2 more reviews

1. ›Primal Fear (1996): what is the truth? | ¿cuál es la verdad?@cristiancaicedo1002d

   

   Edward Norton's film debut | La primera película de Edward Norton

   Almost a month ago I uploaded a review of American History X with Edward Norton and @netflixr told me about another of that great actor's first films called Primal Fear. I thought I'd heard it before, but I didn't relate to it and I didn't know it was Norton's big screen debut, so I was very excited to finally see it.

   Hace casi un mes subí una reseña de American History X con Edward Norton y @netflixr me habló de otra de las primeras películas de ese gran actor llamada Primal Fear. Me dio la impresión de haberla oído alguna vez, pero no la relacionaba con él y no sabía que era el debut en la gran pantalla de Norton, así que estaba muy emocionado de verla finalmente.

   

   Poster

   The reason I didn't associate Norton with that title was because the protagonist is really Richard Gere, one of the stars of the 1990s. Gere plays Martin Vail, a Chicago lawyer who has been criticized for accepting the defense of dangerous criminals and people who are widely believed to be guilty. This has not only led him to gain a reputation for being shady but has generated a reputation that he would be able to defend anyone for a juicy commission and a little publicity in the press, but is it really like that? Or is Martin's work ethic to give anyone the opportunity to defend themselves regardless of whether the evidence incriminates them or whether everything seems to point to their guilt? Is it just Martin's desire to go against the system or does he really believe that everyone has the right to self-defense? These are some of the questions that arise at the beginning because Martin is a somewhat ambiguous character. Added to this is a dramatic-romantic element and that is that his ex-partner (or something like that), a talented woman named Janet, played by Laura Linney, continues to work for the firm from which he resigned. This is how things go, from case to case, until an event occurs that shakes Chicago society and the trial of the century begins.

   La razón por la que no relacionaba a Norton con ese título era porque el protagonista realmente es Richard Gere, una de las estrellas de la década de los noventa. Gere interpreta a Martin Vail, un abogado de Chicago que ha sido criticado por aceptar la defensa de criminales peligrosos y personas que de acuerdo a la opinión pública son culpables. Esto no sólo lo ha llevado a labrarse la fama de turbio sino que le ha generado una reputación de que sería capaz de defender a cualquier persona por una jugosa comisión y por un poco de publicidad en la prensa, pero ¿es realmene así? ¿o acaso la ética de trabajo de Martin es darle la oportunidad a cualquier persona a que se defienda sin importar que las pruebas lo incriminen o que todo parezca señalar su culpabilidad? ¿son sólo deseos de Martin de ir en contra del sistema o de verdad cree que todo el mundo tiene derecho a una legítima defensa? Estas son algunas de las preguntas que surgen al inicio porque Martin es un personaje algo ambiguo. A ello se suma un elemento dramático-romántico y es que su ex pareja (o algo así), una talentosa mujer llamada Janet, interpretada por Laura Linney, sigue trabajando para la firma a la cual él renunció. Así van las cosas, de caso en caso, hasta que ocurre un hecho que sacude a la sociedad de Chicago y el juicio del siglo se inicia.

   

   Aaron (Edward Norton)

   The archbishop of Chicago is found brutally murdered in his residence and, after being arrested while fleeing the scene of the crime, Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) is arrested. His arms and face are stained with blood and he was found with the murder weapon in his hand. Public opinion immediately condemns him, but Martin Vail wants to defend him.

   El arzobispo de Chicago aparece brutalmente asesinado en su residencia y, tras ser detenido mientras huía del escenario del crimen, Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) es detenido. Sus brazos y su rostro están manchados de sangre y fue hallado con el arma homicida en la mano. La opinión pública lo condena de inmediato, pero Martin Vail quiere defenderlo.

   

   Poster

   After talking with Aaron, Martin believes in his innocence. Despite the evidence that points to it, Martin believes that the boy is not guilty. Someone else must have murdered the religious, but who? The idea is to find that other person and during their investigations Martin's team begins to find increasingly delicate and murky information about the relationships and behavior of the murdered archbishop, a revered figure in society not only for his position but also for his fame as impeccable ethics and fight for those most in need, but what if it's all a lie? What if the archbishop was actually someone who was up to no good and someone wanted to silence him and lock up Aaron as a scapegoat? Little by little, very dangerous information is discovered, but it also connects Aaron, who is one of the altar boys of the parish, that is, the same things that can serve to disassociate him from the case seem to give him a reason to be the culprit. It is in the middle of all this dilemma when, thanks to a psychologist played by Frances McDormand, the lawyer discovers that Aaron may suffer from a multiple personality problem, so is he the murderer? Can he be convicted for that? Or despite his problem, Aaron is still innocent? The truth becomes increasingly difficult to find and until the end of the film we cannot be sure what happened.

   Después de conversar con Aaron, Martin cree en su inocencia. A pesar de las pruebas que lo señalan, Martin cree que el muchacho no es culpable. Alguien más debió asesinar al religioso, pero ¿quién? La idea es encontrar a ese otro y durante sus investigaciones el equipo de Martin comienza a encontrar información cada vez más delicada y turbia sobre las relaciones yel comportamiento del arzobispo asesinado, una figura reverenciada en la sociedad no sólo por su posición sino por su fama de ética intachable y de lucha a favor de los más necesitados, pero ¿y si es todo mentira? ¿y si el arzobispo era en realidad alguien que andaba en malos pasos y alguien quiso silenciarlo y encerrar a Aaron como chivo expiatorio? Poco a poco se descubre información muy peligrosa, pero que también conecta a Aaron, quien es uno de los monaguillos de la parroquia, es decir, las mismas cosas que pueden servir para desvincularlo del caso parecen darle un motivo para ser el culpable. Es en medio de todo este dilema cuando, gracias a una psicóloga interpretada por Frances McDormand, el abogado descubre que Aaron puede sufrir de un problema de múltiple personalidad, entonces ¿él es el asesino? ¿puede ser condenado culpable por eso? ¿o a pesar de su problema, Aaron sigue siendo inocente? La verdad se vuelve cada vez más difícil de hallar y hasta el final de la cinta no podemos estaar seguros de qué fue lo que ocurrió.

   

   Scene from the movie | Escena de la película

   Primal Fear is a legal thriller that is based on the 1993 novel of the same name by William Diehl. It addresses issues such as mental illness, the American justice system, the search for truth, guilt and the ambiguity that characterize us as human beings. The script is good, but I think the best are the performances and the cast: Richard Gere, Laura Linney, John Mahoney, Alfre Woodard, Frances McDormand, Andre Braugher, Maura Tierney and of course Edward Norton, whose role earned him the Golden Globe and nominations for important awards. I was impressed to learn how just two years after Primal Fear, Norton starred in American History X and just a year later the iconic Fight Club, especially because the leap in quality on the screen, in the script and in the movie from '96 and Fincher's is huge: Primal Fear seems like a much older movie than Fight CLub, which has already become a classic on the big screen, have any of you seen Primal Fear? What is your favorite Edward Norton movie? I read you in the comments.

   

   The Book | El Libro

   Primal Fear es un thriller legal que se basa en la novela de 1993 del mismo nombre de William Diehl. Trata cuestiones como la enfermedad mental, el sistema de justicia norteamericano, la búsqueda de la verdad, la culpabilidad y la ambigüedad que nos caracteriza como seres humanos. El guión es bueno, pero creo que lo mejor son las actuaciones y el reparto: Richard Gere, Laura Linney, John Mahoney, Alfre Woodard, Frances McDormand, Andre Braugher, Maura Tierney y por supuesto Edward Norton, cuyo papel le valió el Gobo de Oro y nominaciones a premios importantes. Me impresionó saber cómo apenas dos años después de Primal Fear, Norton protagonizó American History X y apenas un año después la icónica Fight Club, sobre todo porque el salto de calidad que hay en pantalla, en el guión y en la película del '96 y la de Fincher es enorme: Primal Fear parece una película mucho más vieja que Fight CLub, la cual ya se ha convertido en todo un clásico de la gran pantalla, ¿alguno de ustedes ha visto Primal Fear? ¿cuál es su película favorita de Edward Norton? Los leo en los comentarios.

   ---

   Reviewed by | Reseñado por @cristiancaicedo

   ---

   Other posts that may interest you | Otros posts que pueden interesarte:

   Love at First Sight (2023): for the desperately romantic |

   --- | ---

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments
2. ›Primal Fear - Presumption of innocence, mental health and a young (outstanding) Edward Norton@aurzeq1187d

   

   Source

   

   Index

   Introduction

   The movie

   Morality and law

   Plot

   Conclusion

   Rating

   click on the desired section to move there directly

   

   Introduction

   Before I became an engineer, one of the careers I had thought about was that of a lawyer. I have always been fascinated by American films where a talented lawyer manages to exonerate his clients using various kinds of technicalities. Many times this job is frowned upon by most people, especially when defending people accused of serious crimes such as murder or abuse of various kinds. One of the concepts that I have always found very fascinating is that of the presumption of innocence, which is that until a crime is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then the defendant must be presumed innocent. And here many times this is not the case, because often due to various disinformation campaigns, public opinion is almost always led to condemn suspects prematurely, especially when the crime in question is very serious. This is why I believe that everyone is entitled to a fair trial and a defense lawyer. Then of course it sometimes happens that innocent people are wrongly accused and guilty people are released for lack of evidence or whatever. But this in my opinion is a problem of the justice system, and should not be imputed to who is doing is job (whatever are her/his reasons to do it). 'Primal Fear' is precisely about this, about a lawyer who decides to defend a person who seems guilty in every respect and who if it were not for his intervention would surely be destined for the electric chair.

   

   Source

   press here to scroll back to the index

   

   The movie

   Splinters of Fear, a true masterpiece in the judicial thriller genre of the 1990s, had the benefit of having launched the career a young Edward Norton, who was also making his acting debut, to the Hollywood stage. His performance earned him several prizes and almost earned him an Oscar. With a celebrity cast, a sophisticated and glossy mise-en-scène, and a hint of ominous atmosphere to spice up the plot, the movie is a classic example of courtroom cinema geared for the general public. Up until about halfway through the story, things would seem fairly predictable. However, the revelation regarding the accused's psychological state started to sparkle and become more uncertain, and this continued until the epilogue's twist, which proved to be the ideal emotional and moral spectacle machine and caused the audience to reflect on the true purpose and meaning of justice. The love-hate relationship between the two competing attorneys, superbly portrayed with just the right amount of intense charm by Richard Gere and Laura Linney, is a good example of how justice is frequently a slave to the logic of power and personal ambitions. They are pawns in a larger game orchestrated by those you least expect. Hoblit (the director) is able to keep the right level of interest up until the end credits. The aforementioned performance of Norton, who was outstanding in the dual roles of a shy stutterer and an overconfident bad boy capable of winning the audience to his side—in this case, the literal counterpart of the jury that finds the defendant guilty or innocent—deserves a great deal of the credit for the operation's complexity.

   

   Source

   press here to scroll back to the index

   

   Morality and law

   Picking up a little on the initial thrust of the introduction, I would like to speak again about the moral choice to defend 'alleged' criminals. Martin Vail is convinced that everyone has the right to have a lawyer defend them (more or less optimally depending on how much they are willing to pay, one might think a little cynically). I find this concept very correct, but I also understand its implications. What happens if we manage to acquit someone and shortly afterward this person commits other crimes? Whose fault is it? Should we feel responsible? The answer is not simple and probably has many facets. At this moment, a parallel comes to my mind with the manga 'Monster' by Naoki Urasawa, in which a neurosurgeon decides to save the life of a child who has been shot, only to discover that the child has become a serial killer... most people would probably say that this is a completely different case, that he could not have known who that child would have become. I can agree with that in part by following my instincts mainly, but if I have to reason with a clear head, I see a professional (whether a surgeon or a lawyer) doing his job to the best of his ability. Then we can reason about motives because many lawyers defend criminals for the money they are paid rather than for the moral duty given by their role. But in my opinion, here the fault must necessarily fall on the judicial system that allows exonerating guilty people or imprisoning innocent people usually due to caveats and faults in the system, and not on those who do their job.

   

   Source

   press here to scroll back to the index

   

   Plot

   The murder of a prominent figure in the city of Chicago, Archbishop Richard Rushman, marks the beginning of the movie's plot. O one of his altar boys, the young Aaron Stampler, seems to have brutally stabbed him. The youngster, who is stuttering and timid, insists, however, that he is not the criminal the police are seeking, and even the attorney Martin Vail is convinced of this. But as he continues to look into the matter, he learns that there are several possible reasons why the youngster may have actually committed the murder. Martin will have to deal with other secrets, such as the possibility that Aaron may be innocent despite appearances to the contrary.

   press here to scroll back to the index

   

   Conclusion

   A compelling movie with excellent attention to detail and lots of surprises. We believe that we have figured out how everything will turn out, who the villain is, and why he acted the way he did up to the very end. But Hoblit's conclusion will leave us all scratching our heads and questioning whether it is indeed feasible to trust a neighbor (as happened to Martin, who had blindly trusted his client in spite of everything). Edward Norton deserves a lot of praise for bringing to life a figure that is both fascinating and unsettling in his acting debut. A totally recommended movie!!!

   press here to scroll back to the index

   

   Rating

   My personal vote is:

   ---

   8.0/10

   ---

   press here to scroll back to the index

   If you enjoyed the post, please leave an upvote and/or a comment, and feel free to follow me (at the link below) if you want to see my next movie review.

   ➡️ hive.blog/@aurzeq ⬅️

   

   _{Sources of image used for the post cover is this. Farewell image and text separators, created by me with Canva}

   ▲Upvote

   ReplyPermalink·Open on PeakD ↗·Linked from existing Hive post

   💬 Show comments