MovieChat Forums > Felony (2014) Discussion > Screenwriter Edgerton Comments on the En...

Screenwriter Edgerton Comments on the Ending


After reading everyone's thoughts about the meaning of the movie's ending, I saw this post written by the creator of The Joel Edgerton Miscelleny on Tumblr that includes some comments by Edgerton himself who wrote the script. Interesting.....

Contains Spoilers

"The ambiguous way in which the film ends is a genius move because each person’s response to it very cleverly reveals his or her own moral boundaries. Joel deliberately designed it to be this way:


'There’s something in this movie that I want the discussion to continue after the credits roll. You bring your moral code and your experience in life up until this point and tell me whether you think this man deserves to go to jail… or whether this man should let his punishment exist in his own conscience.'

'I hope people bring their moral compass and ask themselves, ‘What should he do? Should he turn himself in?’ The answers to those questions for any individual really say something about themselves. We wanted the movie to hold up a mirror to each member of the audience.'



My personal take on the ending is this (and I hope it doesn’t mean I have a seriously warped moral compass). Although Mal has received the internal redemption he craved by confessing and being forgiven by Ankhila, he appears to be preparing to turn himself in by closing out his case work, saying good-bye to his son, etc., but when he sees Jim standing by his car with that extra cup of coffee on the roof (that coffee is a very important detail when you remember the earlier scenes with Jim and Carl), he may be rethinking his plans….

What we see in that moment is two men coming to terms with the grey areas in life. Jim, who has always seen things as very black-or-white, is beginning to understand that bad things can happen by accident (e.g, the aftermath of his tussle with Carl) and he appears to be saying, “Okay, Mal, I sorta get it now. We need your expertise to get the truly bad guys so I’m willing to keep quiet and be your partner.” Mal seems to be reconsidering his plans to turn himself in, thinking, “Well, if straight-arrow Jim is willing to overlook what happened, then maybe I should keep my mouth shut, keep my family intact, and try to make amends by being an excellent cop. Like Carl said, I can do more good here than in prison.”

The fact that people can have so many differing opinions on what Mal and Jim are going to do and the morality of their decisions is what makes the film so rich. It’s not just a 110-minute diversion, but an invitation to examine our own consciences and moral boundaries."

reply

It's a very interesting movie imho. I was definitely pissed at Jim for being such a crusader. That kid shouldn't be out in the night driving in the middle of the road without a helmet. The way it is filmed Mal didn't swerve into the kids lane either. It's made to look like he didn't make a driving fault.

What I take away from this is that justice should be done by society and shouldn't be up to the victim nor the perpetrator. In Mal's place I wouldn't turn myself in. Nobody profits from this. Not he, not the mother, not the kid, not society, not his wife and definitely not his own children. If you weigh the outcome of your decision then it's clearly better to not turn yourself in. Why should he? Even the mother pardoned him. If Mal turns himself in then he is just weak.

The other thing is that other police officers didn't pull him over and stop him from driving. Or that Carl helped him cover it up.

Ultimately the moral is:
* Man can't police himself.
* And police can't police itself either.

reply

“Well, if straight-arrow Jim is willing to overlook what happened, then maybe I should keep my mouth shut, keep my family intact, and try to make amends by being an excellent cop.
This is the way I saw it ending as well.🐭

reply