MovieChat Forums > Red White & Blue (2010) Discussion > Erica is the most despicable character i...

Erica is the most despicable character in this film... (SPOILERS)

posted 13 years ago by Guy-Montag
20 replies | jump to latest

All of the character is this remarkable film are both victims and villains. Erica, however, seems to me to be the only true sociopath. For years she knowingly and maliciously infected scores of men with HIV in order to exact some sort of revenge for the abuse she suffered at the hands of her mother's boyfriend.

She actually encouraged these men NOT to use a condom ("Be a man, William. Condoms are for homos.") This indicates that her intention was to infect them and nothing more.

Both Franki and Nate committed hideously violent acts, however these acts were committed in moments of extreme grief after the death of a loved one. Erica's crimes continued over YEARS, and may have killed countless people. Remember, Erica wasn't only infecting these men, but their wives and girlfriends and Lord know who else.

"Not fare well, but fare forward, voyagers."

[–] djsmokingjam 13 years ago

I think you mean Erica as opposed to Franki - but yes, you make a good point.

Give a thousand monkeys a thousand laptops and they'd all be writing their stupid opinions on IMDB.

[–] Guy-Montag 13 years ago

Wow, I'm amazed I did that!

"Not fare well, but fare forward, voyagers."

[–] FeistyCadavr 13 years ago

Agreed, I was disgusted with Erica before it was found out she had HIV, just because she was such a wh0re. After I found out, well, there isn't a word to describe. I'm sure we can all sympathize with the trauma she sustained as a child, but that is no excuse to attempt to be a human pandemic. What a rotten slut.

People can learn from this though, never have unprotected sex with someone you know, love and trust 100%. If it's just a "F em and forget em scenario" USE protection.

[–] MelisandreRW 11 years ago

oh please shut your stupid face they all wanted to sleep with her just like you would die to sleep with her even if she had aids. You can't fix stupid its their fault you idiot "slap"

[–] C.S.Wood 11 years ago

oh please shut your stupid face they all wanted to sleep with her just like you would die to sleep with her even if she had aids. You can't fix stupid its their fault you idiot "slap"

Saw this a few years ago, rewatching it again.

You're right, the guys should have used protection. But Erica knew she was infected and had sex with as many guys as possible and discouraged at least a few from using protection. This makes her worse, at least in the sense that she caused the terrible events that happened. The guys were also wrong for murdering her instead of going to the police and getting her face plastered everywhere so that every guy she slept with might have the chance to know what she did, but technically she was potentially responsible for more deaths than the guys were, as sick as that is.

As someone above mentioned, every death in the film was the result of her intentionally infecting people with a deadly incurable disease. Imagine if it were a man intentionally infecting women. Would you hold the women more responsible for not demanding the guy use protection or the guy for intentionally infecting the women?

Yes, Erica was victimized when she was just a kid, but that does not give her carte blanche to exact her revenge on hundreds of naive men, most of which were probably just normal guys who didn't do anything wrong to anyone.

Don't try to cash in love, that check will always bounce.

[–] cthulhulurks 10 years ago

She was 4 years when it happened, real people wouldn't even remember anything.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

[–] gregoryhuffman 10 years ago

"Agreed, I was disgusted with Erica before it was found out she had HIV, just because she was such a wh0re."

So, what's wrong with being a "wh0re"? Yes, she's evil for spreading HIV, but why are you disgusted with someone just because they want to have sex a lot? Who does it hurt (if you do it safely)?

[–] lyndsay_lane 13 years ago

I agree with you about Erica. I really didn't like her character, partially because something about the actress who played her really rubbed me the wrong way. I couldn't stand her. I did feel bad for what happened to her when she was 4, but that's no excuse to go infect countless men and women and even babies with HIV. One of those men could have had sex with his wife after her and if she had gotten pregnant...it's just really messed up. However when she was talking about it, it wasn't like she was some evil psychopath. She was talking about it like she was a child. "Who cares it's just a disease, whatever..." And she wasn't thinking about the true consequences of her action. She was acting immature and selfish more so than an evil psychopath. Still didn't like her though...

[–] Zando777 11 years ago

Maybe don't bang skanky chicks without protection if you're married? Just a thought.

[–] william86 10 years ago

Maybe don't bang skanky chicks without protection if you're married? Just a thought.

So you're saying people who have open marriages deserved to get infected?

Also are you saying the guy who is in a regular marriage who cheated on his wife, it's somehow okay with you that he infects his wife who didn't know about the cheating?

[–] grinderVegan765 12 years ago

I agree that she is the most despicable character in the film, even when she was dead people continued to die in her name. But I still empathised with her.

i found a whistle

[–] chilone 11 years ago

She was a truly awful, detestable, malicious, calculating, evil person and her intentionally infecting as many men as she could was the direct catalyst and cause of EVERY death in the movie including her own. Frankie was a putz but he didn't mean her any harm. She basically committed premeditated, slow, first degree murder on him AND caused his mother to commit suicide!! I'd be a little pi$$ed!! The other guys didn't do anything to her and actually tried to save her. They (and that poor little girl especially) definitely didn't deserve to die.

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

[–] Zando777 11 years ago

For those attacking Erica:

1. AIDS is no longer a death sentence. She's living proof.
2. She wasnt conciously trying to hurt anyone. She may not have even known. She was just too filled with self-loathing to even care.
3. Yes, she shouldn't have been a skank who slept with everyone, even minorities. She should have at least used protection, especially if she knew. So should've the guys.

But if there's a point to this film, it's that everyone, no matter how messed up, has some good in them, and deserves some love and compassion. Especially her.

2. She wasn't conciously trying

[–] Guy-Montag 10 years ago

1. AIDS is no longer a death sentence. She's living proof.

That hardly lessens the magnitude of her crimes.

2. She wasnt conciously trying to hurt anyone. She may not have even known.

Incorrect. Did you watch the same film I did? She confesses to Franki, with a malicious sneer, that the men she sleeps with "deserve it if the think they can get away with it". She knew what she was doing.

3. Yes, she shouldn't have been a skank who slept with everyone, even minorities

WHAT???

But if there's a point to this film, it's that everyone, no matter how messed up, has some good in them, and deserves some love and compassion. Especially her.

I'm not trying to antagonize you (disregarding your casually racist remark above), but you completely missed this movie. Did you take a nap during the last 45 minutes? I can understand a certain level of sympathy of Erica as an abuse survivor, but that DOES NOT excuse her crimes.

The point of the film is to demonstrate the horrific, cyclical nature of vengeance. Nothing is resolved, there is no sense of justice or cathartic release.

"Not fare well, but fare forward, voyagers."

[–] cthulhulurks 10 years ago

The torturer is still the most evil character, he causes the most damage and pain.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

[–] nastasya_filippovna 10 years ago

I just finished watching this movie, and I can't believe that you and I are the only two people who agree on this observation. What Erika did was inexcusable, knowingly infecting innocent people with AIDS. The context of her intentions were incredibly sad, but using that pain to inflict pain on men who never abused her was a horrendous act of cruelty. She was, however, an incredibly mentally disturbed woman with unresolved PTSD, and let's not forget, she was also intentionally harming herself in the process- she was not finding any joy in her plethora of one-nighters. But my God, the hit-man was a sociopath. And Erika was not responsible for the deaths of everybody as so many have claimed. That is utterly illogical. It was the hit-man (or whatever he was) who made the decision to go out and kill everybody he decided played a role in her death. Nobody can hold HER accountable for HIS actions. The analogy is eerie when you think back to what he said at the beginning of the movie when he talked about his cat- he says how he adored his cat, took care of it and never harmed it, but it never stopped it from killing all other animals- obviously the same applied to Erika and everybody else. This man was a psychopath. And Frankie, I feel terrible in truth for Frankie- he had a breakdown.

[–] cthulhulurks 10 years ago

You can argue that Nate was looking for an excuse to torture someone to death. Just like in the scene where Erica is harassed by a lavatory.

The target audience of this film are fans of gore and they tend to objectify the villain. Probably because they watch a film for gore. So they don't hold Nate responsible, he has no free will and he's not supposed to do anything but murder.

As for Erica she looked like she was enjoying her adventures. She seemed to think she could have fun and revenge at the same time.

Frankie didn't know what to do with the girl, he said it himself. He snapped and stabbed Erica only to regret it right after, he was perfectly sane.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

[–] nastasya_filippovna 10 years ago

the gore factor was just wayyy to much for me. It went beyond realism. And of course this is strictly subjective observation and insight of course, but there are movies with violent scenes, but they show what the director feels is necessary to create an impact; this did, for me, just go way beyond in what felt like an attempt to become almost what felt like an entrance into the horror genre- it lost the effect of the theme up to that point. I will say that it didn't seem Erika was enjoying her adventures, given the reactions she showed after her encounters (the crying in the showers, the utter lifelessness and despondent nature after her orgasms). But that type of vengeance, taken out on innocent people, is murder. Really, its a portrait of three types of murderers.

[–] cthulhulurks 10 years ago

Then the title should be Erica, Frankie and Nate: a Portrait of Killers.

But I think the film went further than just imitate the old title, it's actually more entertaining.

I don't know what was the intent of the filmmaker, common sense tells me Erica was promiscuous because she was a sex addict, her vengeance motive not only being secondary but also perpetuating her quasi-PTS. She has a crappy life, a low self-esteem and no friends. We can't know if she really wants a family, she may be friends with the kid only because she doesn't trust adults.

my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings

[–] ilk005 10 years ago

Erica and other guys who slept with her, they are all not innocent. Erica wasn't be a whore just because she is in a trouma. this life is not like that. you don't have justice to mess people's life because someone has done yours.

what about other men? they deserve it. they deserve a HIV. you can't sleep with everybody. this is disrespect to your life and other people's life. You are not an animal which you can do it infront people and with everybody.

ewww this is disgusting film but shows the truth some disgusting lifes.