MovieChat Forums > Loggerheads (2007) Discussion > Anbody know??.......Why is Mark so not w...

Anbody know??.......Why is Mark so not wanting to live.......

posted 18 years ago by arizona-philm-phan
3 replies | jump to latest

****

SPOILERS AHEAD XXXXXXX SPOILERS AHEAD XXXXXXX SPOILERS AHEAD

Mark pretty much says he's not interested in continuing to live......doesn't want to take treatments/medication which might help him.

Even though he apparently continued his relationship with George which began in 1999 (remember, George rushes after Mark in his truck and discovers Mark walking away along the highway / then remember, also, they're apparently still together in 2000 when 'naked-statue-neighbor-lady,' Ruth, calls the motel, speaks with George and asks to speak to Mark), why would Mark continue to not want treatment? Or maybe he did, but it turned out to be too late to start it.

I guess this is a question only writer/director, Kirkman, could answer, but something seems to have been left hanging, or left out concerning this particular plot point.

Well, we'll never know, but I guess I'm just like most of us who don't want to see a character (who seemed healthy) we liked die.

****

[–] ford_a 18 years ago

I think he was just one of those people that was really in tune with nature and thought it was unnatural to live off medication. Also, he mentioned that he'd rather die early than be sick for the rest of his life, which is what that kind of medication can do to you. I think if i was HIV positive, i would never make that decision but i could see how that character would.

[–] arizona-philm-phan 18 years ago

****

I've relooked the DVD and, this time, also viewed it with "Director's Commentary" turned on. I think Director Kirk has made a huge editing mistake in cutting out dialog in which he, himself, says: Mark explains to George he'd taken medication which had made him sick. Mark's having "given up" must seem so nonsensical to many viewers, particularly those in theaters who don't have the benefit of a "Director's Commentary," or those at home with the DVD who don't choose to listen to that commentary (I know I have not turned on the commentary incuded with many of the films I own).

I can only assume, even though he now has such a sweetheart-of-a-guy and lover/partner, in George, that his lonely, lonely past with its heavy feelings of being uncared for, have become too much for him to want to continue on. In effect his parents had forced a situation of pushing him out and cutting him off once they learned of his sexual orientation.

So, ford a, I believe I agree with you when you say: "I think if i was HIV positive, i would never make that decision but i could see how that character would." I, too, would likely want to go on trying to live. And the thing is, Mark is such a lovable and "you-just-want-to-take-care-of-him" kind of a guy, that nothing's more important than to see him be happy, with a long life ahead.

****

[–] ComtessaLaRue 16 years ago

Do you ever wonder how painful it must be for George, who's had his (to quote SATC) "two great loves" both die? On a lighter note, maybe he should warn prospective partners that being with him is signing a death warrant? Perhaps this is why he didn't seem 100% there at the start of his friendship with Mark (prior to the start of the sexual and romantic relationship)???