MovieChat Forums > Shakespeare Behind Bars Discussion > Misguided Over-Liberal Nonsense...

Misguided Over-Liberal Nonsense...


All of the reviews I've read use words like "moving", "uplifting" and the whole slant of the film is clearly to make us see that criminals aren't monsters and can show remorse...

However, other than an abuser of small girls, not one of the inmates in the film took any responsibility for their actions. They strangled women because they reminded them of their mothers, and their mother were bad, they shot people and robbed places because of the availability of guns and because of peer pressure, they had stifling parents, they had dismissive parents, they were gay and confused, they were only 21 and didn't know what they were doing (my god, if you don't know right from wrong at 21 you never wiil!)... it was excuse after excuse.

The film didn't glamourise their crimes, but it did ask us to pity these people "who society has ostracised" (bad society, how could it be so mean?) all because they could cry on cue whilst talking of a bad childhood and the need for redemption/acceptance, and shout and mispronounce their way through a Shakespeare play. Not because they showed true remorse through accepting responsibility for their own actions.

reply

Actually I got something different from watching it. I saw where it was vital to keep these men locked up - maybe forever. They only seemed to have a thin veneer of normal human morality covering a personality lacking remorse, anger control, or insight. In other words, they looked like sociopaths and psychopaths to me.

They spoke the language of insight into their crimes only as a way to manipulate the parole board into believing they now had a handle on their issues and would no longer re-offend. But they would reoffend, it was obvious.

If acting in a play keeps them busy and out of trouble that's fine. But I hope they keep them locked up forever.

reply

I was also quite annoyed how whenever one of the inmates reoffended or caused trouble within the prison (the paedophile, for example), the director generally moved attention rather quickly away from them so as not to interfere with his pity-quest too much.

reply

It's not the inmates that need locking up.

You can lock up bodies. You can't lock up what's inside of them. In order to get rid of that, you have to treat them and get it out. I'm not seeing much of that going on these days, when everyone, from the felons in prison to the government, seems to have an insatiable lust for punishment and blood.

My boyfriend apprenticed with the Kentucky Shakespeare Festival, of which Curt Tofteland is the artistic director, last summer, and one of the things they did was to go to Luther Luckett and do a readers'-theatre performance of As You Like It for the participants in the program. A few months later, he showed me some of the thank-you notes he had received from the inmates.

They thanked the troupe for treating them like human beings. Some of them signed their letters with their numbers. It was absolutely heartbreaking. They're their own victims too - something ugly and evil got into their minds and made them do terrible things, and it's completely ruined them. For some of them, it might have been the only crime they had in them. But except in rare cases like this one, we don't rehabilitate. We spend 20 years spending tax dollars to teach them how to be real criminals. Other than for purposes of revenge, where's the good in that?


SHE'S SNUFFED IT! SHE IS NO MORE!

THIS IS AN EX-WEEVIL.

reply

I had a totally different read on the film...
The fact that Leonard (a sexual offender, the type of offender least likely to be rehabilitated) went to the hole. It was obvious that Leonard was putting on an act. There was no need for the filmmakers to dwell on this fact. I thought that the film did a good job of presenting fairly objectively. I found nothing that suggested that this film was portraying the Shakespeare program as an all redeeming program. I think the one character that seemed most likely to have a chance at being rehabilitated was Sammie. I will concede that the film obviously painted him as the most likeable character and tried to create a connection with the audience; however, they also mentioned that he was in prison for committing a crime while still on parole. I think the thing about Sammie is that he put the most responsibility on himself. He made comments about the fact that after all of his crimes he tried to change his surroundings or circumstances, but he ultimately realized that everywhere he went, he was there. The problem was Sammie. Sammie has taken advantage of his opportunities in prison to advance his education and even receive a job offer upon his release. In spite of all of this, Sammie was the only one who really showed fear for getting out. While he seems like he is the most likely to be ready for the outside world, he still admits that he has a lot of work to do and he worries that he may not be ready yet. A person who realizes how far they are from something is really the closest to recovery.

The fact is that many prisoners are not capable of rehabilitation. However, many prisoners do see the outside world again. The fact that Luther Luckett Correctional Facility provides different opportunities to get the inmates as prepared as possible for the outside world is important. Passing this film off as "misguided over-liberal nonsense" is irresponsible and ignorant. I have a feeling that you went into this film with your mind made up that it was going to be "misguided over-liberal nonsense" and you chose to read everything you saw that way. Hope you enjoyed getting nothing out of a decent film. I also hope you aren't getting caught up in "misguided over-conservative nonsense" which makes you angry about everything and so disgustingly critical of the work and ideas of others...

reply

I'm fairly certain, from the questions asked of the inamtes about rumours and such, that Leonard the chester was in solitary, and eventually shipped out, because he was under protection once his sex offender status became wide news among the inmates. You could hear them calling him out as he was being led to his cell. In most of the cases, I felt somewhat sympathetic for the situation that led them there, and I'm sure many of them felt genuine remorse. They have had some time to reflect on their actions, usually committed in the heat of the moment. I'm not sure what the real story is with the guy who shot his two friends. But, you know, the sex offenders and other violent criminals can go someways towards making amends, but I don't really think the Killers can. Their victim is dead. Over. So, let em put on plays and such, but I don't think they should ever be allowed to enjoy a free life again.

reply

All of the reviews I've read use words like "moving", "uplifting" and the whole slant of the film is clearly to make us see that criminals aren't monsters and can show remorse...

I think you are right about this. I have always thought of criminals as monsters and that they don't show remorse. I also agree that this movie showed a very tiny slice of reality about these men - hate it or not, they are human.

The fact of whether they accepted responsibility for their crimes or not wasn't really the issue in this film. The film never claimed it was filming men who were going to be discussing their crimes. It was simply a movie about prisoners putting on a Shakespearian play. The fact that they talked about their crimes - cry or not, accept responsibility or not, ask for forgiveness or not - was probably added to glamorizer the movie.

I'm not sure why, but I didn't feel any pity was asked of me. I didn't feel any if it was expected from me. I do however feel you probably had already decided what direction this movie was going to go before watching it.




Worry about how you see, not how you look

reply

I consider myself a liberal and my eyes roll at someone claiming they want parole just so they can go help others (why not start in prison where they have lots of time and are surrounded by people in need?)

But I found the movie compelling in in talking about redemption and I don't think it's accurate to view criminals as monsters. I think the actor Charles Dutton is a very powerful example of someone who went to prison as a youth for killing somebody, taught himself acting and now devotes himself to helping people in similar situations.

reply

"The fact that they talked about their crimes - cry or not, accept responsibility or not, ask for forgiveness or not - was probably added to glamorizer the movie."

I think it wasn't just glamor, the movie included powerful meditations on redemption, prisons, and despair. It also displayed the timelessness and efficacy of Shakespeare. I think the program can only be doing good.

That said, these were criminals. They indicated that they committed crimes in the heat of the moment, but it's difficult to ever really know that, even if the crimes don't seem premeditated. They were probably being as honest with themselves as they could, and that honesty varied from person to person. It also revealed different aspects of themselves - not all of them redeemable.

reply

I think the audience is supposed to take their cue from the director of the play when he talks about how it's not his job to judge the men. That society has already done that and they are paying for it. It's interesting, I teach in a high school and just watched this with my students and they "got" it. The men have done monstrous things but they are still human. I have no qualms about keeping many of them in prison for the rest of their lives, but does that mean I can't have any compassion for them as well?

reply