Is this movie pro- or anti- death penalty? - The Life of David Gale (2003) Discussion

[–] coreyc85 16 years ago

I just watched this for the first time tonight and I must say, you make a good point. I found myself debating the same thing. It's an easier argument to claim that the film is against the death penalty, which it very well may be. Anyway, I'll watch it again before I decide.

Roger Ebert believes the film supports the death penalty:
"I am sure the filmmakers believe their film is against the death penalty. I believe it supports it and hopes to discredit the opponents of the penalty as unprincipled fraudsters..."

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

reply

[–] roberto-72 14 years ago

To start off answering the original question: I think the movie is anti death penalty, at the same time painting the picture of the Texas situation. The fact that DeathWatch wasn't all that effective in their fight for the cause, does not mean that they or the moviemakers were in doubt about their intentions.

Gale was beating the gouvernor hands down in their debate (even if by tricking him with those quotes), until the gouvernor asked him to name an innocent who had been executed. Stupidly, Gale wasn't prepared for this question. However, the fact he could not name an innocent, does not mean there weren't any. There are many documented cases of people convicted who were later found to be innocent. Whether or not there are people who were executed is not of importance to the discussion, since all convictions are made in the same system. Finding that the system makes it possible to convict someone innocently, makes it possible inside the system to execute an innocent as well.

By their inability to defuse the name-me-an-innocent-executed question DeathWatch let themselves be dragged into the wrong discussion. After all, their point was more principal than this: killing people is wrong, be they innocent or criminal.

Other people mentioned that the system must be pretty robust for it to need such an elaborate scheme to be tricked. First of all, the fact that one would consider this scheme elaborate, does not mean it can't be beaten by a more simple scheme (the many documented incorrect convictions will undoubtedly show easier schemes). Second of all, this was not the only case in which material witnesses withheld information in such a way that the outcome of a trial was changed, nor was it the first time this was done with the intention of getting the wrong person convicted. The system shows weakness in not being able to weed these trickeries out.

The use of the death penalty is part of the status quo in Texas. It is by many considered to be the natural way. The ease with which the gouvernor could pass off remarks of the "the system works" type is remarkable. After all, even if one presumes that no-one innocent is ever executed, that does not mean the system works. Installing a new system will take far stronger arguments than keeping the existing one.

reply

[–] njumeil 16 years ago

It has one message that does not have anything to do with your semantics about world famous US judicial system.

"An innocent man was executed."

End of story.

reply

[–] ts_flanders 16 years ago

"An innocent man was executed" ... I think that is an overly simplistic way to see this film.

If anything, a more exact way is to say that a desperate man corrupted the legal system to commit suicide.

This is who we are
-TS FLanders

reply

[–] shurbanm 10 years ago

Regardless. He was executed. The system doesn't work. end of story

reply

[–] bigdaddyjeffc 14 years ago

He's not innocent. He may not have committed the crime but he is at least an accomplice to a poorly thought out murder/suicide/conspiracy/fraud. What he did certainly does not warrant the death penalty, but he is not an innocent man.

reply

[–] chadrogers 14 years ago

It seems pretty simple to me.

Regardless of whether the anti-death penalty folk were in the right or wrong by using deception and plotting to have David Gale sentenced to death, it's stating that if government/courts/people didn't have the ability to execute, a mistake couldn't have been made. Doesn't matter if they tricked the court or not.

Simply said, a life was taken when it should not have been because the power to end a life was in the court's hand. It erred (tricked or not) and destroyed its credibility for the future.

By the way...San Dimas High School Football Rules!

reply

[–] njumeil 14 years ago

Bravo to this man. Yet again someone puts a movie into few coherent simple sentences.

reply

[–] snoop1123 14 years ago

"poorly thought out murder/suicide/conspiracy/fraud"

What? Did you even watch the movie?

69 20 6c 6f 76 65 20 79 6f 75

reply

[–] njumeil 14 years ago

You are right/wrong/undecided. He is innocent by the moral code.

reply

[–] njumeil 14 years ago

Throw the first stone then.

reply

[–] tansut 13 years ago

He is innocent means that he's innocent for murder. Not innocent for conspiracy to murder. Note the difference.

reply

[–] bsharporflat 13 years ago

This movie does take a side, and it is against the death penalty. All the people in the movie who were for the death penalty were portrayed as stupid, uncaring rednecks.

Perhaps it has the minor message that sometimes radical advocacy groups can go too far in attempting to prove their point. And it ends up not working anyway.

But mostly this is a mystery movie. And a pretty good one. We don't learn the whole, chilling story until the very final seconds.

reply

[–] TxMike 16 years ago

I think Ebert got it wrong. I don't think it is either pro or con death penalty. To me, that setting was just the springboard for the story, which is a character study of those who will sacrifice even their lives for a cause they believe in.

TxMike
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

reply

[–] jonb666 16 years ago

The problem I have is that an innocent man wasn't executed, because he was guilty. He conspired to let it all happen for his own means.

Maybe the point is that people on both sides of the argument are just as bad as each other.

Well isn't this place a geographic oddity. Two weeks from everywhere.

reply

[–] jkay24 16 years ago

"The problem I have is that an innocent man wasn't executed, because he was guilty. He conspired to let it all happen for his own means."

Except he wasnt convicted for conspiracy; he was convicted for murder, which he didnt commit. Of course there is the argument that it would take such an intricate conspiracy to defraud the judicial system and that the movie's anti-death penalty stance is mitigated because of that, but the fact remains that a man not guilty of murder was convicted for murder and executed. Happened. Take that for what its worth.

reply

[–] birocs 16 years ago

I think in most, if not all system, you can get yourself convicted, if you really want. Simple: confess. Then you will be put to jail without being guilty. Does that mean the systems are broken? I don't think so.

I think the movie is either pro-death-penalty, or just a backdrop for a character drama.

reply

[–] dubbel_v 16 years ago

Well most good legal systems won't get you convicted if you confess while there is no other evidence. So yes that fact means the system isn't very good. Because people confess while they didn't do it. Because of pressure, guilt, protecting others. Or because they are mentally instable.

Here confessing is considered very weak evidence. Confessing before a judge is seem as better evidence but a judge is not allowed to convict you on your confession alone.

reply

[–] TheSinisterMinister 16 years ago

This movie could've been done so much better. How? Remove the ridiculous conspiracy to ruin pro-death penalty advocates. Why couldn't they just have had Laura Linney's character actually murdered and Spacey's character actually framed?

In the end, I guess in one sense you could say he was innocent of committing murder. On the other hand it's implied that he had a huge role in her suicide. If the implications from the film are to be taken as so then he helped plan her death, had full knowledge of all pertinent information, and did nothing to stop it. This movie didn't make the character look like a martyr, just an idiot.

In the very least he was guilty of manslaughter and an accessory, and he wouldn't have received the very least. Since he conspired and aided in the death of another individual he very well could actually be tried for, and if Jack McCoy was the DA he would be convicted of, premeditated murder.

This is almost like "Do The Right Thing." Who did the right thing in this movie? Nobody.

reply

[–] aces_boss_yo 14 years ago

But he played the system the same way the system plays us. He repeatedly turned down decent council. He got his way and he was put to death.
Great story, IMO.

I might as well enjoy my life and watch the stars play...........

reply

[–] shurbanm 10 years ago

Not really. He did it to prove a point. And history and evidence bears it out. There are many people executed that were later found to be innocent.
They of course did not have access to the evidence to prove their innocence. He did and he withheld it to prove this point. He was in effect what one would call a martyr.

reply

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

Yes, many people have been convicted that were later found to be innocent but how many people have been executed that were later found to be innocent? Those stories are much more compelling. When innocent people are convicted, that is a huge injustice, especially when many years of their lives are lost. Actual stories of innocent people being put to death that have later been proven to be innocent would be a much more compelling case against capital punishment.

reply

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

I would venture to say quite enough have been executed. Even if it were just 1 it's still wrong.

reply

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

Do you know of any specific cases? Are there any for which a movie has not been made? What movie or movies exist of actual cases? I believe you that it is possible. So saying it is possible does not help. If you want other people to get the point then you need to provide an actual case.

reply

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

don't need to know of any. it stands to reason that if convictions are made in error all the time and the death penalty is still there for certain convictions people were put to death although they were innocent. even if there weren't it's irrelevant as it will/can happen eventually.

reply

[–] Sam-953-169285 9 years ago

I think the system does not work because not enough people care enough to do something. It is extremely easy to criticize. It is not so easy to determine the truth. You are accusing the system for not determining the truth yet you will not do that.

reply

[–] shurbanm 9 years ago

No i am not accusing the system at all.
I am saying since the system is imperfect we should err on the side of caution and not do something that is irreversible like putting somebody to death. It's inhumane and it is wrong. That is all I'm saying.

reply

[–] audiophilesubs 16 years ago

The problem with the film's anti-death penalty message/set-up is the duplicity necessary to pull this off really blows the "but he was innocent" case out of the water. This was a man who staged everything in the best possible way to obfuscate the very truth that an innocent man would WANT to present. It was almost a straw man, if you will.

Personally, I am a bit ambivalent towards the death penalty purely because I could see how an innocent person might POSSIBLY be wrongly convicted, but this "case study" is absolutely ridiculous. Had they actually framed an unwilling person, which of course would've been even more ethically flawed (read: heinous), then you might have an interesting story and head scratcher. This was a man who saw no point in living anyhow; so, why not use your death to aid a cause you believe in? I don't know if you can really describe something as clever and cowardly at the same time, but that's what I think of the plot.

reply

[–] whatsthisnow 16 years ago

I could see how an innocent person might POSSIBLY be wrongly convicted

Actually, quite a lot of people in the US have been wrongly convicted of murder and given the death penalty, and that's only counting those who were later proven innocent... I dread to think how many weren't. This is sadly what happens in a system that cares more about getting a conviction than getting the guilty party.

Here's an article you may find interesting (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/11/illinois.death.row/)...

Capital punishment in Illinois came under the microscope after a group of journalism students at Northwestern began looking into the case of Anthony Porter in the late 1990s.

The students, working with their professor and a private investigator, found evidence that cleared Porter after 17 years on death row. Ryan vowed he would do whatever it took to "prevent another Anthony Porter."

Ultimately, 13 inmates who had been sentenced to death were exonerated [emphasis added], and Ryan declared a moratorium on executions in the state.

What is most scary about that case is that despite so many death row inmates having been proven innocent, death penalty advocates still fumed about the moratorium on executions. Some people just have a taste for blood, and don't seem to care how they get it.

reply

[–] dmvksxyjtu 11 years ago

The movie's point is that the death penalty process is ineffective. The Illinois experience you cited is the tip of the national iceberg. Since 1973, 138 people have been exonerated from death rows nationwide when DNA or other evidence proved them innocent.

I was a long-time advocate of the death penalty, but I know too much to support it now.

Send lawyers, Glocks, and money!

reply

[–] amanda-harden 16 years ago

I believe this storyline in this film is anti-death penalty. The purpose of the movie is based upon the group Death Watch, of which David and Constance are leaders. Death Watch is a group of individuals who are extremely against the death penalty. They are anti-death penalty activists determined to prove to anyone who will listen that too many people are being put to death because the American Judicial System is flawed. I believe David and Constance felt as though they were not getting any results by simply conducting protests and exchanging statistics with government officials via television programs, so they devise the plan to frame David for murder. Since Constance is already dying of cancer, she is the one who is killed. It is stated several times in this film that “being an almost-martyr doesn’t count,” and I believe this is why they come up with this particular plan to try to prove their belief that the judicial system is flawed to the point of innocent people being put to death.

The part of this movie when the tape is left in Bitsy’s hotel room is confusing to me. David tells Bitsy that it is up to her to clear his name for his son’s sake by giving her just enough information to spark her curiosity, but in a way it always seems like he is trying to get her to save him as well. Was Bitsy supposed to find the full tape of Constance’s suicide and turn it over to the authorities before David’s execution in order to free him? Was the whole point of the movie to have Bitsy clear David’s name to save him from execution or to simply clear his name so that his son’s memory of him will not be that he is a murderer? I personally think it was a good idea to have Bitsy show up to the prison right after David is pronounced dead with the key to his freedom in her hands.

reply

[–] mlopezib8 16 years ago

Well, in my opinion it´s neither one nor the other. Actually, more than denouncing, the film is EXPOSING. Not only exposing the two sides of the issue but showing how fake, corrupted and easily toyed they can be. Obviously, the plot states that death penalty is not the way to decrease crime rates and that the system is absolutely capable of killing an innocent man. However (and I think this is the best of the movie) the film does not fall into sentimentalism and also shows how dirty a good cause can get. Basically, it´s all about faking and then trying to glimpse true traces from within.

reply

[–] The_Beardman_Cometh 16 years ago

Some people's comments:

"I think Ebert got it wrong. I don't think it is either pro or con death penalty. To me, that setting was just the springboard for the story, which is a character study..."

"...the film does not fall into sentimentalism and also shows how dirty a good cause can get."

I disagree with these readings. Instead, I'm with Ebert. The film portrays death penalty opponents as fraudulent, end-justifies-the-means fanatics. To adapt a construction from Bill and Ted, that's "anti-anti-death-penalty" in my book.

It would be nice if "showing how dirty a good cause can get" didn't automatically provide ammunition for the other side's cause. But that's what it does.

That's not necessarily to say that such films shouldn't be made; only that there's a price to making them.

reply

[–] anna-jankowska7 16 years ago

I think this film is clearly anti death penalty. But for me it is much more of a character study. I think people here tend to underestimate Constance's role in this film. If we concentrate a little bit more on her, we see that this film is not only about death penalty, but also about man's dignity when facing death, about courage to take one's life in one's hands and about willingness to give everything in the name of the cause. I think she is extremly important character in this history, not only "the victim", the one necessary to frame David, but the one who had suffered a lot, and who took and extremly difficult decision.

Even her name is significant.

reply

[–] mlopezib8 16 years ago

It would be nice if "showing how dirty a good cause can get" didn't automatically provide ammunition for the other side's cause. But that's what it does.

Of course it does, basically because I think death penalty is useless to fight crime rates, that´s my opinion, you don´t have to agree but we´re here to say what we think, don´t we?

reply

[–] andyd-1 16 years ago

I think you've asked the questions of the film that the film was too dumb to answer. It was anti-death penalty, but ended up failing to make its point in a logical way. Unless it was just designed as some sort of dumb-out.

reply

[–] filmbuff-36 16 years ago

I think the movie's message is obviously anti-death penalty. There is no reasonable representative in favor of capital punishment in the film, and Kevin Spacey and Laura Linney's characters, while extreme, were meant to be the heroes of the story.

That, plus the fact that director Alan Parker doesn't have a subtle bone in his body when it comes to storytelling (he practically beats the message over your head in Mississippi Burning and Angela's Ashes) makes it very clear which side of the aisle the film falls on.

And there's little side pieces in the movie, like where Spacey quotes Hitler to make the governor look bad, or how Kate Winslet's little sycophant just happens to bring up the fact that most serial killers are Republicans, when that fact isn't even really relevant to the main story. This was a movie composed to take cheap shots, nothing else.

At least Tim Robbins had the common decency in Dead Man Walking to show death penalty supporters, especially the families of the victims, were, you know, human.

reply

[–] vanillavixen1276 16 years ago

I agree that the film is anti-death penalty. Kevin and Laura's characters were staunch abolishinests and both chose to die for the cause. This film was trying to illustrate that you can never be 100% sure that someone has committed murder. After all, there was physical evidence (the semen)therefore DNA and eye witness testimonies made by Dusty (although we know they were false) which can get you a death penalty conviction. Although some people believe that David Gale was guilty due to the fact that he watched the whole thing, the most he could be blamed for was assisted suicide and that is not murder.

Another poster has mentioned that they thought David might be trying to save himself but again I don't think this is true. As a line in the film says 'Dead men don't talk and Almost Martyrs don't count' I think as explained in the film what this means is that if someone is exhonerated from death row, people can say that the system is working. David and Constance needed indefatigable evidence that an innocent man can be wrongly executed and had such an ardent belief of their opinions that they decided to pay the ultimate price.

Obviously you could say that this proves nothing as people have deliberately tried to manipulate the system to show how bad it is however whether deliberate or not, it did show the system is flawed. Perhaps it is just supposed to show that people are too?

reply