The Myriad Ugly Faces of Vigilantism

by Jason Pyles

Author’s note: I intentionally waited to pair my comments on “The Star Chamber” and “Kick-Ass” due to their common themes of vigilantism. Sorry so lengthy.

Andy, I knew you would either enjoy or hate the “The Star Chamber,” thanks to your professional experience, and I had a feeling it would be the latter. It’s not uncommon for a real-deal industry professional like yourself to balk at Hollywood’s attempted portrayal of his craft ... understandably so.

To me “The Star Chamber” is a tricky little film, meaning it had to do some hoop-jumping not to alienate its audience. Naturally, I defer to Andy’s expertise on all the finer points of the law and inner-workings of the legal system, but I will make my layman’s attempt at discussing this film.

As Andy notes below, we see the abridged version of a few cases where the defendants — who are accused of hideous crimes — are apparently caught red-handed. But due to various instances of logistical mismanagement of said cases, each defendant’s defense attorney is able to spring him. Everyone is outraged and horrified by the absence of justice, especially the judge (Michael Douglas), whose hands are tied, ironically, by the law. (Yet, as Andy points out, the Constitution is simply being upheld.)

Now, I consider this a tricky little film because I am impressed at the relatable way the film conveys the legal points of each case in a comprehensible manner that doesn’t exclude guys like me who have no law school degree. It would have been more impressive still if their legal scenarios had held water, but alas, Andy informs us that they don’t.

And yet, despite all that, “The Star Chamber” takes us on a bit of a moral-dilemma ride, whereby it deviously enlightens us on the problematic nature of vigilantism, as well as our current legal system. I love when a film appears to have one stance, then it appears to have another, and then in the end we realize it just tricked us into considering (or at least listening to) multiple perspectives.

Andy (or anybody), do you know why it’s called “The Star Chamber”? Did I miss something obvious, or is it obscure legal term? Perhaps it’s Kafka’s.

As for “Kick-Ass,” I love this film — who doesn’t? What a great premise: What would happen if a regular, nerdy guy tried to be a superhero? Hasn’t someone thought of that before? Yes, even in reality. A few years ago I saw a news report on a guy in Oregon who walks around in a Spandex get-up doing good deeds. As I recall, the police were insistent that he stick to helping old ladies across the street and recovering cats from trees. And then there’s The Guardian Angels, who are a type of superhero to me.

Aside from its entertaining premise, two aspects of “Kick-Ass” make it brilliant:

1. The film takes an unflinching look at just how dangerous such an ambition could be. (Unfortunately, there will be some, no doubt, who try to emulate viral, YouTube crime-fighting, and that’s probably not a good thing.) Kick-Ass’s first attempt at crime fighting quickly goes from humorous to disturbing to upsetting.

2. And the true genius behind this film is the slick way it begins as a comic-book movie parody — seeming to ridicule the genre — while seamlessly becoming that very object we thought it was mocking. Indeed, “Kick-Ass” ends up following the same formula as most other comic book movies but in a refreshingly clever way. Brilliance.

And yes, I loved Hit Girl, too, just as much as everyone else. However, I have some qualms with her dialogue. (The stylized action violence doesn’t bother me.) Call me a censor, but I don’t think anybody should say that word she says — you know the one — especially not a 13-year-old girl. Also, it’s probably irresponsible of the writers and filmmakers to outfit her in such fetishistic, dominatrix attire, because if we guys are honest with ourselves, there is something “intriguing” about Hit Girl, despite her age — perhaps it’s the purple wig. (I’m not a sicko, by any means, and I’m not the only grown male who has said this. It’s even joked about in the film itself.) Indeed, I’ve heard that Hit Girl’s also a hit with the pedophiles, which is very disturbing.

Here we have two films whose underlying concept is vigilante justice. We Americans love these kinds of films: “Dirty Harry,” “Death Wish,” “The Punisher,” “A Time to Kill” — and pretty much any western or martial arts flick, etc. I guess we find something extremely appealing about taking the law into our own hands, exacting justice as we see fit.

Vigilante films allow us to indulge in the proverbial “ideological safety valve,” in which we get to experience violent fantasies vicariously by visualizing them onscreen, thus relieving our own desires to execute such violence ourselves in the real world. (Road rage murders are a simple demonstration of the folly of vigilantism, by the way; it’s easy to take it too far or to get killed yourself.)

But superheroes are a horse of a colorful color. We seem to deem them worthy of the wisdom to be judges, juries and executioners, though they often don’t kill their perps. But I guess the difference between the two films’ takes on vigilantism is the point at which the justice is administered: In “Kick-Ass,” justice is often delivered on the spot, while the crime is in progress, and “The Star Chamber” still follows some semblance of judicial consideration.

I don’t believe vigilante films (and real-world vigilantism) will ever go out of style. Victims who consider themselves robbed of justice will always find it in vogue to deputize themselves into retaliation. Yeah, in every one of us, there’s probably a Damon “Big Daddy” Macready lying dormant — but capable of eruption, if the circumstances were ever sufficiently provocative.

Addendum: According to the usual 20-year remake rule and the Internet Movie Database, a presumable remake of “The Star Chamber” is currently in development for a 2011 release.

"Star Chamber" as reviewed by Andy

I don't care for movies like "Star Chamber." I suppose it's true for any person whose profession is depicted in film, but as a criminal defense attorney, I can't stand "Star Chamber." In fairness to my friend Karl, he did not recommend the movie as a good movie, rather, it it came up in a discussion that we had.

The jist of the movie is that one judge in California (played by Michael Douglas) is feeling overwhelmed by decisions he had to make that led to the dismissal of a couple of murder cases. The evidence that was supressed (which resulted in the dismissals) were based on illegal searches (one scenario would not now be an illegal search). He feels frustrated because he doesn't believe "justice" is being done. Apparently, in this alternate reality, several judges in California are having this same problem. All kinds of murderers are getting off scott-free.

Another judge who was his mentor invites him to join a group of judges called the Star Chamber. The chamber passes judgment against those defendants who "get off" on technicalities (i.e. the constitution), and if they judge someone to die, they send out an assassin to get the guy.

I guess what bothers me is this idea that a constitutional violation of the law is a "technicality." The fourth amendment is alive and well and protects us all from an encroaching government because illegal searches result in suppressed evidence. The fact of the matter is that good defense attorneys make sure the game is played fairly. As long as cops and prosecutors do their jobs, the bad guys go to jail. And fortunately for all of us, most cops and prosecutors are honest, and very good at what they do, and as a result, our country is a nice place in which to live.

Anyway, my soap box speech could go on and on, but that's the sum of it. And really, I'll bet nobody can think of a single murderer who escaped punishment because of a constitutional violation or a judge's ruling on the admissibility of evidence. And I do appreciate that the film has the decency to show some of the inherent problems with the chamber.

My favorite quote from the film: While watching a LA Dodgers ballgame, Emily says to Adrian, "Was that a homerun?" Adrian replies, "No, that was a single."

"Kick Ass" comments by Andy

For some reason I thought "Kick Ass" was an indy film. I was dead wrong. I was as wrong as many of the bad guys in the film, in fact.

I also thought the film was simply a comedy. Again, I was wrong. It was hilarious for a large portion of the film, but it was surprisingly dark for parts too.

Chloe Moretz steals the show as "Hit-Girl." Ms. Moretz , andI hope you google your name every-so-often to find this: You are fabulous. Keep doing what you are doing.

I will say, though, that I don't hold much hope for having a good sequel. I think there probably will be one if someone can write a passable script, but I have real doubts that it will be good. Here's why - what made "Kick Ass" so great was that it chronicled a tale of a young man, Dave Lizewski, who decided to be a superhero, and he was horrible at it. He got his hat handed to him in every single situation. He did manage to get a girl, which was what the impetus was for being a superhero, but it was really only through the help of other people.

His tale was interspersed and entwined with another arc of the revenge of the Macready, who were, in fact, superheros. They had the training, the weaponry, the know-how, and the targets to be actual vigilantes. They were really good - in fact Hit Girl was probably the most brutal of them all. And as the story unfolded, Dave quickly realizes that he's not cut out to be a superhero, and that he certainly doesn't have the acumen to fight crime. The problem is he becomes inexorably caught up in the Macready's revenge plot.

The point is, I don't know how anyone would write a sequel that would in any way be true to this movie's characters. Dave never actually becomes a superhero, and even if you say that he has become one, you've left the original premise of the movie. That's just my opinion.

But, wow, what a fun film. Ms. Moretz - you are terrific. Keep making movies.

"Enduring Love?" comments by Andy

Wasn't sure why the title is what it is until the end of the movie. I honestly had no idea what the movie was about before watching the film.

Stalkers are fun, aren't they? I almost always hate stalker films for many of the same reasons that I was so critical of the character in "Julia." Victims of stalkers almost never avail themselves of the appropriate tools to deal with their stalkers. Such is true of Joe, although I was very glad to see Joe's willingness to deal with the situation when push finally came to shove.

I think what makes "Enduring Love" such a brilliant stalking film is that if you don't know anything about the movie ahead of time, you aren't immediately aware that you are watching a stalker film. Rhys Ifans is absolutely fabulous as Jed, and Jed is just about as creepy as you can get and still be believable. He was instantly off-putting when asking Joe to pray.

My only concern with the movie was that it seemed rather slow. I appreciate a good drama, but I don't understand how the film could feel so long without spending any real time explaining how Joe's relationship devolved so terribly over time. And the curtain reference seemed a little thin to me. Why was his girlfriend so unreceptive to his midnight theory anyway?

Daniel Craig is a pro.

Up, Up and Away

by Jason Pyles

“Enduring Love” is another odd little film in the neighborhood of “All the Little Animals.” It’s sort of surprising that it was ever made, but I suppose I’m glad it was.

It has one of the most intriguing curtain-raisers I’ve ever seen in a film. As far as inciting incidents go, this one takes the cake. It has to do with a hot air balloon accident. In case anyone reading this hasn’t seen it and plans to, I won’t discuss it here. But I must say that the filmmakers did a great job filming the scene; it must have been a logistical challenge.

Unfortunately, “Enduring Love” has the second-act blues, where it sags badly in the middle. If only the balloon accident figured into the story more. Actually, that’s not the story at all; it’s a story of stalking and obsession.

In addition to the balloon scene, there’s a deeply creepy scene in the middle of the film, where a man is sitting on a playground in the rain. It’s truly chilling. Also, there’s a heart-stopping scene toward the end that is absolutely horrifying. These three moments make this unusual film worth seeing, just for their ability to give us such troubling cinematic experiences.

Otherwise, “Enduring Love” lulls and lulls. It took me three nights to watch it, because I kept falling asleep during the long second act. This is no reflection, of course, on the wonderful performances given by Daniel Craig (the new 007) and Rhys Ifans, who is probably best known for his role as the terrible roommate in “Notting Hill.” More recently he played in “The Boat That Rocked” aka “Pirate Radio,” once again, alongside Bill Nighy, who is also in “Enduring Love.”

I don’t know that I’ve seen any other film with a similar usage of a hot air balloon. It reminded me of a real-life horror story I once heard: I have a friend whose father worked at an upscale, rural resort. If I remember correctly, they knew a hot air balloon instructor there, and he was giving a lesson or something. I guess a kid was in the balloon and for one reason or another, the instructor was outside the balloon and it started taking off, so the instructor dutifully and bravely held onto the the outside of the basket and ended up dying from being beaten to death as he was dragged through the tree-tops. Awful.

Every year (while living in Utah), my family enjoys attending the hot air balloon show that’s part of the Freedom Festival in Provo, around the Fourth of July. Standing among those giants is truly awe-inspiring, but it reinforces my decision not to ride in one. And now “Enduring Love” pretty much seals the deal.

"Overnight" comments by Andy

Troy Duffy is a douche. He's probably going to google his own name and read this blog. Frankly, I don't care. What a tool!!!!

"Overnight" was fascinating. It's not common for me to be so enthralled and enraged at the same time. The documentary was fascinating on two levels - one as an inside look into how things work in Hollywood, and second as how amazingly arrogant and stupid Troy Duffy is in blowing his deal.

Hollywood is fickle and finicky. A lot of promises are given and broken - lives made and then suddenly shattered. Also, it's extremely political; piss off or on the wrong person and it could get you blacklisted like a communist during McCarthy. Troy Duffy is a perfect example of what NOT to do if you find yourself suddenly in the limelight because Harvey Weinstein takes an interest in your film.

Did anyone even see "Boondock Saints?" My first question should be why did Mr. Weinstein even like "Boondock Saints?" It was really a stupid film without an impressive plot, or any real character development, cinematography, or violence. It seemed on par with a mediocre first attempt at film-making. I don't know what the fuss was all about. Honestly, far too many F words and otherwise stupid dialogue for me to really enjoy watching it. How did he even get a sequel? Why did the sequel suck so badly too???

Anyway, thanks Troy Duffy for reminding me that even total douche bags catch unbelievably awesome breaks and still find a way to screw it up! Your brother was right - you lost sight of it. You really should have focused more on the band.

Oh, and by the way, Mr. Duffy, if you do read this, feel free to respond and offer counter-argument. Andy is my real name...

Troy Duffy and Overnight

by Jason Pyles

Troy Duffy. Ah, I haven’t seen such a good villain in a documentary since Billy Mitchell in “The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters,” which by the way, is an absolute must-see, whether you like video games or not. And if you have any interest in the drama found behind the scenes in the filmmaking business, “Overnight” is also a must-see.

For those who don’t know, Troy Duffy is the writer-director of “The Boondock Saints” and its sequel, “The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day,” both of which have a cult following comparable to the “Twilight” enthusiasts. Therefore, I am prepared, since this post is vulnerably exposed on the Internet, for The Great Defenders to ensure that I don’t say anything negative about the objects of their affection. Indeed, Troy Duffy himself might happen upon this post and light up the comments section with expletives and other intelligent colorful metaphors. So be it.

Comment away, of course, but please answer this: What’s the story behind Troy Duffy’s writing of “The Boondock Saints,” and how did Harvey Weinstein ever come to read his script? I’d just like to know how this all came about. I like Smith & Montana’s film, but I only wish it explained the preliminary connections that preceded the footage found in the film.

I mean, “The Boondock Saints” is OK — entertaining, to be sure — but like Roger Ebert, I wonder why Harvey Weinstein was initially so taken with Duffy. Or was he? I mean, we only hear Duffy’s version of the story, so perhaps he never was this golden boy that he suggests.

And by the way, was it his first script? How many drafts did he write? Where did he learn screenwriting? I’m so intrigued by Duffy’s process, because he doesn’t seem like a writer. He’s like a kid I knew in grade school named John C. There was an art contest in which he entered a perfectly drawn rainbow trout. Everybody knew he didn’t draw it, but he still won the contest, anyway. (What could the judges do?) Now, I’m not saying Duffy didn’t write his scripts, I’m just saying I’m surprised that he did. As Andy has mentioned, we can definitely see from the movies themselves that these scripts come from Duffy.

In any event, film deals fall through all the time in Hollywood. Projects commonly go into turnaround and suffer in Development Hell. But I think it’s apparent from this documentary — even if it is “selectively edited” — that Duffy sunk his own ship. He shot himself in the foot with his own hubris. I’m not here to judge Duffy or talk smack about him; it’s just the only conclusion I can draw after seeing this film.

Undoubtedly, as we see in the film, the directors Tony Montana and Mark Brian Smith arguably had reason to edit this film in such a way that it cast Duffy in an unfavorable light. I mean, who knows, maybe they had footage of Duffy saving a puppy from the road or helping old ladies across the street, but I doubt it. Duffy exposes himself in this film.

Still, there are moments when these filmmakers are, themselves, vulnerable under the scrutinizing eye of the camera lens, but to their credit, they include those moments, and I respect them for that.

The most tragic character in the film, to me, was Troy’s brother, Taylor, who truly seems to live for their band, and at one point has a heart-felt talk with his brother that falls on deaf ears, incurring more wrath.

But hey, again, I’m not here to judge Troy Duffy. I’ll judge his films and call them OK. Willem Dafoe steals the show — and in fact, is the show — in the first film. The second suffers without him, though Clifton Collins Jr. is a fine character actor whom I admire. His performance in the second movie makes it worth seeing.

In “The Boondock Saints” films, before the saints execute their victims, they recite a prayer and speak in scriptural tongue. Well, after watching “Overnight,” I can comfortably say Troy Duffy’s saints should recite Proverbs 16: 18 to him, which reads:

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Still, I must admit, I hope Troy Duffy keeps making films. He does have some talent. I’m curious to see what else he can do.