Opinions are like a-holes, everybody's got one

This post is going to be a reaction to a 1993 movie called "Falling Down". To be more exact, it is more like a reaction to people's reaction on the YouTube.

The people who made the movie employed what I'd call the Rorschach Test approach. That is to say, those viewing it can project their own mental state upon it with their reactions to it. You can see that in the comments to the various videos which show scenes in the movie. So I thought, everybody else is doing it, so why the hell can't I? So here I am. I'm a going to do it.

Oh, no! Does this mean you sympathize with the main character, played by Michael Douglas? Or maybe his counter-character, played by Robert Duval? That's part of why I say it is a Rorshach Test. Neither are presented as a protaganist or antagonist. Only that Duval's character is tracking down Michael Douglas' character. He's the cop, and Michael Douglas' character is the bad guy. The tricky thing is that Douglas' lines at the climax asks "I'm the bad guy?", as if to say that this isn't entirely clear that he really is the bad guy. To which Duval's character says "they lie to everybody"-- meaning that he sees his point. The two really aren't enemies, but the situation forces them both into a confrontation. In the end, Douglas's character provokes a fatal gunfight with his fake weapon of a water pistol. There's no hatred, just a pathetic attempt at redemption of a sort for Douglas' character, and ironically the same for Duval's character.

For Duval's character was seen as a type of weakling failure of a cop. But he makes a good takedown of a bad guy. A parallel can be said of Douglas' character, who thinks his death will provide for his family, which would redeem him as a failure as a breadwinner.

The comment section tends to identify which side a person is on. Michael Douglas is seen as somebody redressing the harms of an evil society. But Duval is seen to have overcome the disrespect from an unappreciative wife and his co-workers--- he rises to the occassion while Douglas "falls down". It's ironic that he gains the respect of an obvious dysfunctional society that he recognizes as such, while at the same time having to gun down somebody that he really didn't want to have to do. On the other hand, Douglas' child will not get any insurance money after his criminal acts will probably void any insurance payout.

There really doesn't seem to be any winners here. Only losers. Nobody to root for exactly, just a certain pathos of a man who can only redeem himself by killing a man he didn't want to have to kill.

You can go on about the rest of commentary, but that's all from me. Other than this: Douglas' "falling down" can happen to anybody. How many times has there been a situation in which you could make the wrong move and come out on the wrong side of society in the way he did? I know there have been times when I came close to "losing it". Hopefully I can continue to avoid "losing it" entirely. I wouldn't advise anybody to get into the position that he did, and make myself a victim of a souless and dysfunctional society.

As for that, that part about our society is more true now than it was in 1993. It's only getting worse, and the society is getting more and more oppressive in its responses. It's hard to judge Douglas' character harshly in that light. But you'd like to at least try to be constructive in your approach.

But oppresive to who? That's the Rohrsach test! If you're on Douglas' side, you'd prefer America as it once was. But if you are on the side of many of the others that he contends with, you might say something different.