MovieChat Forums > April Showers (2009) Discussion > The shooter

The shooter

posted 15 years ago by AutopsyNecropsy
6 replies | jump to latest

They didn't even explain anything about the shooter, why is this?

Plain and simple. It wasn't the shooter's story.
Sometimes we don't know why things happen... they just do. It didn't really matter why, how, or what the shooter did exactly. What was important was the fact that it happened. Then we watched as students struggled with PTSD, grief, etc, etc, etc... The aftermath is what the story was about.
A plain and simple cause and effect story... Heavy on the effect portion.

[–] SheVenom 15 years ago

I don't think I agree with your train of thought, though I must admit it's a rather common one.

The reason why it happened and who made it happen is fundamental in teaching people to see the truth and to, if the situation allows it, be enlightened by reality. If your logic were true, then we'd all be living in a world where there's no one but ourselves and that's quite illogical in itself.

Humans are socialization and they learn from experience through socialization, thus I can say this movie completely misses the point by following the shallow argument that a victim of violence and the unfortunate machinations of daily life and humanity can heal entirely by the own accord.

Leaving the shooter out is killing the whole point of the event! Try as they may to make it a movie where a perpetrator doesn't matter, it's simply unavoidable to show him and his reasoning.

This is, simply put, why the writing in this movie sucks, and why the acting sucks and the direction sucks: there's just no point to it all. It's an empty telling of events about equally empty characters.

; )

How about THAT for an answer?!

[–] packro 15 years ago

If you think this movie sucks then there is something seriously wrong with you. Sounds like you're being blinded by your ego...

[–] AutopsyNecropsy 15 years ago

What? I'm allowed to not like this movie. It's personal preference

[–] jason_leo 8 years ago

The shooter isn't needed in every movie.
The fact is no one knew why they did it so to include them is pointless they bring
nothing to the table except a made up version of why which no doubt would have some feeling sympathetic for them and their made up reasons.
The reality is they were probably sick scum who wanted to be infamous forever which they acheived

[–] fanywherebuthere 15 years ago

Kind of a late answer to the question but moviejunky is generally correct as to why they didn't explain more about the shooter. The writer/director, Andrew Robinson, was a survivor of the Columbine shooting and he did state in interviews that he wanted to focus on the effect and not the cause.I believe he also states in an interview on youtube that he hadn't been attending the school for even a year when those events took place, thus, he wasn't as familiar with the shooters and also this film is based on his experiences.

His overall intention was the aftermath that immediately follows the shootings. How do people cope with these things so soon after they happen? The shooter's motivations, the how and the why, are what the media focus on a lot and the intention in this case was to focus on what the survivors do now.

You have every right to dislike any film but I believe packro was responding to shevenom not you as she explicitly stated she didn't like the film.