The idea of the film is very good. To show the viewer that even the most bloodthirsty killer deserves normal treatment before the death penalty and, hope for possible forgiveness in the other world after repentance (this is a matter of faith).
But what did we actually see in this movie? Let’s take a cold look at this book.
The main character is a nun. Perhaps she is wise, can competently and most importantly understandable for an ordinary person, even for a sadist and a murderer, to tell about faith in God. To talk about respect for one’s neighbor and forgiveness not only with the help of a couple of quotes from the Bible, but from personal experience and the example of other sufferers. Maybe she cares about her wards and sisters. There is almost no such thing in the film.
Unfortunately, we see an infantile, no longer young, woman who, in the whole film, only once pulled out of herself with ticks literally one clever thought consisting of a couple of sentences in relation to the convict. The behavior of the nun raises many questions, especially in relation to the affected people. It seems as if she does nothing without thinking about the people around her.
The heroine shows that she suffers from a lack of “male attention” and is unhappy. She is seriously trying to get close to the convict, but not spiritually. Rather, she wanted carnal pleasures. He asks him banal and stupid questions. To a greater extent, she pities neither him nor the victims of the crime and their parents, but herself and only her feelings. Yes, and took up this case absolutely without delving into the situation. (the writer forgave her everything)
The criminal, as a character, is absolutely 'empty'. Hatred (namely, an image, not a crime) and, especially, does not cause pity. His development here is like that of a minor, the same "infantil" as his new acquaintance from the "monastery". You’ll see it when you watch the movie.
Having seen the behavior of the nun in the final scenes, I am already one hundred percent convinced that the film is not about sincere repentance, and especially not about faith in God, forgiveness and spiritual intimacy. This is all about the “love” of two “unfortunate” people who lacked this “love” in their lives.
True spiritual intimacy is formed over the years, or it turns into ordinary attachment. There's a lot of people here.
Someone will say, and immediately raises the question of the acceptability of the death penalty in the modern world. In my opinion, in the film, this question is completely unconvincing.
As a result, if the heroes were replaced by teenagers, nothing would change for the worse. The girl is an excellent student and an arrogant young bandit, and the death penalty should be replaced by landing in prison, so for 20 years for murder with special cruelty committed by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.
I hope in the real story in which this film was made, the real nun was not at all like we were shown.
If you want to watch a brutal drama about suicide bombers, The Green Mile is a great movie.
I may have seen it before, but the movie never left me.
I like the fact that there are several layers of thought.
The religious topic is not close to me. Questions about the death penalty and the value of life are well covered in other works, such as The Green Mile and The Life of David Gale. For me, the question of the admissibility of murder is closed.
This is something that came to my mind:
On the first layer.
In the film, we see how institutions are powerless.
On the one hand, powerless in the formation of a healthy citizen and (or) the correction of socially dangerous manifestations. They are so powerless that they themselves admit their defeat and go to violence of the highest degree, like an impotent rapist.
They are unable to help the victims.
The film clearly shows that these tasks are not insoluble. That an amateur who does not have special education, experience and funding can solve them with varying degrees of success. And the entire penitentiary and social system cannot and does not try (by the way, this thesis has a huge amount of support outside of fiction in real American life).
On the second layer.
What if not interfering with a person’s personal world and leaving them alone with their choices and decisions is an integral part of individual freedom? Is it necessary to help and correct those who do not apply, or should they simply be left behind (isolated if necessary)?
8 out of 10
Friends, of course, a brilliant film! And the play of actors, which suggests that the guy is naive, confused, relaxed with the possibilities of a modern humane society with swastikas and other stupidities climbed under his skin, with a family that is helped by society and even probably supports at his own expense, and in return receives nothing in response to his humanity, indiscriminate sobs, which even the hero himself does not appreciate a penny ... And we see that only the inevitability of death, as a reckoning, makes the hero think, seek understanding of his actions, the value of the lives of other people, taken away and maimed, and Sarandon only brings him to the conclusions of the best, thinking and feeling part of mankind.
This film is religious, but not philosophical. Without a nun, could the hero, of course in quotation marks, get to the high matter of the Bible? He did it in the film only on the way to the scaffold (no matter how scary it sounds after immobilizing words - the dead man is coming!). And obviously in exchange for the nun's support in the last moments of his life. It is clear that the authors imply that Sarandon revives the dead at this moment. But nailed to the cross, he asks only one thing - don't kill me!!! Is that remorse? Of course, I will not judge here - there is no qualification. But the victims' parents don't pop up protesting. We're in tears, Sarandon - in tears - the movie has taken place! Catharsis! But suddenly the end of Pulp Fiction comes to mind... but most likely you’re weak, and I’m the embodiment of evil. And I'm really trying to get better... Tears... Curtain... Should we revisit this brilliant film? .
Since I went to see this movie for a long time, I knew exactly what it was about. I knew it wasn't easy, and I didn't think about it. Except... Please do not immediately consider my review negative / negative, this is by no means true, just want to say that I expected the feelings of the other. And since I am a receptive person, in principle, a lot affects me, but for some reason I did not have an emotional situation with this film. Not because I didn’t believe the actors, on the contrary. They played great! I admired that. Not because the film isn’t deep, not because it’s poorly directed (directed, crafted). The film is quite worthy and deserves attention. But he didn't stir my soul. That’s probably because... (and that’s why I think the answer will be clear by the end of the review).
This film tells us about a young criminal (Sean Penn) who faces the death penalty. In his last zeal to save his life, he turns to a nun (Susan Sarandon) for help. Only now he asks her not to absolve her of sins and purification of her soul, but to find a sensible lawyer who is ready to take up this case and change the death sentence to a more lenient one at the earliest. He does not see his own guilt in what he did, and in every possible way tries to protect himself from involvement in a terrible dirty murder.
However, at the same time he behaves not like a lamb of God, but merciful and forgiving sister Helen does not retreat, but patiently tries to show humanity, a sense of love in the prisoner, and most importantly, before punishment catches him, make him feel responsible for the crime committed, admit his guilt and repent.
Perhaps I have the most sincere feelings in this film was caused by the heroine of Sarandon, despite the fact that I am not a saint, but it was easier for me to understand her, her thoughts were more accessible to me. I sincerely felt sorry for her, when helping to find peace of mind to the criminal, and becoming his spiritual mentor on the last path, she faced the censure, disapproval of society.
It is much harder to understand how someone who commits a crime thinks, especially a crime like this. However, it is easier to understand, if he begins to feel the pangs of conscience and realize what he has done, then not everything human is alien to him, and there is still a piece of something in his soul, maybe small, but bright, that prompts him to take the right path or at least admit guilt and accept punishment.
-- God has awakened these experiences in your soul. What you did was terrible, Matt. But now you have dignity. No one can take that away from you. You are the son of God, Matthew Ponseletus.
- No one has ever called me a son of God. You know whose, yes, many times. God, never. I sincerely hope that my death will bring some relief to their parents.
- Probably the best thing you can give Percy and Delacroix... is some comfort to their souls.
- I never knew what love was before. I didn't love anyone, not even my mother. Funny, now that I know love, I have to die. Thank you for your love.
When viewing, you can take or not take a side, you can not take a clear position at all, and most likely it will be correct. After all, people often make their judgments looking at the situation one-sidedly, having prejudices, being categorically inclined, and this film gives the opportunity to reason: what is good and evil, what is right and wrong, what is cruelty and mercy, what is repentance and forgiveness ... and much more.
Of course, you will say: “How can you treat it differently, because such an atrocity, people have the right to be angry, to demand revenge and blood, and if you were in the place of the killed or their parents” – and I will not argue with you. People are not saints, and not all forgiving, and certainly such as Sister Helen in humanity are one. It is difficult to condemn a person who has gone through such hell as murder and/or violence against a loved one, especially a child, for demanding punishment. There is one small dialogue, from a completely different film, but which perfectly fits the topic, and perhaps it is as close to the truth as it should be.
Are you against the death penalty?
- Yes, a death sentence is an indicator of the evolution of society.
- What if it affected your wife?
- If she had been killed? What would I do?
- In this case, everything is complicated.
- Sure. If I could get to the killer, I would probably finish him off.
- So you, the governor, would have given him a death sentence?
- No, I would commit a crime for which I would go to prison.
- So why not let society execute him?
- Because it has to be better than the individual.
Shortly after his escape from Shawshank, Tim Robbins himself wanted to make a film about prisoners, moreover, about the ethical side of the death penalty. To do this, he chose the memoirs of the nun sister Helen, and the main role was taken by Susan Sarandon (which deservedly took the Oscar for her).
In Dead Man Walking, Sister Helen receives a letter from inmate Ponseletus, who was sentenced to death for his part in a gang rape and double murder. He begs Sister Helen to come and swears he didn't commit a crime. His plan is for Sister Helen to help him review his case in court. Not considering it possible to deny the person who so desperately needs her help, Sister Helen visits him in prison and listens to his story, which differs from the one that was told at the trial.
According to court documents, Poncelet and his friend attacked two lovers in the woods, who were celebrating the end of school. They immediately killed the young man, and his beloved was brutally raped before being shot. Now Poncelet tries to convince Sister Helen that the crime was committed by his friend, and he was only an observer who could not stand up for the teenagers out of fear of a friend.
The intrigue “Is Sean Penn’s character a criminal?”, though present until the last quarter of the film, is not the main one and does not overshadow the complex moral dilemma. Becoming the confessor of this man, Sister Helen involuntarily imbued with sympathy for him and wants to figure out what happened to him. From the public and the parents of those killed, she hears the same questions: How can you protect the killer? Why are you for him against us who suffered from him? Do you feel more sorry for him than for the children he killed? But the nun can no longer turn away from this man, because there is no one else to fight for his soul before the approaching meeting with God.
A heavy, painful film that asks difficult questions and doesn’t give unambiguous answers is a film about an encounter with “spoiled good” that also wants to understand how it came to be.
The film touches on a serious problem and asks the viewer a difficult question: is the criminal worth his life? The one he took from others. Directly, the finale gives the answer, but not quite convincing and even two-fold. And, in order not to go into unnecessary details, the interested person will look at and analyze the problem himself.
The impressive acting duo is pleasing to the eye except for some strange scenes with suspicious facial expressions of Susan Sarandon. Although she won an Oscar for the lead female role, she has better jobs. Unbelievably modest and ascetic in the expression of feelings Sean Penn, and from this his play becomes an example of the glorious traditions of acting. A strong male look for a long time remains in the memory of the viewer and delights with a good charm.
The co-creators of the film presented us with a story on a sensitive topic: not a separate country, not a world, but human values and the religious background of existence. Two hours of waiting: and the hands are getting closer to the hour, when something will happen: either a crime, or the highest justice.
8 out of 10
After watching any movie, you can describe its main theme in a few words, be it love, friendship, family, etc. What about the movie "Dead Man Walking"?
About repentance.
At first glance, the film, which promises nothing special, turns out to be a deep drama, a heartbreaking story with two sides of the coin. Two men brutally murdered and raped a young couple whose parents crave retribution and the death penalty for the perpetrators. Throughout the film, we look at the events of that terrible night through the prism of three points of view: one of the killers, Matthew Ponseleta, the parents of deceased children and the nun Helen Prejean. They all agree in what a reference to reality shows us, a picture-recollection that emerges piece by piece and piece by piece into something horrifying and surprising to the psyche of an adequate person, in the fact that these brutal acts that claimed the lives of two young people could not be committed by someone of the human race, in the fact that even animals do not kill their own kind, and even more so in such a monstrous way.
Matthew Ponselet tries to escape the death penalty with the help of a nun, claiming that everything he did then was the work of his comrade. He seizes on any chance to save his life and does not want to remember that nightmare. The task of the nun is to save his soul. In spite of everything, in her eyes, as in the laws of the church, Matthew is the son of God, equal to all other people, having the same right to forgiveness as everyone else. She doesn't defend him, she doesn't take his side, she doesn't claim his innocence. She sympathizes, regrets, tries to understand, provoke repentance, awaken feelings. She is a symbol of a true believer, strong in spirit, purposeful person and spiritual mentor. She never tires of repeating that only by repenting and asking for forgiveness before the lethal injection, Matthew will be able to leave with dignity.
We see an evolution in the behavior of a prisoner from a superficial brazen to a repentant man, a loving son and brother. The culmination is not so much the scene of the execution itself as the path from the camera to the hall of its execution, when the main character, all white with fear and in tears of repentance, goes hand in hand with the police and sister Helen, reading him the Bible for the last time.
He knew love. Spiritual, true. She fulfilled her mission and gave another lost soul the opportunity to live forever.
P. I would also like to note that Susan Sarandon is a wonderful actress who can reincarnate in any role, playing with the soul, not the body. The trepidation with which she experiences every slightest emotion evokes respect and empathy. Definitely a well-deserved Oscar. Bravo!
Everyone has the right to repent as long as it is sincere.
"Dead man coming!" The dead man is coming! – this is the phrase prison guards and escorts announce that they are taking a person sentenced to death. In the tragic story, based on the autobiographical book of the nun sister Helen Prejean, this “dead man” is represented by a certain Matthew Ponkelet (this character is fictional, but he has a real prototype – Elmo-Patrick Sonnier). Matthew, along with his friend in a drunken and drug frenzy, killed two young people, while raping the girl. All the evidence is collected and the court rendered its verdict, but Matthew is trying in every possible way to postpone his fateful hour, and he sees the way of such an impact in the nun sister Helen Prejean, who sees even in such a notorious scoundrel, the soul that God can still accept if he sincerely repents. The hard way from disgust to remorse is shown in this drama by director Tim Robbins, known for his role in the film “The Shawshank Escape” (number one in the Top 250 ranking on the KP).
The plot is not a bet on litigation, some of the audience may even think that in the context of the plot there is a hint of a detective, but what if this unpleasant in all respects Matthew is not a criminal, his sin is only that he is not a fool to drink and use drugs? No, it's not at all true, although this Matthew is trying his best to convince him of his little sin that he was the only one who saw the killing, and he didn't do anything like that, even though he didn't help, but is that why they put him on death row? When viewed from any angle, Matthew is the scum of humanity and it is unlikely that such a creature can be called our tribesman and the world will only become cleaner if we get rid of him and his like. But Sister Helen doesn't think so, she follows God's commandments. With a light hand, the main character can even be confidently called a human rights activist and a fighter for the abolition of the death penalty, but the finale of the film “Dead Man Walking” suggests quite different thoughts. And what they will be - you will know in full if you see the picture.
For the role of Helen Prejan actress Susan Sarandon and then the civil wife of the director of “Dead Man Walking” Tim Robbins received the highest award from the film society: she was recognized as the best female actress at the Oscar ceremony. I cannot disagree with that decision. Susan Sarandon literally showed the kindness and kindness of the sisters of God in everything. It is necessary to see and feel how open she looks at Matthew, how attentively she listens to him and what correct instructions she gives him. Some of the characters in the film still negatively perceived that the nun agreed to be the spiritual mentor of an alcoholic, drug addict, rapist and, eventually, a murderer. But she bravely carried the charges to her side, living the commandment that if you were hit on one cheek, turn the other. And when you watch the Dead Man Coming, you sincerely sympathize with this fragile woman with the strongest Faith inside, who took on a particularly heavy burden. It is unlikely that someone after seeing a stone will throw in the garden of Helen Prejean. And hardly anyone will say that Sarandon undeservedly took the statuette.
He did not lag behind his colleague on the set and Sean Penn, who played the role of Matthew Ponkelet. The actor also had an Oscar nomination, but did not take the prize, but in any case the nomination is a recognition of his merits in lyceum skills. Sean Penn created and embodied an image that evokes ambiguous and polar emotions. The feeling of dislike and even disgust for his hero reigns throughout almost the entire course of the action and only once you can sympathize with this person. But this “once” is enough that the whole gamut of emotions boils and bumbles inside, you are well aware that this person does not deserve sympathy, but it turned out to be so dramatic change in him that you already understand that there is another person who would give everything to turn back the time and do something completely different, but the crime was committed and you must answer for your actions. And again, I will say that this change in Matthew’s character was achieved thanks to the kindness and cordiality of the spiritual mentor, who was brilliantly played by Susan Sarandon.
In 1994, Tim Robbins plays in the legendary film “The Shawshank Escape”, where the main action takes place in places not so remote. A year later, Robbins as a director returns to the dark dungeons, but this is a completely different story, this film is not about the human power of will and revenge, this is a film about kindness and remorse. The final segment of the film "Dead Man Walking" causes a storm of emotions and makes you think about the attitude to the character of Sean Penn, but the first violin here is Susan Sarandon, which showed that kindness can still save this evil world.
8 out of 10
A very difficult film, it turns out that everyone in life has his own job - someone to execute, someone to forgive and forgive sins. The film makes an impression if a person has a soul. Of particular note are the actors Penn - good, bad things are especially successful, Sarandon in the role of nun Helen is simply magnificent, humility from her came. I believe! It may be good that we have a moratorium on the death penalty.
Man by nature has always been a creature quite touchy and cruel. This was the case at the beginning of life on our planet, and a similar pattern is observed even now. Unless, a little restraining those demons and animals dwelling in the depths of our souls such postulates of modern society as morality, ethics, law and religion. But even with all this, finding various loopholes to get out of the situation. Especially on the example of brutal murders and worthy punishment for the crime committed, the theme of which is the fundamental basis of the second directorial project of the eminent actor.
The topic of murder has long been a favorite topic of filmmakers in various genres. As if showing the killings of a number of people as “collateral damage” in certain militants, or as the subject of investigation or condemnation by third parties. But not many explore the moral side of this topic, which perhaps decided the director of this film Tim Robbins.
Of course, the person who committed murder is an animal and even a monster, whose actions, if not impossible, are very difficult to justify. But is it worth committing a similar act of revenge and turning into the same kind of monster and animal? Is the execution of murder a worthy punishment for the crime committed? Do we really live in a moral society based on laws, religion and morality, or are we subconsciously the same savages with an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for life?
The director of this tape Tim Robbins managed to sufficiently broadly and accurately reveal such an ambiguous, but relevant topic. Moreover, it bribes in his history that he completely refrains from condemning any of the parties. Like the most sentenced killer, or nuns wanting to equally "please" and the condemned and the parents of his victims. Robbins raises many questions, but refrains from answering them. He does not end the story on a bold point, but allows both the characters of his picture and the viewer to be left with their thoughts and “inner demons” alone. Moreover, ultimately bringing the picture to the most important. No matter how brutal the crime, these killers are just like you and me. They live, they breathe, they feel, they suffer and they enjoy life. Maybe you should think about the main thing at the time, rethink your life and try to change the world by starting yourself, rather than succumb to invariable instincts and step outside the line of what is allowed, crossing which back the path will no longer be?
Perhaps the picture lacks a certain dynamic and sharpness, which it would have been an action thriller, or something of this kind. But the final outcome of the product is certainly satisfying. Like “The Life of David Gail” starring Kevin Spacey, the director of this film “Tim Robbins” paints the image of a very moral, religiously restrained and politically correct, but quite deep and strong human drama about the atonement of their sins.
Can not but rejoice in the excellent performance of the leading role Susan Sarandon. Of course, in the asset of the actress there are roles much stronger, but with his task Sarandon definitely coped just with a hurrah and watching her character is a pleasure. Because it is in her heroine that you see what each of us should be, forgiving, understanding and compassionate. Very good Shawn Penn, whose “marginal” appearance probably did all the main work for him. When exactly in the final minutes of 15-20 he fully reveals himself as a dramatic actor and demonstrates a truly powerful performance that makes the strongest impression.
8 out of 10
Dead Man Comes is a very strong, deep, moral and emotionally powerful human drama about each of us. A very strong film, which makes the strongest impression when watching, turns out to be an impressive food for the mind and makes you think about a lot.
In the middle of the XVII century Blaise Pascal formulated not the most outstanding of his ideas, but this does not lose relevance today. A great scientist, besides mathematics and physics, engaged in philosophy, of course, could not avoid the question of the existence of God. His conclusion was later called Pascal’s bet, according to which worshiping God is more rational and profitable than not believing in him: if there is no God, you lose a little, and if there is, you gain an infinitely greater benefit in the form of soul salvation. Mathematically verified statement from the point of view of morality does not withstand criticism, but this is not the value of this “bet”. Countless examples indicate that a person is inclined to be guided by this logic. Even the worst murderers turn to God in the face of severe punishment. Not finding loopholes in the law, they try to find them at least in the scriptures. But do not harbor illusions – rarely cornered really repent, they act just according to the recipe of the famous Frenchman. Sentenced to the death penalty, they pragmatically retouch their resume for another court – one where appeals are not provided.
The film “Dead Man Comes”, based on the book by Catholic nun Helen Prejean, which described the real story of how a sentenced murderer chose her as a spiritual mentor, expectably appeals to compassion and, albeit not instantaneously, but quite possible forgiveness even of such disgusting characters as the main character Matthew Ponselet. The viewer, however, is free to decide for himself how sincere can be the repentance of the offender on the eve of the introduction of lethal injection. Whether you believe the killer’s tears or don’t believe it if you don’t want to, this film adaptation raises even deeper questions than the ever-present debate over the balance between mercy and retribution. Death is not an easy immersion in a sweet sleep. Even if it was for the deceased himself, his demise, like a poisonous gas, poisons everything for those temporarily left on the other side of the line. Death to the characters of the film is not given in the form of an instantaneous event, as one can think of it out of habit - on the contrary, it is a process. Death, in fact, lives, and wins. The exclamation of one of the prison officers who led Ponseletus to execution can be attributed not only and, paradoxically, not so much to the convict as to many of those who have not yet officially received the last date of their biography. Of course, the dead are not coming, the dead are coming. The family of one of the murdered teenagers broke up, the other parents became angry and depressed, and the farewell date of relatives with Poncelet himself is more like a monstrous game in which the one who laughs loudest when he is cut off part of his body wins. That’s how they buried: someone himself, and someone’s family – a person rarely goes to the grave alone.
Ordinary, in general, history, and attempts by people to somehow, even mentally resurrect the dead (" a person lives while his memory lives) are all the same, only a very harsh conclusion leaves little optimism: life after death is ephemeral, death after life is real. Combining the fragmented and quite simple, almost primitive, axioms scattered in the film, an idea emerges that is not too inspiring, but philosophically useful: questions of death are more important than questions of life. You can enjoy each day and please someone every day, try to fill every movement with meaning. The world around you will be better, but the inner world will remain empty if you do not see that the curtain on your stage closes with exactly the same movement. A life that was not filled with thoughts of death is incomplete, and mankind has invented many ways to return to this topic. The great gift to have time to prepare for their departure is given to few people and rarely accepted by anyone, and even less often understood. That is why the last minutes of the picture are especially tragic, where the shots with two torn corpses on the ground are interspersed with the shots of Poncelet’s execution. Fate denied the victims the right to accept their end with dignity, but granted it to their killer.
7 out of 10
The acute issue of the death penalty in the United States was realized in the whole fashion "boom" of the film industry of the 90s. One after another, heartwarming dramas about unfortunate prisoners who are forced to bear terrible punishment came out: “The Dead Man Comes”, “True Crime”, “The Life of David Gale”, “The Green Mile”. The film “The Dead Man Comes” (1995) by actor and director Tim Robbins was based on the experiences of the Catholic nun Helen Prejan about the cruelty of the death penalty system, described in her book after a sad experience with a suicide bomber, which, of course, at one time gave the shocking and pathos of the film adaptation. In the story, the nun Helen unexpectedly receives a letter from prison, in which the criminal Matthew Poncelet asks her to come to him and talk, because because of the death sentence, he has only a few days to live. At the meeting, the prisoner confesses to her that he did not kill the two teenagers at all (which he is accused of), that his friend did it, and Matthew was simply nearby at that moment. But Matthew doesn't have the money for a good lawyer, so he pitifully begs the nun to arrange a motion. Empathetic Helen, imbued with pity and Christian doctrine, acts decisively.
From the first to the last shots, the film unobtrusively sets the viewer up for compassion to the “unfortunate” prisoner (Sean Penn), by no means devoid of male charm, witty, confident, in addition to the father of a small daughter. The nun Helen (Susan Sarandon), who is not one of the traditional reclusive nuns in our view and looks brave enough for a clergyman, naively succumbs to the psychological manipulation of the prisoner and, in addition to heart-to-heart dialogues, proceeds to his defense in court. It must be admitted that the role of an ardent rebel nun rightly gave Susan the Oscar, although this is not the most memorable image in her filmography.
It is quite difficult to accuse the director of promoting tender feelings for the killer, since Tim Robbins tried to take a neutral position as much as possible and provide the viewer with a choice of which side to take: the criminal or justice. For a clearer picture, in addition to the prisoner and the nun, almost all the characters in the film speak out: the court, the parents of the murdered children, the killer’s mother, his brothers. However, the finale of this story is ringed by the usual consequence of the crime - punishment, where the main character hates himself because of what he did and allegedly sincerely repents, which, unfortunately, raises doubts - is he truly repentant or is this just the only way of salvation before and after death? The politically correct plan of the director tries to embody on the screen the bitterness of realizing what happened, but common sense sees in Matthew’s eyes only panic before death.
Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo just on this topic conducted his famous study called “Prison experiment”, where “by bones” disassembled human “demonism” (the film “Experiment”): absolutely adequate individuals in one situation can commit atrocities in another, if the situation requires it (say, a guard in prison shows aggression and cruelty to prisoners otherwise they will not respect it; a soldier in war is forced to kill other people). In our case, Matthew Ponselet wanted to conform to his friend, a criminal authority, and therefore did not confront him with an atrocity, which in itself is a crime. However, the difference between the theory of the psychologist and the director is that the psychologist proves the unjustification of the bad influence of the situation, and the film, unfortunately, makes attempts to justify it without grounds. The director does not give a single weighty argument in defense of the criminal, except that he is just a person and allegedly this is enough for gratuitous forgiveness. For some reason, the one-sided interpretation of Christian morality claims undeserved sentiments. By the way, given that the director did not play with the symbols (here you will not find a pessimistically gloomy environment, shabby walls, shabby bars, malicious guards - here lyrical music, warm, clear weather, bright sunshine and playfully illuminates a bright, clean death row, in which a groomed, neat, with a neatly laid hair and bristles criminal sits), then it is even harder to plunge into the heated atmosphere of a near-death state. Although Tim Robbins tried to give drama to the situation, especially in the end due to episodes of communication of the suicide bomber and his mother on the phone, his meeting with his brothers, his tears, words of love and remorse, but the drama still turned out artificial, unlike, for example, “Green Mile”, where love and pity for John Coffey, an amazingly kind man executed due to an absurd accident, reaches the extreme and the head of the block responds and humane to the suicide bomber, while realizing that his words in defense of the defendant will not be solved. In the movie “Dead Man Walks”, the situation is the opposite: the nun is not so much a strong spiritual mentor, as a pathetic pawn in the game of a cruel person. As good and desirable as humanity is in our society, it must be reciprocal, not unilateral.
All those who profess Christianity have probably heard the expression “Love your neighbor.” However, few people understand what it means, namely, love for all living beings. But in the modern world, where greed, gluttony, lust and violence prevail, it is difficult even to begin to trust a person, not to love him. It happens that a person can do so much evil that in our eyes he appears only in the form of a monster, and therefore we simply cannot see in him even a ray of light. But there are people who can not only see this light, but even help it to kindle. This theme formed the basis of the psychological drama “The Dead Man Comes”.
Sister Helen decides to help her prisoner Matthew Ponzelet, who was sentenced to death for the brutal murder of two teenagers, whom he claims he did not kill. Helen tries to do everything possible to at least cancel the death sentence, but when the attempts were unsuccessful, Helen tries to reach out to Matthew to help him repent.
The picture is distinguished by the magnificent play of the actors, first of all, the unforgettable performance of Susan Sarandon and the unusual role of Sean Penn. Susan Sarandon played the role of Sister Helen, who decided to devote the rest of her life to God as a child (judging by the opening credits). She has always been true to the idea that all people are good and everyone in the world should be loved. However, perhaps for the first time she encounters a real monster that slowly begins to undermine her faith. Sean Penn, who received his first nomination for Best Actor, embodied the image of a mysterious character who initially appears before the viewer as a complete bastard, but, as it turns out later, turns into an ordinary person who is afraid to appear before God for the actions committed in this life, but in order not to show his fear, covers him with his cynicism and complacency.
Directorship After watching it, I discovered that in addition to being a talented actor, Tim Robbins is also a talented director with his own vision and method of work. “The Dead Man Is Coming” is a deep psychological picture that will be difficult to watch for people who have nothing to do with religious themes and philosophical issues. However, it is these details that make the film stand out. By genre, I would classify it as a very subtle psychological thriller, but if you look at the guts of the film, I would call Dead Man Walking a parable drama. The main character seems to be walking along a long winding road, bumping into various obstacles in the form of different opinions. The film ends specifically, because the shot with the main character is somewhat reminiscent of the crucified Christ. But even this unusualness makes the film beautiful and close to something higher.
Scenario The plot of the film is a kind of trial mixed with religious themes. The main character became a nun at a very young age, and since then Helen has devoted her life to bringing love to everyone. And then one day, a prisoner Matthew turns to her, who was sentenced to death for a brutal murder, while his accomplice only received a term in prison. For Helen, this encounter with Matthew is an ordeal because she always believed that all people are capable of love. But before her there is a “monster”, the crime of which she learns from the parents of the victims. On the one hand, this distances Helen from Matthew, but at the same time she firmly believes that there is still good in this person, which Helen tries to reach, that she eventually succeeds and that only gives her more faith.
Soundtrack To immerse the audience in the religious atmosphere of the film, composer David Robbins wrote music that is a mixture of Eastern motifs with Indian ones. From such music sometimes ran goosebumps on the skin, but not because it is scary, but therefore unusual and unforgettable.
Result "Dead Man Comes" is a film that makes a strong and lasting impression. He will not leave you indifferent and indifferent. How you treat the characters, how you interpret the film, is up to you. Most importantly, I highly recommend the picture to view.
The authors of the plot brought to the fore the unpopular not only in the United States, but also around the world, the topic of the death penalty. At the same time, the investigation of the true causes of the tragedy that happened a long time ago is minimized, and the emphasis is placed on the last days of the life of the hero Sean Penn. It is worth noting that there are no shocking details from the life of a suicide bomber, and flashbacks of a fatal crime do not contain sobering violence. In other words, although the topic is serious and more than mature, the implementation turned out to be contrastingly soft.
After getting acquainted with the plot, I had associations with such later films as “Camera” and “True Crime”, where the dialogue with the sentenced to death was much more emotional. With all due respect to Sean Penn, the character he created does not linger in memory after watching, because his appearance in the frame is usually not accompanied by distinctive features. In this sense, more interest is caused by the motives and motivations of the performer of the main female role. You do not regret the time spent at the screen, but you can not call it remarkable.
A powerful film about repentance. The worst thing in the world is violence against defenseless children. The suffering of children is the central problem in the question of the existence of evil in the world, it is the source of all the curses that people send to God. If innocent children suffer in the world, then where is the love of the All-Good and Merciful God? But if man himself separates himself from all mankind, he has no right to judge him, and if he does not, he must acknowledge his spiritual connection with all mankind, and there is no separate life and no separate guilt. Therefore, in every sin there is a share of our guilt, this is the highest justice according to Dostoevsky: “Everyone is guilty for everyone and for everything.”
For if I were righteous myself, there might not be a criminal standing before me. You will understand that he himself is guilty, for he could shine on evildoers even as the One without sin and did not shine.
The people demand the execution of villains according to the law: “an eye for an eye.” The writer Kurt Vonnegut rightly denounced that people who display their Christianity do not fulfill the commandments of bliss, but the Old Testament. In the United States, it was the commandments of Moses that became the subject of the struggle of atheists and prudish: the first asked them to be removed from public places, the second demanded to leave. “I have never heard,” Vonnegut wrote, “anyone demand that the words of the Sermon on the Mount be posted anywhere.” "Blessed are the merciful" in the courthouse? Blessed are the peacekeepers at the Pentagon? Don't make me laugh!
Pascal asked, “Do we have to kill people so that there are no evildoers?” This means creating two instead of one.” The death penalty shows the law's impotence to correct the criminal in any other way. Of course, it should not be unpunished, because the other cheek can be turned only your own, and not the other. So who can forgive a villain? Only He can forgive, Who has sacrificed no one to Himself, but Himself has sacrificed for all.
It so happened that with this film I have connected almost the very first children's film impressions. I’ve been watching Dead Man Going for a long time. So long ago that at some point the plot, as something whole and uninterrupted, erased from my memory, leaving a trace only in the subconscious, which once for no reason manifested itself. So I wrote a rather stupid and inept story about how a monster, a monster, a murderer can see beautiful things.
I guess when I first saw this movie and cried, and when I shuddered with my whole body and wrote that ridiculous story, I was a different person. More open and soft. Now a lot has changed in me, and the reaction to the film has become quite different: from free or involuntary sympathy for the hero, sentenced to death, I eventually came to a complete and almost physical misunderstanding of how to forgive atrocity, how to forgive someone who ruins and tramples the lives of others, mutilating the fate of all relatives and friends, who laughs with malicious satanic laughter at the idea of love and peace in the world, who cynically and cruelly looks into the eyes of a person, taking his soul and last breath.
I must say that I remember this movie for another reason. Yesterday we showed the release of the program Malakhov about this cold and calculating creature Kabanov. Perhaps, mindful of my childhood sympathies, I revisited the film to see if such a terrible act could be forgiven or not. Alas (not for Kabanov and others like them - they do not care about this, but for me), I completely forgot what mercy is. I can shed tears over a completely stupid sentimental episode in a movie, but I can't bring myself to understand the killer's motives and accept his action and believe in remorse.
The more surprising and interesting for me is sister Helen Prejean - a nun, the heroine of Susan Sarandon. It was on this character that I focused my attention, and not on the brilliantly, as always, playing Sean Penna and the repentance of his character, which, again, I can not believe, do not find strength in myself. I am really interested in the phenomenon of forgiveness. Perhaps I am a savage, not a very civilized person or just a complete atheist (I have a hard time with God at all), but I firmly believe that there are actions that are not only impossible to forgive, but in any case impossible. And the death penalty for me is an adequate measure, if only because it can bring at least some relief to the relatives of the killed.
But again, I am even more interested in the mechanism of “forgiveness”. How do people find the strength to forgive the way it works? What is it: a very large and strong heart, religion, breadth of views, kindness? I really wish I could understand that and maybe learn to forgive myself. Maybe Dead Man Comes will push me to that, at least in part, but I have to say thank you to Tim Robbins, who is very sympathetic to me, at least for making me think about it with his film.
And, of course, in addition to the important issues, in addition to the on-screen embodiment of almost Sonya Marmeladova and the generally beautiful acting of Penn and Sarandon, this film is good because it shows the world that I remember so much from the brilliant Green Mile.
9 out of 10
In cinema, the theme of killing (and often brutal) people is one of the most important. And there is a clear gradation of moments to which in each film attracts the attention of the viewer. Undoubtedly, the most popular story can be called the search for a merciless killer. Usually at the beginning of the film show brutal scenes of murder and, as a rule, 2 detectives (in different age, racial and sexual variations) the whole film catches this exterminator, the viewer is fully involved in the process, substituting himself in the place of a policeman, thus doing justice without getting up from the sofa. This category pulls 70 percent of all killer movies, the next favorite plot is a long 2-hour courtroom session with angry relatives of the murdered and a handsome lawyer who embarked on the difficult path of proving the guilt of the bad guys. There are many mixed films, where the viewer briefly 120 minutes of screen time show all the stages of the fall of the human spirit, the search for the guilty and his punishment. After such films with a clear happy ending, we are always satisfied: justice was done, and the film was not too difficult to watch. And there is, finally, 1% of films that show the real inside out, making the viewer uncomfortable fidgeting in the chair from surging emotions and experiences.
If you look from a bird’s eye view, the plot of the film is not at all new: a good and correct person tries to guide another on the right path. This can be understood from a brief synopsis, but the film 2 hours reveals this very path of repentance, because before us the story of the relationship is not a prim chaplain with a criminal, and sister Helen with a lost man. I can say that Matthew Poncelot was incredibly lucky to spend his last days with his sister Helen. I believe her own words about herself fully reveal the amazing character: "I had so much love that I decided to share it with people." One sentence, and what strength and depth is contained in it. But what is most striking is Helen's view of the situation. There are not only bad people and only good people, there are people with exceptional mental pain, and everyone needs help. Sister Helen does not turn her back on Matthew because God has brought him to her, and she realizes that she must help him, even if at first this help is expressed in finding a lawyer, but in the end she reaches her peak, and Matthew learns the truth. This reverent attitude of Sister Helen towards the murderer is worthy only of respect (not in the sense of approving the murder), but because for her every person is the soul of the Lord, who, if you pray for help, will receive it. And it fulfills, in my opinion, one of the most difficult commandments, “Judge not lest you be judged.” Her only desire is to fill man with love and turn his face to God. Tandem Sarandon-Penn is unique, because from the very first meeting in prison between them there is this very contact with the eyes (= souls), and immediately you realize that the authority of Sister Helen in ordinary clothes is above any Chaplain robes and government officials.
The hardest part is the end. Again, it is impossible to evaluate it in black and white categories. On the one hand, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, on the other hand, it hardly brought complete freedom to the tormented relatives. On the one hand, Matthew knew the truth and saw the face of love; on the other, he died, not lived. The film leaves bright feelings and hope that love can fix everything. And even for a split second, if you know the truth, you are already saved in your wanderings in this world. For me, it was just another confirmation that people do terrible things without understanding the meaning of unconditional love and never meeting the face of Love.