MovieChat Forums > Juncture (2008) Discussion > Too difficult to identify with the main ...

Too difficult to identify with the main character.

posted 14 years ago by glocktwentyseven
3 replies | jump to latest

I don't get it.

You have 3 months left to live . . . and you choose to use it to kill people?

That doesn't make any sense.

There needs to be more of a reason.

Also, this character is no better than the people she puts down.

She acts without responsibility or right . . . without need.

Usually in vigilante / revenge stories, there are 5 criteria need to justify the taking of vengeance:

The victim is someone who didn't deserve the injury.
The injury was perpetrated by someone without just excuse.
The avenger is someone who is "responsible" for protecting the victim.
The act of vengeance is equal to the injury on the victim.
The act of vengeance does not victimize another innocent in turn.

If the action does not fulfill all 5 of these criteria, then it is not justified. And if it not justified, then it is a crime.

So, if the act is a crime, then let's treat it as such. Let's not dress it up in the robes of justice and call it a "hardline" stance.

She kills people. For no other reason than for self-gratification.

I mean, at least Dexter admits, regardless of the code that organizes his murders, that he is a psychopath, and has a compulsion, an overriding, un-ignorable drive, to do what he does.

What's this chick's excuse? Her sense of "justice" is misguided. She has overstepped the bounds of social & natural law, and become the same as the people she kills.

How can I identify with that?

It just doesn't make sense to me.

[–] summerblink 14 years ago

**SPOILERS**
A couple of things - she explains her stance on the justice system at the dinner party and, hence, her motivation for doing what she does. Her doctor also explains that her condition can cause her to act out in unexpected ways which she admits she's already doing.

Your five criteria:
1. Almost everyone she killed was responsible for the death of a child. If not a death, then the rape of a child.
2. What excuse is there for killing or raping a child?
3. While she may not be personally responsible to the victims of the crimes, aren't all members of society responsible for protecting those who can't protect themselves?
4. As I mentioned, almost all had killed children. What's she to do to a rapist? Have a child rape them?
5. Fair point - the only instance we know where that was a factor was when she didn't follow through with killing the lawyer. She saw the photos of his kids and chickened out.

I agree with you that to a certain point it is self gratification. I don't think her sense of justice is misguided. The motivation - yeah, maybe. And, yes, I agree that she has overstepped the bounds of social and natural law, but we know she wasn't in her right mind.

I think you raise some interesting points but, if you're up for it, watch it again. Try and forget what you originally thought. Don't try and overanalyse it, and let the story and characters evolve at their own pace. You might be surprised.

Nice chatting with you. :)

[–] Mirage4 12 years ago

VERY astute and well stated, I couldn't agree more.

[–] beavertoof 7 years ago

I'm not really defending the movie as it has a ton of weaknesses, but her motivation is stated pretty clearly early on. Her family was murdered, it left her very bitter, and once she was given the death sentence re the brain tumor, she decides to deal out some vigilante justice before she dies.

I don't think she really cared whether her actions were truly justifiable or not. The cop that lets her off at the end seemed to think so.

What I found hard to sit through was how the movie could not seem to settle on a mood... it bounced back and forth between kind of a thriller, and a sappy end of life drama with cheesy music playing in background.