MovieChat Forums > The Revenant (2016) Discussion > Fitzgerald's character made no sense

Fitzgerald's character made no sense

posted 8 years ago by kylo_ben
17 replies | jump to latest

At the beginning, he was established as an alpha male bully who's racist and keeps shouting 'THE PELTS!' Then after the Indian attack, you kind of feel for him, how THEM PELTS really are all he has going for him, and you might even understand where his racism is coming from if you're not a SJW libtard. The Indians well, were savages during all his encounters with them. They were some serious killing machines, even zombie-like, I don't blame him for feeling a little fearful.

And then his wanting to quietly put poor Glass to sleep and move on really was the smart thing to do.

It doesn't seem realistic at ALL that these men would want to coddle glass, at that point he was a literal corpse. And they just had 30 of their men SLAUGHTERED..

Fitz was the only one in the crew with balls. Killing glass would have been the right and moral thing to do. Glass even blinked, telling him to do it, and it didn't look like he would have without glass's consent.

But then all his good traits go out the window when he tries to choke him slowly, kill his son, and then he tries to bury glass alive? Wtf?! And then suddenly he says 'well you do it' to the other kid, when he was the one who wanted to kill him in the first place?

It's like Fitzgerald went from somewhat normal to a cold blooded psychopath with the drop of a hat and showed no signs of being crazy before he snapped.

[–] nihilistdude2000 8 years ago

Glass didn't blink, he was fighting to keep his eyes from blinking and finally he let them close but didn't open them back up (so as not to blink), Fitzgerald was just waiting on him to do this because it justified him killing him. Also I don't think he intended to kill the boy, it was just an instinctual reaction, he regretted it afterwards, but not out of sorrow, more so out of that he messed up by murdering him.

[–] AidaClarkfield 8 years ago

He did blink. He opened his eyes right after. It looked like a blink to me.
I don't know why he didn't just keep his eyes closed. I kept thinking that.

[–] davedave11 8 years ago

it was obviously a dirty trick by Fitzgerald --- If Ftiz was being honest he would have sid "blink twice"

[–] frankzappayay 8 years ago

Glass didn't blink

You should not comment on films anymore.

[–] mrkovacs 8 years ago

by frankzappayay » Sun Jul 24 2016 00:26:38
IMDb member since March 2004
Glass didn't blink

You should not comment on films anymore.

He most certainly did not "blink" in the sense that he was agreeing to let Fitzgerald kill him. It's exactly as the other poster said. Fitzgerald was just waiting for him to blink, which is going to happen eventually, to justify the killing in his mind.

That is the absolutely correct interpretation of that scene.

[–] Patrick_Kluivert 8 years ago

Fitzgerald was a character who had lived a miserable life, was partially scalped, he was tough as nails and only thought about himself. His character made plenty of sense.

And the men didn't want to coddle Glass - Captain Henry did. He was a man of honour and respected Glass for saving his life when the 'Ree attacked. And being the captain everyone had to do what he said.

[–] gljbradley 8 years ago

This.^

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ElPresidenteObamame 8 years ago

Here let me break it down for you:

Fitzgerald's character was a mentally defective bitch ass.

Why are you trying to understand the actions of a character in a movie that is written, acted, and intended to be a mental defective?

Why did Forrest Gump like chocolate so much?

WHO GIVES A *beep*

[–] frankzappayay 8 years ago

SJW libtard

How is being liberal a bad thing? How is social justice a bad thing?

[–] oRRe_cheaton 8 years ago

His moral compass has obviously gone haywire considering how much he seemed to like that selfish psychopath Fitz.

[–] lemlemlemy 8 years ago

Agreed. Being liberal is a great thing. What's an SJW libtard?

[–] zandam14 8 years ago

I don't normally respond to off topic replies, but since two people asked the question, I'll answer it.

Nothing wrong with being an SJW, just like there is nothing wrong with being a feminist, or being religious, or even being a republican.

It's when people take things to the extreme. Like when an SJW goes on about a dwarf being called a dwarf when technically, that is the correct term, but insist on calling them "Little People" because is his weird, twisted mind, belittling someone by calling them "little" is somehow more politically correct than using the actual technical term? It's when people start focusing on small details and making big issues, is when they go from being your casual SJW to an SJW Libtard. If that makes any sense.

[–] davedave11 8 years ago

WOW you are stupid

[–] Ava_T 8 years ago

After reading the true account his actions made more sense. Yes it was wrong to leave Glass for dead, but he was in terrible shape and only expected to live hours, maybe one day tops. They were sitting ducks. As time passed they would naturally become skittish, especially knowing how much the Ree enjoyed torturing their victims first. Even Glass saw one of his mates punctured with hundreds of pine needles, scalped, then hung upside down and set afire.

[–] Jeorj Euler 8 years ago

It's like Fitzgerald went from somewhat normal to a cold blooded psychopath with the drop of a hat and showed no signs of being crazy before he snapped.

His responses to the events around him seemed quite normal throughout the course of the movie. The only thing he did that seemed particularly deranged was scalping Henry, but he could've done that for practical reasons like making it seem as though the indians did it.