I thought this film was quite good apart from 1 thing... was there a point to Ray Winstons character? He did not seem to contribute anything to the plot. Although his character was of course excellent.
shareFirst of all, he's the character who embodies the "edge of darkness" ; he's been living on that edge for a lifetime and lost his soul in the process, and he's some sort of metaphore of the whole system, whose evil part is the character played by Danny Huston. His encounter with Craven kinda triggers something in him - but we can figure he's already well worn out before that -, and from that moment he helps him as if he didn't want him to be swallowed by the darkness. There's that scene with his doctor, what they say looks trivial, but it's in fact quite important, regarding that.
Then I'd say there's his military background. It's mentioned a few times in the movie ("it's Captain Jedburgh"), and we don't really know where it's going until the shooting at the senator's lake house, near the end. There's this whole thing about the loss of moral grounds that characterizes the political intrigues and power plays he's been tied to ; in the army, there's a code, honor, loyalty, whatever. So in the end he decides to go back to that, to die following that code, by killing three good examples of corrupted bastards.
I don't think I'm reading too much into the screenplay, which is a lot cleverer and more subtile that what movie critics said (at least in France !^^). But I may be wrong. Anyway I like this film a lot, and the Jedburgh character plays an important part in the pleasure I took watching it. I hope that I wrote make sens, sorry if my english is not correct.
I know what you mean and understand his character... but what I meant was what contribution to the film plot did he make? I mean if you were to remove this character, you are still left with the same main plot and story and everything. The film would still stand. Sometimes I wonder if I would get more involved in the main story without Jedburgh as a distraction. I mean I kept waiting for Jedburgh to have some input in the main plot, because he was a great character, but he didn't do anything apart from killing the bad guys at the end which I think could have been left open or closed in a different way.
shareI admit he's more a "bonus character" than everything else, a great one, but that doesn't make him an essential part of the plot. He meets Craven a few times, he helps him a bit, but he's not useful to his character's evolution, only to the writer's point or message. However I would go as far as seeing him as a distraction, because I like Edge of darkness for his combination of bluntness (if it's the right word) and not-so-simple vision of liberal societies at their worst.
About the end, what different ways do you have in mind ? To me the whole thing makes sense, it's easy to guess they're all gonna die (just like in Once upon a time in the West, in respectable proportions!), the hopeless tone of the film and its straightness make it clear.
(by the way the french title is "out of control"... see how lucky we are here)
Developping the Jedburgh character would have been a great thing, that's for sure, but the film's dynamic would have changed a lot (to become something close to Soderbergh's Traffic, for example) and the movie's length would have increased a lot (like 150 mns ?). Edge of darkness is not a political thriller with action scenes, it's an action-packed thriller with a touch of politic.
Distraction is probably the wrong word, just something else to think about other than the main plot, or wondering when he will do something in relation to the plot.
The end could be they get arrested and sent to jail (boring but realistic) or Gibson finds them out and kills them (less plausibly). There are a few ways the ending could have gone without Jedburgh. I like Jedburgh killing them dont get me wrong, but just think the plit could have worked without him, and still have a good ending for these guys.
"he didn't do anything apart from killing the bad guys at the end which I think could have been left open or closed in a different way."
When it comes to"the point" in the movieuniverse where everything has to mean something,that sort of justifies his presence. Besides the previous definition of him being on the edge of darkness,you have the easily best dialog in the film in his scenes,great performance...and he kills the bas guys. When itcomes to"it could´ve been closed differently"...so can most things in theory. Then everything becomes relative,speculative and most characters actions can be questioned when it comes to meaning,someone else could´ve done it or something else could´ve happened.
But it didn´t close differently,he did kill them,the people who hired him to kill others,the lead for one(that´s good irony) and knowing he´s termany-ill and regretting things and searching for redemption,he gets it. Then of course he always wanted a kid and is killed precisely due to his sentimentality but it´s a bittersweet irony,he was dying anyways.
He comes in and out of the story,warns Tom but still kills his daughters boyfriend...so he´s a wildcard. And ends up clipping the whole gang of baddies. The film pretty much collapses without the character,despite only like 5 scenes,even if only that´s cause the supporting characters are so bland.
What was the point of Winstones Mr. French in The departed? If that´s your take on storystructure,I mean...didn´t matter,he worked just fine there and the story was better with then without him.
I think what you're calling the main plot is really just the McGuffin--http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=McGuffin. On the surface the movie is just about revenge and in that sense you could easily drop the Jedburgh character. However the movie is not about revenge, it's about facing mortality in light of one's morality, in light of the standard one has chosen to live under. In that larger context Jedburgh becomes integral, the revenge story, the political intrigue, McGuffin's. Check out the script http://http://www.joblo.com/scripts/Edge%20of%20Darkness.pdf]. The last scene with Jedburgh at the senator's house combined with the final shots of the movie sum it all up for me. Loved this movie.
Because this version is nothing more than lots of Mel Gibson and shooting - lots of things don't make sense - but they do in the original British version which is 1000 times better than this one.
The storyline is mutilated in this new version, sorry to say.
In the British version Jedburgh's role makes a lot more sense.
Ooh I didn't know there was a British version. Interesting to see Martin Campbell directed them both. Gonna get it from lovefilm.
share[deleted]
He's a cheap deus ex machina used to tie up the plot by dealing the second round of justice, but this is often excused by the fact that he's a badass.
shareI just finished watching it. I usually understand the most convoluted of movies but anyway at the end when Jedburg shoots the three men, the Senator and fix it guys or whatever the other two are called. I didn't get why he was doing that, was hard to work out what side he was on, I was glad he did it but it just seemed a convenient way to end things. If I knew who he was actually being paid by then it would've made more sense. Did I miss something?
shareNot missing anything. He had a come to Jesus moment and dealt the justice Mel couldn't. Like I said, just a cheap plot device to tie things up neatly.
shareand when he said to the younger guy who came running with a gun, are you a father, do you have children, i just thought, who gives a fk, a father or not his life is just as valid, i guess Jedberg was going to die from the brain tumour anyway but just seemed like silly lines to me, would've been more powerful to just shoot himself lol.
shareThere's no honor in shooting yourself.
He was a soldier.
Sorry for the thread necro.
Just saying.
Yes,pault..an education lad.
I thought they set up after his visit with the doctor that he has some kind of terminal illness - so he knows his days are numbered - so instead of just dying slowly in a hospital bed, he was a warrior his whole life - he takes out three bad men and then lets the young cop take him out. It was his version of murder/suicide only he felt he was cleaning up some scumbags.
shareI have to agree with others here about the presence of Jedburgh (as an American CIA agent) making much more sense in the BBC mini-series.
share
Ray Winstone elevates each film that he has been in, from lead to character
several notches merely by stepping in and hitting his mark.I enjoy his manly presence,lacking in male film actors in American films...but oh my especially
in British cinema.
I was furious at the cheap shots taken by some envious BBC writer/about Mr.Winstone and Mr.Gibson's movie.The writer,whose name I have forgotten should
"check himself."
I'm in the middle of an informal Ray Winstone boycott. I've watched my last movie watching him sweat, which is what I expect more of here.
shareactually he gives craven a lot of important clues. He speaks of people from getting from a to b and he is the one who stops them from getting there.
Craven is one of those things that help connect a and b. Jedburgh should eliminate craven so people can't get from a to b, but for what ever reason you want to speculate about he doesn't.
Craven knows Jedburgh is supposed to eliminate him and has to be wary of him, because he did kill emma's boyfriend.
He asked the doctor as he shines a light into his eyes if the doctor sees a soul.
Something about this clean up job affects him. He mentions he has no kids asks the young policeman if he has kids and when he is told he does Jedburgh lowers his gun and gets killed. There is a hint in the cops demeanor his is more than a cop on protection detail, the way he looks at craven when he comes to see the senator for example. Is he eliminating Jedburgh so he can't be questions.
The fact that the people killed are all young adults seems to get to him.
He appears to kill the Senator be cause it is a clear moral decision.
He does give Craven some clues, but there is no reason for him to do so. Moral decision? From a lifelong hired killer?
Jedburgh might feel like it was easier to die right then and there.
But if Jedburgh thought that cop was one of the bad guys, he wouldn't have let him live.
And if he thought that cop was one of the good guys, he wouldn't have expected the cop to shoot him once he lowered his weapon; so he wouldn't have tried "suicide by cop."
Jedburgh was the name given to SAS teams dropped behind enemy lines in France before D Day to wreak havoc. I suppose the character was of that type.
share