"In the Bedroom"
The last film of the Festival, and, perhaps, the most morally troubling of all the movies we screened, was “In the Bedroom.” After all, this was the one film that didn’t have a dramatic trial scene and, in fact, had very little in the way of the law, and the legal system, functioning as backdrops and set pieces for the film.
What it did have was a horrific revenge dillemma. When the law fails, as it so clearly did for the grieving parents who were forced to co-exist in a small town with the man who murdered their son, how do we expect those who experienced injustice to go about their lives? Can they, or should they, be expected to reconcile themselves to their loss and the law’s failure to meaningfully address their profound suffering? When justice returns with injustice, when the result is not just, how can people return to their former lives after having come to law seeking a remedy for their grief?
Our post-screening guests, Daniel Kornstein and Chris Cuomo, anguished along with the audience in trying to reconcile and comprehend the profound moral implications of this movie. This was perhaps the only film screened during the Festival where virtually no one left the theater after the closing credits. Everyone remained to hear and participate in the discussion.
Cuomo pointed out that as a journalist and former practicing attorney who is quite familiar with death penalty cases, he has thought a great deal about whether the surviving families of murdered victims can ever feel satisfied by what the legal system finally does with the criminal who destroyed their lives. Dan Kornstein, in fact, questioned whether people should ever look to the legal system to resolve their emotional wounds. Justice cannot restore people or make them whole again. Nothing can be done to bring back a life; every legal solution is nothing but a dignified form of revenge.
But when the legal system fails, is it wrong to seek self-help? This film presents some of the same themes as in “A Time to Kill,” another one of our screened films, except that here, the parents waited patiently, hoping that the legal system would do what was right. Ultimately, however, they were forced to conclude that the legal system had failed them and their murdered son. In “A Time to Kill,” the father who takes justice into his own hands does so without even giving the legal system a chance to act, mostly because he knows that the life of a black man, or black child, in the deep south, is not something the legal system has shown an impulse to protect.
Kornstein saw the film as a balancing test between reason and emotion. Cuomo reminded the audience that the philosophy against the death penalty, and, in this case, self-help, is grounded in the principle that one cannot base their decision on “what would you do if such a thing happened to your child?” If framed in such a way, the answer is always in favor of seeking and demanding revenge. Cuomo explained that such an attitude appeals to the more base of human virtues, values, and aspirations, but that the law should be guided by more nobler aspirations.
But he admitted that such a dignified and dispassionate approach is very hard to maintain when the crime is personalized and the loss is profoundly felt.
October 30th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Says:
I would like to comment on the post screening comments that were made regarding Natalie’s smiling and regarding the band aid coming off at the end.
1) Everywhere Mat looked he saw Frank. From his drawings to the tree he used to climb as a child, he was always reminded of Frank. I think that the reason Mat went to talk to Natalie at the store is that she was one of his connections to Frank’s memory, and he tapped into those memories through speaking with her.
Though when he goes to Richards house and he sees the picture of Natalie and Richard on the wall at the top of the steps (at the bottom of the steps were drawings, which ironically reminded Matt of Frank)he sees that the person he used to connect with Franks memories, is now happy with Richard. This bothers him even after killing Richard, because Natalie will not only remind him of Frank, she will now remind him constantly of Richard and the fact that she was happy with him. And so killing Richard did not fully solve to problem of having to “see him around in town”, since whenever he sees Natalie he will think of Richard.
2) Although I like the idea that he took off the band aid since he was finally ready to heal, I would like to offer perhaps a different way of looking at it.
It could be that after killing Richard he realized what he did was so wrong and had created a great “wound” in his morality. He therefore took off the band aid and looked at his small little wound- because he needs a lot more than a band aid now to heal himself.
October 31st, 2006 at 5:08 am
Says:
Stephen, I love your answer and insight to question number 2. Very profound and thoughtful response, and much to consider as a result.
December 5th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Says:
RE: Mr.Rosembaum’s Comment. “Justice cannot restore people or make them whole again. Nothing can be done to bring back a life; every legal solution is nothing but a dignified form of revenge”. I agree with that idea completly because there can be no compensation for a family who has been a victim of a crime but the legal system should make it their over all duty to assist families who have been involve in situation such as these. Their needs to be more effort made on the part of the justice system to insure that justice is served for the good of the people