On Tue, 13 Feb 1996, Molly Olsen wrote:
 
> Was the author saying the film misrepresents death row because Poncelet is
> white?  He wasn't supposed to be a literal composite of all prisoners, or even
> representative -- I remember reading in the press that he was a composite of
> the two or three real inmates the nun counseled before their deaths.  If it
> wasn't Poncelet's race that the author objected to, what was the problem?
 
What I understood in Farmer's critique in LA Times 15.1.1996, was that
why to choose this particular case for a movie, while the problem is far
more deeper in social and political sense. I think the movie was perfect
if looking just this case. It showed the problems in death penalty and it
also showed that nobody is totally good or bad by humanizising the murderer.
(This is controversary issue, just like Stone did to Nixon. Is that
really essential in these cases? Do we have to understand the human in
Nixon or in this case the murderer and rapist, while we could concentrate
other issues, like the power and the structures?)
 
The relationship between nun (not stereotypically portrayed, but as
clever and independent woman) and Matthew was also acted and filmed
great.
 
But I think that the movie did wrong to so many people in death row and
in prisons by overlooking the race and class issue. And this is why I
didn't like the movie. In my mind the movie (and also the film industry)
is diminishing and underestimating the whole issue by portraying just the
white side of the "problem". The movie doesn't even ask why there are so
many people in prisons and death row? Why so many African Americans and
Latinos? Why so many uneducated, drop outs, working class people? Why?
Why to put money on prisons and police force? Why not to schools and
education?
 
Jonna Roos
[log in to unmask]
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]