as a bonus for Doe, his unborn child). Doe foreshadows this during the car ride when he talks to David about "what life I will allow you to have."
I love this movie but I always was just a little bothered by the logic in this. Doe punished others for sins they had been committing, but in Mills he punished him for a sin that he (Doe) manufactured. I suppose Mills was a hot head and he got angry at Doe when Doe took his photo, and of course I'm sure Mills had been guilty of wrath at some point in his life, but wrath is more associated with revenge rather than just pure anger. Doe even says to Mills, "become wrath." Even when Doe punished himself for envy it was a sin he had legitimately (in his eyes) committed on his own accord, envying another man's life and spouse. Doe killed a woman who hadn't done anything to get a man to commit a sin he otherwise wouldn't have committed.
shareOne thing that viewers of these types of films don't seem to undeterstand is that the killer is an out-and-out psychopath. A psycho kills because they're psycho. Whatever excuse or reason they come up with to justify their serial, spree or mass killing is just that, a justification. Being psycho, they don't need a reason. They can fool themselves into thinking such and fool others, which is largely successful considering the message board here, as well as the public's general fascination with homicidal maniacs, but in the end, they murder and rape because that is who and what they are, and that is what they do. There is really no sane reason behind it all. This also includes most terrorists -- the difference between your average terrorist and a serial or spree killer, aside from the obvious superficial elements like method of execution, is the justification they come up with for their crimes. At the end of the day, if the "terrorist" wasn't a terrorist, they'd be a different breed of homicidal maniac. ISIS are a textbook example of this, they've routinely engaged in obvious cannibalism and necrophilia. How is an ISIS terrorist who impales or even cannibalizes his victims or mutilates and rapes a fresh corpse any different from Dahmer or Gacy? This is to say nothing of their more common behavior in torturing, mutilating and raping victims while keeping them alive.
Talk to any veteran investigator who has personally dealt with the likes of Ted Bundy, Andrea Yates, Richard Ramirez, Gacy, Dahmer, etc and they'll all tell you the reasons for their barbaric actions are ultimately meaningless and that any attempt to find some deeper meaning or motive will prove useless and futile. Why? Because they're all hopelessly and totally insane.
Saying that the method to the killer's crimes doesn't have to make sense due to the killer being insane would work a lot better if the entire plot of the film didn't revolve the killer's method.
share"Saying that the method to the killer's crimes doesn't have to make sense due to the killer being insane would work a lot better if the entire plot of the film didn't revolve the killer's method."
This, totally.
The whole movie is trying very hard for us to believe that the killer is some kind of genius using flawless direction in his choices and methods.
Somerset says so many good things about him.
Heck, Doe himself calls his work a "masterpiece".
And at the end of the day, what do we get?
An innocent woman killed to trap a man into shooting another. Such a pisspoor example of "wrath" in my opinion.
This is not a "masterpiece", but an epic fail.
I don't consider him so insane as everyone here seem to agree.
I consider him as insane as my father that use a sledge hammer to knock out a goat before cut there throat, hang it on a tree, and cut the animal apart.
John Doe was the extremism of a moral custom that was getting near extinction, and that is now extinct.
It's been a while...but all of these arguments circle around the entirely 'open ended' ending, don't they?
Before they find him/his apartment via 'stinky man', and to some degree after...Mills claims Doe is insane...Somerset claims it's 'every day life, here'.
which is a revolving 'thing' with the entire movie. Everything that happens after Mills hits Doe, after Doe's apartment is discovered, etc... stuff starts to get more personal.
Tracey's death is not because of a sin she committed, but one Doe committed through envy. It's convenient that that sin would push mills FURTHER into wrath (which he already initiated by slapping the camera out of doe's face after the sloth scene), but it's likely that action set it in motion to begin with...the 'work' was tailored after those events...It's redundant to talk about Tracey as a victim as is Leland Orser's whole ordeal with what happened with lust...They're victims in this mess but not specifically to a bigger 'plan', and that plan occurred after the 'set back', as Doe himself put it on the phone with Mills.
All I mean is that all of those little details have a point. The city has no name, the killer has literally the most generic name ever. This is entirely 'any guy, in your city, maybe' on purpose. He had some grand plan, then personalized it to a weakness of someone that threatened him...or maybe he didn't...Was JOHN DOE just some every day guy struggling to make it in YOUR CITY, as Somerset put it...or was he some twisted psycho like Mills suggests? ...or was he somewhere in the middle, like a half-martyr or w/e, a contradiction Somerset points out. Somerset sarcastically mentions to Mills after he knocked the camera away that 'It's impressive to see a man feeding off of his emotions', pointing to wrath then and there...but just before that, Mills casually says 'I feed off of my emotions' only due to pacing around...Doe enters the movie literally in between the two simple exchanges of dialogue...
So all that is worth discussing, but I think the entire point of the movie is that there isn't an exact answer, on purpose. Not trying to come off as some elitist, but Fincher has an undeniable ability to answer questions you may have when you watch what he made a second time.
She badly grammered?
Now listen here, you mugs, nobody gets to say 'Meh' anymore unless you're Edward G. Robinson, see?
She didn't commit any sin. Doe used her to create the two remaining sins: By killing Tracy, Doe became Envy and by killing Doe, Mills became Wrath.
----------
"Baird? Go out there and be a star!"
But what was the point if in the past he always did go for "sinners" so to speak. Didn't really seem in keeping with things.
shareThe sinner was himself. Not her. He killed her out of envy, his sin, and because Mills was wrath Doe knew what Mills would do if he heard what Doe himself had done to Tracy. So in a sense he comitted suicide through Mills for he, Doe, was the last sin.
----------
"Baird? Go out there and be a star!"
This is very flawed.
Doe acted as a decoy.
He puts himself in a position where Mills can just pull the trigger and kill him in one second.
Then he reveals him he killed his wife and also the child she was bearing.
And even though Mills resists for a while, he does kill Doe.
Is that a sin? A great example of wrath? I think many men would have done exactly the same thing considering the circs.
It's a great movie but the killer is an idiot.
Killing in a fit of rage? This is the very definition of wrath. And yes, that is most definitely a sin. And of course many people would have reacted the same way. That was what Doe counted on. And we saw how short fused Mills was in the course of the entire movie (think of the scene where he kicks in the door of Doe's apartment for example). And Doe is not planning on rotting away in prison but at the same time he's not willing to kill himself either, because then nobody will know about him, what he did.
Admittedly that part of the plan is a bit contrived with a 50/50 chance of Mills actually pulling the trigger, but i wouldn't exactly call Doe idiotic.
He did not plan for himself to come out of this situation alive if you mean that.
----------
"Baird? Go out there and be a star!"
He puts himself in a position where Mills can just pull the trigger and kill him in one second.
That was his plan.
Is that a sin? A great example of wrath? I think many men would have done exactly the same thing considering the circs.
Like the other poster said, yes, killing a man in revenge in a fit of uncontrolled rage is an example of wrath. Someone like Somerset would not have done that, but Mills was perfect in that sense. share
Saw this movie with my younger cousins age 17-22 and they all cheered once they realized what's in the box. Society has turned against Paltrow so much. In their her seen is being Paltrow in real life ;).
shareIn their her seen is being Paltrow in real life
I'm not trying to be an a**hole, but I genuinely don't know what that was supposed to say (even though I can see a hint of the meaning).
"It's too late... Always has been, always will be...
Too late." share
[deleted]