I think you're both right. He didn't change, because he is still consumed with anger. But he did change because he learned to control it.
There's a deleted scene on the DVD that explains more. In the scene, the cop's partner is reading from a self help book and says something like (me paraphrasing) "People make the mistake of trying to hide anger. But anything that's suppressed becomes repressed." The main character gets mad when he hears that & throws a fit.
Now recall the deacon's speech in the church "We can't change who we are, but God gives us the choice to act on our nature."
Or as you just said, "an angry person is likely going to retain anger throughout life, but they can become aware of themselves and manage it differently."
So essentially the movie is saying a tiger CAN'T change its stripes. But the main character changed by learning to control his nature. Is that a true "change"? Maybe, but I don't think so... it seems contrived, kinda like pretending to be happy. Just because you learn to put on a smile it doesn't mean you're a happy person. The question is what constitutes a true change? The way we behave or the way we feel? Either way, I think we're saying the same thing. The only difference is how we define the word "change".
reply
share