7:58 you seem to have overlooked the scene where Prendergrast's boss takes him aside and tells him that the reason he has always disliked and distrusted him was because Prendergrast never swore. Ties into Prendergrast's characterization as a wounded, damaged father, highly attuned to the care of children and protecting them against suffering, perceived of as less-than and weak by comparison to cops who walked the beats. Similarly, D-Fens is lashing out at the similar wound to his self-image as a caring, loving, providing father who "did everything he was supposed to," but still found himself fired from his job and separated from his wife and child.
But he did swear. At his wife while his child is crying. In public he put forth a different man he never was, and it turns out he didn’t even do that all so well.
@@kagato23 why did three people like your comment? One person being idiotic, i understand, but three more who did not have the intellect to understand that OP was referring to Prendergast's swearing? We're doomed.
@@cabalogia lol, your life isnt going the way you want it to, and you're miserable. That's funny. People who are happy wouldn't mess with people online for fun, that's just not how humans behave.
You are shown his point of view and from his point of view he is a hero, and victim and then finally at the very end he realizes he is the villain. This movie is an indictment of that victimhood mindset.
I dunno about hero. Protagonist definitely, victim sure. But only a hero in his own mind (and an unfortunate number of movie watchers who took the wrong message)
The film makes it painfully obvious that D-Fens was ALWAYS the villain. An abusive husband who blames everyone and everything but himself for his failings, who was on his way home to murder his ex-wife and child before he got sidetracked by roadworks.
@@CharlieNoodlesThough it was confirmed few times in the movie that he had not any murder plans, at least towards his daughter. And if he'd blamed himself, he'd been gone long ago, same result with fewer phases.
It becomes more relevant and more important as each year ticks by. It’s one of my favourite films and one that resonates with me the most. It’s incredibly clever and insanely accurate.
I see a broader thread- by comparing every interaction amongst every character with how Pendegrast interacts. He is the only one who notices, tries to understand, empathizes, gets on their level, loves, defends honor of others instead of his own, connects, and ultimately is the only one not unhappy, defeated, angry. Everyone thinks they are right in behaving badly, and all fall down, during choices or interactions when we put ourselves above others.
That was a great insight "all fall down". I really think that this a great point, everyone except Pendegrast is falling down in this movie, people and society.
I think the script is brilliant when you consider Robert Duvalls character….he has every reason to feel as frustrated as D Fens but he deals with it in a much more constructive way
Prendergast's situation is a much better. He did not lost his job, wife and house. He is respected man amongst others, despite disrespect from his wife and coworkers. He are much older, in that age when a man become indifferent and tired from life. It's his last day on work, he retires willingly, and so he can say "fuck off" to his boss and to hit that asshole collegue. And he saw Foster as a living warning, while Foster itself have not such a teacher.
@@kelvingriffiths6017 Too scared to leave his wife .. or he loved his wife (which was important enough point for him to run after his female co-worker and tell her) and also a man who respected his marriage vowes "for better, for worse". I despise people who make vowes and don't keep them.
@@АлексейРащектаев-ъ5п Interesting that hitting a person to take out ones frustration on a colleague is not brought out more. Of course it is in a different league as Dfences actions but still. He only killed one person which could also be seen as justifiable homicide or self defence. In my books the worst of his actions was demolishing the poor Koreans shop. The gang members had it coming when they attacked him twice. The heart attack, I read the dialogue and acting so that if the pills had been somewhere near Dfence would have given them to him but once he saw that there was nothing to be done he hid his behind the cold act, I don't buy for a moment that he was violent at home or that he was on his way to kill his family.
Interesting review. D-Fens is a very relatable individual for someone who was 35 when I first saw this film(early 40s now) who struggles to adapt to a society where it seems the rules keep changing BUT he's also a warning of someone you don't want to become because his violence means that he gets seen as the bad guy even if he was just broken and lashing out at a society that would not help him.
I felt as if the film represents the repressed anger of middle class Americans. I could resonate with DEFENSE because he reflects what we've been trying to say and explain whether it's increasing price of goods, gang violence, liars, lazy people, unfairness, and especially: the limited time breakfast menu. (that shit should be 24 hours.) (I also viewed the film as a form of criticism of California but I don't know.)
I'm not sure the L.A. setting of the film maintains much relevance, if any, though it certainly had relevance at the time, being shot before, during & after the L.A. riots, but anyway, I otherwise couldn't agree more about the continuing importance & timeliness of this film.
I think the lesson of the film is that while, yes, daily life is frustrating, even maddening, it's important to remember that we're no different from everyone else (the home video scene where he's impatiently yelling at his beloved family demonstrates this. Is not getting breakfast at a restaurant or having a giant golf course REALLY a worse evil than yelling at your wife and daughter?), and, ultimately, being patient and tolerant of everyone else rather than lashing out is how we all survive. I'm not sure it's stated, or even implied, that he lost his job because of his temper, but it might well have been. Imagine having D-Fens as your manager. He'd be breathing down your neck, blowing his stack at your every shortcoming, blaming you for every team failing. He'd be unsatisfiable. Same with his family. The reality of life is that inequality is baked in. There has never been a time in human history, from the pyramids to the medieval era to the Industrial Revolution to the present day, where egalitarianism was the norm, and you shouldn't expect that. Prendergast shows that ultimately you just have to do your best to find a way to adapt. D-Fens ultimate failing was his inflexibility. Prendergast adapts. The other point of the film was that shooters weren't some alien race from the rest of us, fundamentally different. Remember, the 90s were the era of the Disgruntled Postal Worker. It was to humble us and realize that the nutjob we see in the news might really just be us on a bad day.
You miss on the point where Dfens is the only bad guy. The entire film is filled with complacent people that act on short term judgement and doing what they’re told. One must then question what is more wrong vs more right in the portrayed society namely an exploitative American society. As the morality is flipped in the film’s portrayal of American values, Dfens is actually the vigilante of the flick. And the cop being the force of change, which unfortunately would be the villain in this fictional American society.
Since literally every character (with exception of cop), falls within the same morality. Dfens only symbolizes the extremism of the films values. Whereas the cop is probably the anti-anti hero (relative to real life society), and true main character of the film.
@@spamcheck9431I’ll say that D-Fens is also the result of an apathetic society. So many times leeway could have been given - giving him the change, the breakfast menu, leaving him alone and so on. Instead the small and big actions gloat him on and on until the man with a briefcase ends up with a rocket. On the other hand, DFens is a guy who simply needed to wait in traffic a little longer - when he stormed off from his car, you can see traffic continuing. There is also the officer that chases him. He gets berated by his boss for not being the “cop” stereotype and acts as a parallel to D-Fens at the end. “i did everything they told me to.” “Hey, They lie to everybody they lie to the fish. But that doesn’t give you any special right to do what you did today. The only thing that makes you special is that little girl.” It is only after this that he acknowledges being pushed to the edge, referencing the heat that infuriated him in the car. The cop might be the only one that can actually be like DFens yet never harmed or killed anyone in the film.
It wasn’t about the price of the soda really, it was about the asshole not giving him change and the soda being too expensive to give him a quarter back
What? It's not about the price, but also it is about the price? If the quarter for the call was really that imperative, he could have bought a pack of gum or something cheaper. But, no, he gets hung up on wanting change AND a Coke, deciding to fight for them. You're not waging some war on unjust prices by assaulting a small convience store of all places. I also don't buy that the owner was an asshole when he casually tells him "No change, have to buy something" and passively stating the price of the soda as "85 cents." He only gets heated when Foster starts complaining about the price, to which the owner firmly states, "85 cents. You pay or go."
@@MoviesWithMark I think that "It's not about the price, but also it is about the price?" is perfectly on point for this movie. The way the camera shows the store owner breaking a roll of coins to load the register, among other specific choices in dialogue and such, DO clearly convey that it's not about the price of the soda, but about the store owner using his leverage to force a sale rather than just help DFNS out. However, the characters themselves may not be aware of it. The transactional & monetary nature of capitalism infects every interaction in this movie. Even though it's always beneath the surface, it's too ubiquitous throughout the movie to be an accident. IMO, that dissonance where DNFS does not understand why his social expectation has broken down, and then lashing out at something close but not right (first the price of the soda, then onto less correct things like the shopkeep's race, ect) is a BIIIIG part of the movie. . From the gangbangers demanding a "toll" to the black version of DFNS protesting outside a bank due to a denied loan, it's honestly impressive how many times the film really pushes that button. Every problem has a thread saying "capitalism did this." Even the home video of DFNS' turning dark does so with something like ~"I bought her the damn rocking horse and she's going like it! Now get her to stop crying and put her on it!" It's not a naked "this guy was always evil" it's a moment to realize he's been infected, and affected, by the same evil he's been rebelling against. . When DNFS first asks just for change, the shopkeep denies him with something like ~"no change, make a purchase." And *that* is what DFNS should have objected to. That's a kind of common courtesy of a "good society" that is within the shopkeep's power, But in the movie, the transactional, money-grubbing interactions have become so normalized, both characters don't even think of that denial as being the unreasonable step. Instead, that anger finds a scapegoat. It's not the unwillingness for change, it's the price of the soda being so high as to "not leave enough" for his needs. The "price" of the status quo grows and grows, until some cannot afford to pay. The movie does a masterful job of showing, not telling, how those kinds of misdirected outbursts can happen, and how destructive they can be. Even characters like the neo*azi show what happens when that misdirected anger is *not* acted upon as DNFS does, but is instead allowed to stew and grow. . I just love how much the black DFNS just shreds any hope of DNFS being a simple bad guy clearly in the wrong. In such a short amount of time, you have a mirror of DFNS who can't take it anymore, doing his breakdown "right," and he still gets dragged away by the cops for just protesting. That once scene sneaks in an entire layer to the film. DFNS and his violence cannot be ignored. How many others snap as the black guy does, the "right" way, yet we never even notice? How many people forget the black guy? I honestly don't know if I've ever seen a move more carefully give the mass audience the pieces and threads needed to understand the ways in which capitalism rots at society, while still hiding things enough to make it to that mass market.
Ok. The characters name is Bill Foster. I am not sure if it was mentioned in the movie much, but I remember hearing his name said several times in a commercial for this movie. While I can understand his frustrations, I feel, at the most, the only thing he could have accomplished for himself was a degree of notarity. Other than that, he would have been caught and society would go on as normal. So, I see this as a sad journey of a man, who seemed to not be able to adapt to changing times. To me, the title says it all, "Falling down." A mans fall from grace, from an ordinary joe, to a reckless individual. It could also be said that it shows America's fall, from the quest of the American Dream, to a disilusionment of the belief, from bygone days, that if you work hard and follow the rules, you will get your nice home, in a clean decent neighborhood, to live out your days in peace and happiness. Bill Fosters look is a representation of that, crew cut, glasses, pocket protector, white shirt and tie. He looks out of place in the modern world and decends into violence, anger and bitterness like those around him.
He’s basically a nerd, a vengeful nerd. He worked in the defence industry, was let go because of defence budget cuts. The Cold War ended and he was out of a job because the geopolitical landscape changed, he was no longer needed.
I mean it's not anything that requires any analysis, the movie is straight forward. "Is that what this is about... because you were lied to?", "... they lie to everybody". It's really just about the disenfranchise from society when you find out how fucked up everything is.
@@VegasTwins Sounds like something a Lynch fan would say. It's just too deep for you to get it!!1 I mean the emperor's new clothing. Sure, you can blame any number of factors, the economy, the heat, racism, poverty and so on but the theme is just the theme, disenfranchisement from society. ... which again is summed up nicely in the showdown scene, where the detective simply says "is that what all this is about?!?!??!" As in, that little, lol. You could argue the whole point of the movie, is about how little the movie is about.
@@notsure6796 that line is important but your interpretation is surface level thinking, it’s yet another part of the pendergrass and foster parallel, and also a reference to how the average person can relate to foster cause they lied to everyone
@@VegasTwins Which is... still just alienation from society. We examine how much bs everything is, including the main character, the babyless wife that went crazy, coworker willing to have an affair and even the movie itself. The spineless nature of lamers in retard land... is what push people over the edge. But, the theme is still just about snapping.
He is clearly crazy (as evidenced by his conversations with his ex-wife), but he is also a product of the system, which is inherently broken. We see this when the “NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE” guy is arrested while a man on an actual rampage isn’t. If people broadly and en masse are aware of how the system is broken, it is more dangerous than dealing with a lone wolf, which society is desensitized to. That’s why the police move to immediately arrest the guy with a sign.
His wife removed him from his home and the daughter he loved most of all because she “felt “ he could be dangerous. When she cut the ties to his happiness and made him all alone he became bitter and angry.
@@map3384 It was not that simple and it was definitely more than a 'feeling'. They make a point to specifically show in the film that D-Fens was clearly emotionally unstable at best, even before his bad day. He reflects on this when watching the home movies and even he was unsettled by his own behavior when on the outside looking in. You say she "removed him from his home" as if he was some unassuming victim who was just targeted by his wife for no reason. If he was willing to behave like that while recording, we can reasonably extrapolate that he behaved the same or worse off-camera. Verbal/emotional abuse and erratic emotional changes are big red flags that someone's mental health may not be on the up and up. And when you have a child involved, their safety and emotional/mental security is paramount above everything else. Bill was clearly troubled, but he was also a grown man. He made his choices and unfortunately never got the help he needed before it was too late. If I were his wife, I wouldn't take the chance on my kid's life if I even thought for a single moment that my partner was capable of doing them serious harm.
@@cjdouglas3464 She assumed he could do something violent against him. Taking his daughter away from him was violent. Women always assume and assume wrong. It’s why 90% of divorced are filled by women.
@@map3384 Bro, what are you on about? You’re dropping a lot of blanket generalizations, idk if you’ve just had bad experiences but your bias is very heavy. First, 70% of divorces are filed by women in general, the 90% only applies to college educated couples. And there are a MILLION different reasons why people file for divorce, to say it’s all bc “woman make assumption” is disingenuous and completely ignores the complexity of actual human relationships. Cheating, abuse, irreconcilable differences, the list goes on. Taking away his daughter is a heavy blow, but once again the film shows you that was a consequence of Bill’s own actions. He brought his wife and child to tears because she didnt want to ride a damn horse. Does that sound like someone stable to you? His wife didn’t want herself or her child to end up another cautionary tale about a guy going off the deep end. “Women always assume and assume wrong”…well clearly Elizabeth wasn’t wrong. It doesn’t matter what he lost, it doesn’t make it okay to murder people. He lost his family because he couldn’t address his own anger/mental health. You’re trying to absolve this grown man of personal accountability. He made a choice to do what he did.
Something people gloss over with this movie is D-FENS is a bully and probably has been for a long time. The way he interacts with the store clerk, the minimum wage fast food kids, his wife, and the way his mother seems terrified just talking about him all point to this. I kind of think the “layoff” was just what he told people happened at his job and he was possibly fired for aggressive or threatening behavior.
I can see how you reach your opinions, but I don't agree with them. Dfens believes that if something he wants is good, then it CANT be wrong. That's why when he bought his daughter the pony, he keeps saying put her on the horse when shes crying. He needs to believe what he's doing is right. This is in the end is an anti-hero, he truly believes he's doing good things. Store owner he saw as a thief, gangsters were self defense, nazi was eye for an eye, Whammy Burger is common sense. The start of the movie shows him coming to the end of being just another cog in the machine, he literally gets out of a 10,000 dollar car to WALK to see his daughter. Why? Because he believes it is right that a man gets to see his daughter on their birthday, no matter what rules society puts in his way to stop it. This isn't about tradition, this is about his perception of justice. So now I made my case, do you see where my position falls short?
What if... it can be about tradition AND Dfense's delusions that he's the good guy? In a lot of ways, he acts out his own Western "making the world right" self-narrated fable in ways that are overexaggerated, Hollywood-like in the vein of old cowboy stories? Stories that got more and more black and white, simplified and all about the hero with the gun, and never seem to show that even the villains might by someone to pity, someone with a family to mourn them too. Even gangbangers who break the law have siblings or parents to leave behind in many cases. 50s cowboy movies NEVER EVER show the Hero assaulting women or murdering children, or anything beyond the most shallow tragedy with the Bad Guy. Those Baddies never have motives beyond greed, lust or rage to be bad, they never steal to feed families or to defend their home. The true Old West histories involved lots of gruesome torture of innocents by all parties, and the mass genocide of native Americans, deep prejudice against anyone not white and meager rights for women. His obliviousness to the innocents he terrorizes is like a whitewashed spaghetti western or wholesome serial show like Gunsmoke where the bad guy gets punished and the hero is pure and never overreacts or accidentally shoots the wrong person. Personally, I think tradition and the sense of easily dissected justice- a type of morality with no grey area and only heros or villains and no in between are pretty tightly wound concepts. I watch a lot of older movies and shows, I love a lot of it, but it can be jarring to realize how different the values of the times were. Both the time in which the story was written and filmed, and the historical times the art is trying to idealize. I think the retirement party, with the cowboy hats might be influencing me, but every man I know who is close to my dad's age (a child in the 50's) is OBSESSED with western stories. Not all of them are white dudes, but the media they all consumed was absolutely steeped in Lone Ranger and cops and robbers.
Yes. He absolutely overreacted. 1. This was 1993 not 1988 and soda cans of that era usually cost $0.50-$0.75 (it's also not off-brand, it's clearly Coke). $.50 is also the price that he counters with. 2. It is not worth busting up a store just because you won't get change to make a phone call for buying one can of soda. Especially since the entire reason he went into that store was to get change to make that call. If that's what was important, he could've just bought gum or something. But, no, he chose a Coke and decided to die on that hill and insult the owner for being Korean.
@@MoviesWithMark Im not justifying fosters actions in the slightest, but you have to admit, the store owner was being a bit of an asshole. The scene starts with him litterally stocking the register with change, yet he refuses to break a dollar for foster saying he must buy something.
@@joshuarubenstein2298 Okay, so he didn't want to make change and said Foster should buy something? So what? You think that warrants Foster's tirade? You ever wonder why the owner had a baseball bat at the ready? You think he might've been robbed in the past and doesn't want to be as open with his money, prices, or store policies? The argument of "he started it by not breaking a dollar" is a weak defense for Foster's actions.
@@joshuarubenstein2298 Interesting, your excellent response was shadowbanned by TH-cam. I can only see it on my phone by clicking your profile pic to see your last 3 comments. TH-cam censorship at its finest unfortunately. Looks like MoviesWithMark doesn't like people mildly disagreeing with him.
As a former fast food employee it’s horrifying to see how many people seem to thinking murdering me is justified for not getting eggs, or even cold fries.
@@thingthang2904 We could also find feminist praising the character for fighting against patriarchal society and racism (if you cast a women of color).
He stated “ I have a gun in my pocket “ and the Proceeded to force the policeman into duel , there is no police officer in this world that would not have shot him
@@AndrewOzolins Sure, but in a country I live they most of the time use proportional violence, they do not shoot to kill always, which seems to be the norm in American cinema, TV as well as reality.
But if someone pulls a gun on you, what they're really saying is that they're going to kill you. It is proportional to respond with deadly force if someone is actively trying to kill you. It doesn't matter that it's a water gun either. He told the officer it was a real gun and then violently reached for it. Was the officer just not supposed to believe him?
@@anoriginalname8695 That is not what I said nor implied. What I said was in reply to "there is no police officer in the world that would not" ... and I simply stated that this is different from USA in many countries.
I feel like you're missing the point of the final scene a little D-Fens is (somewhat) exonerated in this scene because he chooses not to kill Prendergrast, but accepts that he's the monster and dies for it by using the water pistol to force Prendergrast into shooting him. Notice how after the shoot-out, Prendergrast wipes some water off his face. D-Fens "won" the dual, he hit Prendergrast in the head with the water-pistol before Prendergrast could gun D-Fens down. If D-Fens had chosen to carry an actual pistol in his pocket, his rampage would not have been stopped by Prendergrast as Prendergrast would be dead and D-Fens would be free to, in all likelihood, commit murder suicide on his ex-wife and daughter. But he didn't. D-Fens chose to carry the water pistol and chose to die rather than kill more.
YES... except it's not clear whether D Fens would of mudered his wife and daughter. He did make a reference to men murdering wives if they dishonored them, in South America... I think he was capable of killing his wife. But he would die for his daughter.... which he did, in a way.
@@map3384 Yes but that is my point. When I say "hero" I'm referring to a person who feels justified and righteous. In Defens situation, he was constantly talking about what is wrong with the world as if he was the guy with the moral compass. Good villians throughout history do that all they time. Do mass murder for "the greater good". They shoot up a club killing some bystander but it's okay because its revenge and just unfortunate. The point a villain has a warped sense of self and thinks they are justified when doing villainous actions.
It's the most honest social commentary movie ever made. Anyone can be a Bill Foster. Bill is every working class guy that's ever lived and didn't know it. You think you live in a "Free" country? Name something that's free? I'll give you "Air". Go for 2? You understand some of the pieces, but you're missing the picture. You still gotta lot to learn. Welcome to Amerika.
I love Falling Down and I'm often confused how little of audience it has today, on the other hand I meet less and less people who have seen Taxi Driver either, other than D-fence I'm used to that, it's always been like this as far as I remember. I see many videos talking about who is the evil in Falling Down and who isn't. While D-Fence certainly isn't the good guy I wouldn't say he is evil either. It's a character most ppl, American or not (I'm born and live in the EU) can understand his motivations while not agreeing to his actions. I like the movie because I can watch it from a different angle over and over again. The angle I'm thinking about right now is we all feel anger about little things we feel helpless in, but what if we would act on it? And that's D-Fence... Today, for me, could be something different tomorrow
I live in the Czech Republic and in the 90s, this movie inspired a webpage that is now one of the most popular and long-lasting Czech webpages. It is called D-FENS, has screenshot from the movie on the front page and mostly deals with political and societal issues. Even leaked some informations that forced police to investigate cases of corruption and other crimes.
Maybe my moral compass is fucked, but I have zero empathy/remorse for what happened to the old rich guy on the golf course. And I'm not even a Leftist.
The old rich guy sucks and Foster makes a solid point about the waste of property amid disproportionate wealth. The old guy's death, however, is fittingly a stroke of luck for Foster more than of his own actions. Not to mention if Foster were to proceed further down this line of thought, he'd end up confronting the "property is theft" ideas of anarchists, and I doubt Foster's mindset of American patriotism would radicalize him to such a degree. Also, it'd take a lot more than one dead wealthy golfer to better handle land rights. To sum up, the golfer dude sucks and there's little pity for him beyond basic human nature of not wanting people to die, considering he could most likely afford the most lavish of healthcare.
Amazing this is being debated 30 years later and I get it - this was a complex movie that will elicit different reactions depending on your point of view. For me, Diouglas’ - Bill Foster - DFENS gets all the attention but I was drawn in by Duvall’s performance a Prendergast. It serves as a mirror to Douglas’ Bill Foster. It’s shows that a man who is being passed by and looked over can work within the system to drive positive outcomes. To me it’s a cautionary tale of how two similarly situated individuals can have grossly different outcomes based on how they interact with society. The ending is sad for Foster but ultimately redemptive for the most beaten up character who arguably had more pain and reasons to be angry having lost a child - Prendergast. Despite all his pain and the shell he has withdrawn into Prendergast decides to push forward in a positive way and I think ultimately finds his voice. Prendergast works within the system to prove his value to society. Foster lashes out at it like a child and self destructs. Yes society is not perfect but how we decide to act within it can drive wildly different outcomes was my takeaway.
@@systemofadown945 Don't let the Batman films he did mess with your perception of Joel Schumacher. He was actually an extremely talented director with many good films under his belt.
A corrupt government is a corrupt people. The individual comprises a role within society, and makes up the system. It is the individual who determines outcomes, not the straw man system which is often blamed for the bane of what is accomplished. Often, people are tending for the purpose of survival, not the falsehood of good heartedness.😢
Well if you think society is evolving you are knowingly being blind. The movement of society towards liberalism and self indulgent individualism and self victimizing for gain while leaving anyone with some bit of respect in the dust to be stepped upon. I can see a day where those people have had it and those people are the truely strong ones then and only then will the soft shitty people of modern day society will have what they have coming. People have become too comfortable so they create problems in their own minds and consequently infringe on others rights just because they are soft. There will be a rude awakening to those people and when it comes they will fall. I don't care how much people whine that this is pessimistic and horrible to say because these people should know nature isn't fucking fair it will swallow the weak whole. And it seems everyone is just getting weaker and weaker. And I say good riddance I'm tired of these self indulgent first world complainers who almost never experience anything hard in their entire lives. I can't wait to see it happen. Modern society has allowed itself to embrace being ignorant, and worst of all fucking degenerative. And anyone who dares point it out is yelled at by the same degenerate weirdos who will likely see a day where their lifestyle has spelled their doom. Even more fun for me is if that doesn't happen I'm sure when they are older they will regret who they were. It's such irony.
Intersting take but i think everyone in the film is the villian in their own way. Take the store owner. He doesnt set prices, but he is a selfish jerk. He could have offered change but decides to take advantage and make a quick buck. The whammy staff are being little hitlers. Not saying Dfens is right, but he isnt entirely wrong either.
Calling D-Fens the bad guy is like calling Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker the bad guy in “Joker.” Obviously they’re objectively the bad guy. If you’re hyper-focusing on that then you’re ignoring the point of the movie. A protagonist can be objectively bad, and an antagonist can be objectively good. Watching a movie like Falling Down and repeating to yourself, as you are in this review, “But he’s the bad guy so whatever,” accomplishes absolutely nothing. If I watch “Joker” and come out with the same mentality, I’d discount the entire premise of the movie simply because Arthur is objectively bad and that would be my takeaway. When, in reality, the theme of Joker revolves around the effects of societal pressure and humiliation on mentally ill people, and their reluctance to embrace evil when goodness fails them. Thus, the message you’re supposed to take away is “Treat others with respect, as you don’t know what they’re going through.” Joker isn’t meant to be instructional, you’re not meant to leave the theater saying “Okay, now I know how to start a riot if I ever need to!” The reason I keep bringing up Joker is that it’s effectively the same premise as Falling Down. Society beats on a guy so badly that one day, he snaps and does a lot of bad stuff. It shares a moral with Joker; treat others with respect. And like Joker, it’s not instructional; you aren’t supposed to believe that D-Fens is an objectively good person, and that if you’re ever stuck in traffic you should destroy a convenience store, hold up a fast food joint, hang out with neo-Nazis and explode a construction crew.
I agree with your interpretations of both films but I don't think that means that the above video is stating redundant things. Both the Joker and Falling Down have been interpreted by many as a revenge fantasy. Men taking charge and rebelling against a flawed society (rather than just men who think they're doing that). Just look at how many people clapped and cheered in theater's when the Joker did his first kills. Imo they're not just clapping that sexual harassers are being murdered. They're clapping for the Joker emerging from the ashes, like a phoenix. A moment of glory, not abjection. What is meant to be a tragic turning point where a horrid society turns a man just as horrid, is seen as a point of catharsis and clarity with people rooting for and validating the character's actions. For the record I like both films, but the "can you really blame him?" take is a popular one and one I completely disagree with (because yes, I do blame them).
My biggest pet peeve with this movie is how the writer introduced that tape of Bill being a bad parent. It felt heavy handed in the purpose of guiding the audience's perception of the protagonist. A kind of "Ah shit we made this guy too relatable, better make him insane/abusive so that the audience knows where to side" moment
I mean it fits with his character. He is a man who thinks the world owes him because he did the "right" things. He thinks he is owed a job a happy family a pleasant day etc and that he is justified in using violence if the world doesn't meet his expectations. This is an overgrown entitled man baby who would totally snap at his family if they didn't behave how he thought they should.
I agree. I wish they could have came up with a better way to end the movie other than making DFNS legit crazy. Would have been more interesting to end the movie with him still being morally ambiguous. But audiences don’t tend to like that
Everyone seems to read too much to that tape ... I don't think it says the bill was a bad parent or abusive spouse. It was just one random sample from his life, with a sample size of one we cannot draw too much conclusion. Me, I'm not violent, never laid a hand on anyone, but yes as a parent I've been angry and frustrated a few times and once or twice lost my temper and said words, still I don't think I'm a bad parent and I think my family and friends would agree.
@@Axel_Andersen They left him because of his anger issues. His wife goes to the cops numerous times about him. Later on in the movie he threatens to kill his wife on the phone. This guy was a self entitled asshole who in the end cared about nothing but himself and thought the world owed him.
@@Axel_Andersen on its own it's just a snippet, but we also learn earlier in the movie that his ex wife had a restraining order placed on him. That gives the tape a kind of different meaning. She herself admits Bill never hurt her and their child. Without the tape the viewer is brought to think the restraining order is overkill and it ties neatly in the injustices Bill is faced with, but the tape is put there to suggest that maybe he is the bad guy after all
The key takeaway i had of this film is that it kinda reminded me of the joker's philosophy in dc comics of it takes one bad day to make someone snap. But as explained by this video the repressed anger is dangerous thats why its a good thing for people to have hobbies like music, or anything in general that keeps their mind sane
I could explain why this movie is in every way perfect, but instead I’ll just point out that I’m now angry that fast food restaurants don’t serve lunch all day, but they DO INDEED serve breakfast all day.
Not to defend the fascist crazy Army Surplus guy, as weird it is to say his murder was also unjustified, he wanted to (in a twisted way) do a civil arrestation on D-Fens. Granted, it could be argued that D-Fens reacted in a self-defense but still I believe the main protagonist of the movie is truly the bad guy and he's always taking his anger on the wrong people.
Well done for the review. I'm glad I found it after Falling Down was suddenly picked up by a number of YT reviewers that interpreted it in a way that is, well... right-of-centre. :) Your perspective is refreshing. I disagree with it, but it's very well argued. The most interesting bit is where you argue that the fascist and D-Fens are philosophically the same, in that they're both conservatives pining for a purer West in which "the needs of women and minorities weren't considered". You keep the same stance when you say that progress is inevitable, and D-Fens has become the bad guy by trying to stop it rather than adapt to it. I could agree with the last bit, at least in part, as the way to react to a changing landscape as a small cog in the machine is to find another niche that'll want you, and not be too attached to whatever came before. However, I caution against calling this "progress", both as it's historically fallacious, and ethically perverse. Our study of history shows that the only thing by and large progressing is technology, whereas everything else (politics, society, ethics, population) goes in cycles, consistently with the theory of Empires. In an empire's decline, you see the degradation of social capital, rise in inequality, instability in politics, leading to a fall due to external forces that know how to push those internal forces until the house of cards crumbles. The external force could be another healthier empire (Rome vs Greece, Turks vs Byzantines) or a force of chaos (early middle ages vs Rome). But in your prior snarky affirmation, that's where there lies something more sinister. On a blue-sky political level, you're implying that "the needs or women and minorities" are at direct odds with the prosperity and the satisfaction of the rest of society, thereby validating the right-wing point that left-wingers' progress IS indeed a zero-sum game in which 50% of the population loses so that the rest can gain - so ultimately, a power struggle. I'll leave you to ponder on the ethical consequences of this thought, if it's indeed your thought. Besides, D-Fens is not a man that felt cheated by either women or minorities. The most right-wing thing he said is telling the Korean shopkeeper he doesn't understand his English - as he's being treated like absolute garbage by a person who is in a position of power over him: he has a resource D-Fens cannot afford. You see, the problem with "adapting" to progress is that there are many ways to do it. Arguably the easiest is to be a leech. EVERYONE he lashes out against falls in this category. From the shopkeeper to the golfer, they gained a source of survival *at someone else's expense*, either by finding someone to exploit or by dumping the problem on to the next person in line. The counter-example is by Pendergast himself, the only one to really give D-Fens and the audience a lesson. He retires gracefully after showing that he's the only one who knows how to do his job: he knows how to interrogate, follow a trail, treat his colleagues with respect. The only person in the whole film with a moral standing, and with a shred of competence and charisma.
I guess we will ignore that "society" is increasingly becoming more dedicated to its own version of D-Fens. Lashing out against those we feel have wronged us, either real or perceived, is becoming the norm from all corners of society. I mean, speak your narrative and all but, all are culpable.
I think someone else said it best when describing Foster as personified white-middle-class anger: all the people he encounters look and act like subjects on the news, just superficially mean or violent and without any good reason. They are caricatures of people a suburban dad could point his finger at on a TV screen. It's like Foster lives in the irreal world of news media, he climbed into the screen to attack these angering people.
Of course, it's important not to put D-fens on a some pedestal but if not standing up for yourself is part your future, pretty sure I want no part of it.
I think he's an example of a broken man. A man who has, Fallen Down, and hits rock bottom. He's an example of how the system can make a normal man break and become the bad guy. He was unjustly given a restraining order chich kept him away from his daughter. Even the wife says it was unjustified, but the, "Judge wanted to make an example out of him." He lost is wife, kid, and job and has become a man without purpose.
There are analogies between this character and Travis Biggle and Dustin Hoffman in Straight Time where the protagonists develop a morally righteous attitude to try to rationalize their bad choices. Ironically in the 50's you probably couldn't order breakfast around noon or just before.
The comparison between Prendergast and D-fens is one of complete opposites, but both are frustrated. The both start in the same traffic jam. The both have snow globes. One has been fired and unhappy. One is retiring and unhappy. One is going home. The other is staying at work. One has a daughter and can't see her. The other had a daughter and can't see her. One has a wife he wants to reunite with. The other has a wife who he wants to stay away from. The main difference between the two is that one handles injustices with compassion, despite being heckled by his superiors for being too nice. The other goes off on a rampage.
Criticize, protest, and seek ways to dismantle unjust systems through grassroots political movements and groups. Activism can do wonders. A recent example was when citizens called the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Dick Durbin and urge them to prosecute Clarence Thomas for his corruption. So many called that the number stopped taking calls and they're now moving forward with a case against Thomas.
@@MoviesWithMark sure, they will now and then give u these little things, make u feel like ur actually changing something.. all of the important shit that they wanna do, u will never be able to touch , and they will continue to do it, like they have been..
Then you keep holding their feet to the fire. You continue to hold those with the most power accountable for their actions, to the point of protest and revolution if need be. I'm not sure what you want here. Do you just want to bitch about the system and then do nothing about it? Or do you just need an excuse for a Falling Down larp?
Protests work better in groups than solo. More attention and accountability for police brutality has come about because of protest organizations and their campaigns.
This movie is such a pain to analyse. I don't know what Shumacher was intending with this film. It's hard to see if he is supposed to be a fantastical anti-hero for a flawed perception of America on the account of the director, or a criticism of the motives of this so-called "anti-hero" Essentially, my main question is, "is this film accidentally, or intentionally satarizing D-FENS?". Are the faults of his character intentionally put there in order to show his flaws that were there from the beginning, or to simply show "he is angry and acting irrationally" As you said earlier with the "I miss this, but not that" part of the good old days bit, both D-FENS is looking for a time which was pleasant for him, but at the cost of the concerns of others. This begs the question - are the filmmakers aware of this, or were they tone-deaf.
It's more of a Michael Douglas film than Joel Shumacher's. Shumacher did direct and did his job very well. Douglas though spent his own money to get the film made. He went to bat for the screenplay and did what he could do, to make sure it would be made.
I think the film makers are pretty aware of that, which makes it more of the latter In fact it is you who are stuck in a tunnel vision of how the challenges imposed in dfens life is entirely of his own making, he didn't ask for the inhospitable attitude of the korean, nor being mugged and nearly being murdered in a drive-by, his actions were reactive of a world that actively tries to profit from the misery of a man out of touch with himself
It is by turns one and then the other. Schumacher wanted Bill "D-Fens" Foster to ultimately be the villain, but like Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, he is a villain that has a good backstory.
Nice video though you got a lot I can’t agree with. Like when you say he could have taken him in at 12:20 (using that so you know I watch it all) but that scene is a suicide by cop and no the cop can’t just move slower and bring them in - the cop has to shoot and protect himself - which is what the person shot wants because they can’t kill themselves. Things like that. But I liked what you tried to do even if I disagreed with parts of it.
Great essay, I agree for the most part 100%. You put into words some great themes I've thought about but had never had the chance to put down into words. I think in Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo, said something that resonated with the theme of this movie heavily "It is said that what is called "the spirit of an age" is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation." I always appreciated that passage because I never understood why people cling so violently to the past?
People cling to their interests and their values because they remain their interests and their values. They are not clinging to "the past". They quarrel with others because their interests and values and those of others clash. Neither side [as if there are ever only two] represents "the past" or "the future" except in very practical senses like changing economic power or demographic balances, which are not "the past" or "the future" in any inherent, law of physics kind of way, but the kind of subjects that are actively in contention. The result of the contention determines which is "the past" and which "the future", presuming those mean anything.
I frequently return to view this because of how ideal this video essay is. Within thirty-eight seconds you know the plot, the two leads, their motivations, and how it'll all end. It's crystal clear that this will be a thorough and effective video. It won't be wasting time on speculations; the focus is instead on solid analysis.
This analysis is way off. The movie was about mental health. William foster had issues with rage. Prendergast’s wife had mental issues in regards to losing the daughter in a sudden death. Their mental defects affected everyone around them.
The best classic movies that are masterpieces don’t tell you this character is the good guy and this one is the bad guy. If we’re judging the characters on a black and white scale, then, yes D-Fens is the bad guy. Life is not always black and white though and the more realistic scale to judge on is shades of grey where most people live. Everyone has a light and dark side and Falling Down’s characters live in this world. Especially D-Fens. You clearly see that he has always been a good guy but with that resentment and anger bubbling just beneath the surface that can easily make you become the villain given the choices. Even Detective Pendergrast says this indirectly by saying “they lied to all of us, they lied to the fish. But that doesn’t give you any special rights to do what you did today”. He’s saying we all deal with the same system but we have a choice on how to deal with it. I feel like this is the real message in Falling Down. I also feel that the director wanted to show us that there are real inequalities that happen and it’s not smart to keep poking the bear, so to speak. Yet, just about everyone D-Fens encounters does manage to irritate him in some way but again, that’s because of the years of being taken advantage of that he can’t tolerate anymore. This film was a work of genius because it was kind of the first to explore a complex character who isn’t 100% the villain nor completely the hero either. It’s a point of view movie where the director lets the viewer decide and that’s just revolutionary. Shows like Breaking Bad would later use this same concept to complete perfection.
This film is like First Blood. Rambo is seen and treated as a villain as well but all he is a a victim of crooked people who pushed him over the edge. Both D-Fense and Rambo are strong men who only want an easy time. All D-Fense wanted is to spend time with his daughter on her birthday and all Rambo wanted is to get breakfast at a town as he passes through. Weak men create hard times and D-Fense and Rambo had to deal with weak men who give them hard times. All they wanted was to create and have an easy time by doing their work, but weak men ruined it and made the hard times when they are done with their work. First Blood is about hard times for veterans made by weak people. Falling Down is hard times of retired working class citizens made by weak people.
And to be honest, Michael Douglas' Bill D-Fens Foster is a more realistic depiction of a marginalized character going mad than Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is.
The inchoate rage that comes when you begin to realize you are now essentially irrelevant. That you do not matter. That your life has been a waste. Forgive me if I'm slightly out because I've not seen it in years. I considered this as much character study as a warning. If we remove the small and simple kindnesses from the world, and dish out small hurts to all around us just as we have been hurt, then society is in a fair old amount of trouble.
Your analysis of the intended meaning of Falling Down is by and large correct. You just need to remember one thing it's a movie, none of the events in the movie actually happened and they are more or less intended as propaganda. Or as another reviewer put it, the point to the movie is if you don't like how things have changed you are the problem.
The video essay is absolutely wrong on many issues, it's effectively a political rant thinly disguised as a movie review. It purposefully lies about the protestor scene, because movieswithmark wants to talk about his political propaganda and the real scene doesn't fit into it. Being honest about the scene would prove the protagonist isn't a racist, so the whole ideological point of the video would fall apart. I was born in the eastern bloc and I have seen this too many times. For example a 15th century religious movement being described by the communist party not as a religious movement, but as a proto-communist collective. In the same way the narrator wants people to think D-FENS is a racist sexist, while it is clear from the movie he doesn't care about race, has a deep connection to a black man in the same situation as he is in and he sacrificed everything for his family, which consists of 3 women.
Nah- if you live in peace and work hard and get screwed anyway, you may not be a hero or a victim, but you are not a villain either. If you cease to live in peace and do violence for gain or revenge, you may or may not be a villain but you are doing as plenty of others already do, you just joined in.
Perhaps Foster/D-Fens & his actions can't be entirely glorified, but they can certainly be understood, perhaps even applauded in some cases. Various people (whether on their own or as part of companies, organizations, etc.) continually provoke him. His responses are almost never instantaneous, cruel, malicious or arbitrarily vindictive. Instead, he initially questions anything/everything suspicious, which is smart & healrhy & should be encouraged. In Foster's case, though, he's decided he's got nothing to lose (& he's probably right), which makes him very dangerous to anyone who tries to push him too far.
What's worrying the complete lack of empathy for him. It's worrying to see a man being destroyed in slow motion and not a single person tries to reach out except the cop at the very end, but by then it's too late. This is a film about mental illness and what happens when it's brushed aside as fucking "entitlement" because it's too much effort for twats to be considerate.
Finally a review that gets the point of this film. Too many people misunderstand this movie and take away, "he's doing what we all feel like doing" rather than seeing the film for what it's meant and it's deeper symbolism.
This was a commentary from a looney leftie. DFENS was the GOOD guy. He lost everything to his bitch wife who refused to let him see his own daughter on her birthday. That's one for the leftie feminists. He lost his career and became obsolete, unable to support his own family that he wasn't allowed to see because of maternal favouritism in the family courts. He needed psychological help which he didn't get. He was a hero and he went down like a hero. If you're in your 20's, you might see DFENS as crazy. When you reach your 40's then you begin to say, "I get it". DFENS built missiles, a nations defence. Then they throw him on the scrapheap and so does his wife. He was pushed over the edge by society and his nasty wife which is why he reacted the way he did. This could happen to anyone.
@@70ad25 Wow, this take is like reading Oedipus Rex and deciding it's a fabulous idea to marry your own biological mother... LOL Fun facts, most the guys I have discussed this movie with are 40 or 50 and they absolutely think anyone who behaves like Dfens is a bad dude. More than a few of them are even conservatives, but they would never handle a gun in a room full of innocent families and young adults. Only a psychotic maniac, a tweaker or someone who needs sedation would think that's a good idea. He's basically the Unibomber, who guess what? Was a murderous psycho attacking the USA... Have you never even considered the notion that you might identify way too much with the guy who was confusing a Nazi into thinking he was a Fascist? XDDD
Interesting that this was about six years before Columbine, although shootings at post offices ("going postal") had already begun. Now it seems we have a new D-Fens every week at some school, workplace, mall, church, etc. In addition, this country has been involved in some war or another continuously since then. Perhaps this movie foreshadowed all of that.
A director could make the most obvious societal commentary, going so far as to make the main character wear a T-shit that says "I am an asshole and very stupid", name the character 'Dick McShithead', and it would still have Edgy boy fans doing a circus worth of mental gymnastics to explain why he's the hero for today's men.
Like the others said, yeah Foster isn't a good guy, he did wrecked the korean without reason, he could had just tried in another store, but i don't he could just do that with all the shit on his day. he did acted right with the gangsters and the nazi, but the rich old man was the real point of no return. but even them, he isn't a complete monster, vide his dispair when he thinks he hurt the little girl a very good movie and a great character indeed.
Every action of his day is connected to his larger mission of going to his ex-wife’s home, even though she doesn’t want him there, she doesn’t want him calling, and she has an active restraining order against him. He wasn’t in his car going to work. We know that. A store owner got beat up, a bunch of minimum wage fast food kids had to dodge gunfire, and an old man died because he was hell-bent on stalking his ex-wife. And considering the bag of guns he held onto the closer he got to her house, he may have had other ideas.
The scene with the Nazi is one of the most important scenes in the movie and is incredibly relevant now. D-Fens is angry that he's being associated with the Nazi, but he's not ashamed of his actions. Much like in todays world where most racists are only angry that they were called a racist -- they don't believe they are racist so how dare you. Self reflecting on if they actually did anything racist isn't even in the cards -- or they do know they are racist and play stupid. This has changed a little bit recently, but back in the 90s/00s there was definitely a "Well such and such isn't literally a nazi or in the Klan" handwaving away of daily racism. But even these days you can still dog whistle your way through being racism and people will still handwave it away. D-fens is just like "I'm not literally a Nazi so what I'm doing is fine!" even though he commits a hate crime in the Korean grocery store.
I think the issue with this viewpoint is that comparing D-FENS to a literal nazi is glossing over the reasons why D-FENS does what he does. He was never racially motivated with the actions he did. Sure, maybe the nazi would also do what D-FENS did but motivations and reasons are clearly different between them. The Korean store owner scenario points this out even more because D-FENS only destroys the store because the price of the soda can reflects to him the modern-day inflation of items that he believes shouldn't be so expensive, _not_ because of the ethnicity of the store owner in question. For clarification, I'm not defending D-FENS' actions, just merely pointing out the differences of intentions.
Is it a hate crime? Or more fed up of people coming to his country and then taking the mickey? You telling me the store guy couldnt have been a decent human being and gave change instead of trying to cop a quick buck? Yes, DFens flies off the handle and commits an obvious crime, but its not a hate crime. If anything hes responding to the Korean guys sheer self centeredness. If anything, id argue the Korean is commiting a hate crime.
He didn't attack the clerk because of his race or ethnicity... You're the kind that will call white on black crime a hate crime, but not when black people attack white people...
Thanks for calling him the “bad guy.” You’re right. Racism plays a big part. You don’t get to be violent, no matter what. It’s unjust. He is that, which he despises
Despite D-Fens being the antihero and social critic, he's really selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed, and myopic. He can't see how others have it worse yet they still push on. He doesn't see that the Asian shopkeeper works long hours and deals with assholes all day, 7 days a week. He doesn't realize that the people in the fastfood place might be working class and just want to enjoy their lunch. He doesn't realize that he put his wife/kid through years of misery.
That's the point of the film. Everyone wants to focus on their own issues and think they have it rough, when there is always someone else that has it way worse. The film has a lot of various messages though, and you really can not honestly judge the film or the main character by just a few specific things.
Prendergast calls him out this way at the end of the film. For all the reverence D Fens gets if everyone lashed out the way he did things would be worse. People who glamorize D Fens should imagine themselves as one of his victims.
And what does that say about the world around him? I am a firm believer that environment is the main contributor to how we grow up and develop a personality. Foster is a good man who was abandoned by a selfish, self centered, self absorbed and myopic society. The korean shopkeeper decided to be an asshole and not allow foster to simply break a dollar. The fast food place had breakfast on standby (we see the employee grab one off the counter when he pulls his gun out) yet refused to give it to him, instead letting it go to waste. His wife doesnt realize that she completely shattered any hope that Foster had when she abandoned him and kept him from his daughter instead of helping him overcome his issues. This doesnt justify the rampage, but its important to realize that foster was not a bad man, he was just the byproduct of a sick world.
@@joshuarubenstein2298 You're absolutely on point! It's wild seeing everyone here dump on this man because either He'S aN eViL ⚪ mAn or some other poor excuse to cover why they don't understand him. It's fascinating how these people openly side with the person who deliberately refuses to even let D-FENS see his daughter even for her birthday, if just that. These people are evil.
7:58 you seem to have overlooked the scene where Prendergrast's boss takes him aside and tells him that the reason he has always disliked and distrusted him was because Prendergrast never swore. Ties into Prendergrast's characterization as a wounded, damaged father, highly attuned to the care of children and protecting them against suffering, perceived of as less-than and weak by comparison to cops who walked the beats. Similarly, D-Fens is lashing out at the similar wound to his self-image as a caring, loving, providing father who "did everything he was supposed to," but still found himself fired from his job and separated from his wife and child.
But he did swear. At his wife while his child is crying. In public he put forth a different man he never was, and it turns out he didn’t even do that all so well.
He was talking about Prendergast the cop, mate.
Excellent perspective
@@kagato23 why did three people like your comment? One person being idiotic, i understand, but three more who did not have the intellect to understand that OP was referring to Prendergast's swearing? We're doomed.
@@robinmohamedally7587 go cry about it.
He starts out with a brief case. He eventually upgrades to a LAW rocket. He ends with a water gun. Poetic.
If Fight Club taught me anything, it’s that hobbies are incredibly important.
Haven't seen that film in over 2 decades. I feel stupid b/c I'm not sure if I get your joke.
@@RetroDawnmaybe you feel that way because there’s a chance you are?🤔
@@cabalogia That is what someone means when they say that. Care to enlighten me?
@@cabalogia lol, your life isnt going the way you want it to, and you're miserable. That's funny. People who are happy wouldn't mess with people online for fun, that's just not how humans behave.
its almost like the monotony of pointless jobs have ruined the lives of people
What makes Bill Foster (D-Fens)
such a fascinating character is that
he manages to be hero, villain
& victim all rolled into one.
He's a real person, one of the few ever portrayed so well in cinema.
You are shown his point of view and from his point of view he is a hero, and victim and then finally at the very end he realizes he is the villain. This movie is an indictment of that victimhood mindset.
I dunno about hero. Protagonist definitely, victim sure. But only a hero in his own mind (and an unfortunate number of movie watchers who took the wrong message)
The film makes it painfully obvious that D-Fens was ALWAYS the villain. An abusive husband who blames everyone and everything but himself for his failings, who was on his way home to murder his ex-wife and child before he got sidetracked by roadworks.
@@CharlieNoodlesThough it was confirmed few times in the movie that he had not any murder plans, at least towards his daughter. And if he'd blamed himself, he'd been gone long ago, same result with fewer phases.
This film is honestly more relevant now than it was back in 1993
It will always be relevant
Facts ✍🏻🔥🚨💔
Well, I agree but for very different reasons.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard and what are they
It becomes more relevant and more important as each year ticks by. It’s one of my favourite films and one that resonates with me the most. It’s incredibly clever and insanely accurate.
I see a broader thread- by comparing every interaction amongst every character with how Pendegrast interacts. He is the only one who notices, tries to understand, empathizes, gets on their level, loves, defends honor of others instead of his own, connects, and ultimately is the only one not unhappy, defeated, angry. Everyone thinks they are right in behaving badly, and all fall down, during choices or interactions when we put ourselves above others.
That was a great insight "all fall down". I really think that this a great point, everyone except Pendegrast is falling down in this movie, people and society.
The real bad guy in this movie is the society that created the people.
We truly live in a society
@@Low_Fidelity_3D not funny didn’t laugh
@@placer7412 yeah i was being sarcastic
@@Low_Fidelity_3D I wasn't.
@@placer7412 i could tell
The fact that the D-FENS is portrayed as the main bad guy throughout the movie/irl, only makes the message stronger
I think the script is brilliant when you consider Robert Duvalls character….he has every reason to feel as frustrated as D Fens but he deals with it in a much more constructive way
Prendergast's situation is a much better. He did not lost his job, wife and house. He is respected man amongst others, despite disrespect from his wife and coworkers. He are much older, in that age when a man become indifferent and tired from life. It's his last day on work, he retires willingly, and so he can say "fuck off" to his boss and to hit that asshole collegue. And he saw Foster as a living warning, while Foster itself have not such a teacher.
Thats a matter of opinion. O see a guy who is too scared to leave his controlling wife or leave a job that is clearly not for him.
@@kelvingriffiths6017 Too scared to leave his wife .. or he loved his wife (which was important enough point for him to run after his female co-worker and tell her) and also a man who respected his marriage vowes "for better, for worse". I despise people who make vowes and don't keep them.
@@Axel_Andersen I do too.
@@АлексейРащектаев-ъ5п Interesting that hitting a person to take out ones frustration on a colleague is not brought out more. Of course it is in a different league as Dfences actions but still. He only killed one person which could also be seen as justifiable homicide or self defence. In my books the worst of his actions was demolishing the poor Koreans shop. The gang members had it coming when they attacked him twice. The heart attack, I read the dialogue and acting so that if the pills had been somewhere near Dfence would have given them to him but once he saw that there was nothing to be done he hid his behind the cold act, I don't buy for a moment that he was violent at home or that he was on his way to kill his family.
Interesting review. D-Fens is a very relatable individual for someone who was 35 when I first saw this film(early 40s now) who struggles to adapt to a society where it seems the rules keep changing BUT he's also a warning of someone you don't want to become because his violence means that he gets seen as the bad guy even if he was just broken and lashing out at a society that would not help him.
It’s crazy how people see what they wanna see
I felt as if the film represents the repressed anger of middle class Americans. I could resonate with DEFENSE because he reflects what we've been trying to say and explain whether it's increasing price of goods, gang violence, liars, lazy people, unfairness, and especially: the limited time breakfast menu. (that shit should be 24 hours.)
(I also viewed the film as a form of criticism of California but I don't know.)
Not
Not
Exactly!
California is only the rest of America twenty years later. And we're seeing that now
I'm not sure the L.A. setting of the film
maintains much relevance, if any,
though it certainly had relevance
at the time, being shot before, during
& after the L.A. riots, but anyway,
I otherwise couldn't agree more
about the continuing importance
& timeliness of this film.
I think the lesson of the film is that while, yes, daily life is frustrating, even maddening, it's important to remember that we're no different from everyone else (the home video scene where he's impatiently yelling at his beloved family demonstrates this. Is not getting breakfast at a restaurant or having a giant golf course REALLY a worse evil than yelling at your wife and daughter?), and, ultimately, being patient and tolerant of everyone else rather than lashing out is how we all survive. I'm not sure it's stated, or even implied, that he lost his job because of his temper, but it might well have been. Imagine having D-Fens as your manager. He'd be breathing down your neck, blowing his stack at your every shortcoming, blaming you for every team failing. He'd be unsatisfiable. Same with his family. The reality of life is that inequality is baked in. There has never been a time in human history, from the pyramids to the medieval era to the Industrial Revolution to the present day, where egalitarianism was the norm, and you shouldn't expect that. Prendergast shows that ultimately you just have to do your best to find a way to adapt. D-Fens ultimate failing was his inflexibility. Prendergast adapts. The other point of the film was that shooters weren't some alien race from the rest of us, fundamentally different. Remember, the 90s were the era of the Disgruntled Postal Worker. It was to humble us and realize that the nutjob we see in the news might really just be us on a bad day.
Awesome cloaker.
Definitely this. No matter how shitty it gets, be a Pendergast, not a Foster.
@@CaliCurmudgeon Sadly, too many people view Foster as a hero.
@@Ragitsu Well, I view him as a tragic character in the classic literary sense of those words.
@@CaliCurmudgeon I pity him. The man is a product of his environment. Still, I don't wish to excuse his actions as "justified".
You miss on the point where Dfens is the only bad guy. The entire film is filled with complacent people that act on short term judgement and doing what they’re told. One must then question what is more wrong vs more right in the portrayed society namely an exploitative American society. As the morality is flipped in the film’s portrayal of American values, Dfens is actually the vigilante of the flick. And the cop being the force of change, which unfortunately would be the villain in this fictional American society.
Since literally every character (with exception of cop), falls within the same morality. Dfens only symbolizes the extremism of the films values.
Whereas the cop is probably the anti-anti hero (relative to real life society), and true main character of the film.
@@spamcheck9431I’ll say that D-Fens is also the result of an apathetic society. So many times leeway could have been given - giving him the change, the breakfast menu, leaving him alone and so on. Instead the small and big actions gloat him on and on until the man with a briefcase ends up with a rocket.
On the other hand, DFens is a guy who simply needed to wait in traffic a little longer - when he stormed off from his car, you can see traffic continuing.
There is also the officer that chases him. He gets berated by his boss for not being the “cop” stereotype and acts as a parallel to D-Fens at the end.
“i did everything they told me to.”
“Hey, They lie to everybody they lie to the fish. But that doesn’t give you any special right to do what you did today. The only thing that makes you special is that little girl.”
It is only after this that he acknowledges being pushed to the edge, referencing the heat that infuriated him in the car. The cop might be the only one that can actually be like DFens yet never harmed or killed anyone in the film.
It wasn’t about the price of the soda really, it was about the asshole not giving him change and the soda being too expensive to give him a quarter back
What? It's not about the price, but also it is about the price? If the quarter for the call was really that imperative, he could have bought a pack of gum or something cheaper. But, no, he gets hung up on wanting change AND a Coke, deciding to fight for them. You're not waging some war on unjust prices by assaulting a small convience store of all places.
I also don't buy that the owner was an asshole when he casually tells him "No change, have to buy something" and passively stating the price of the soda as "85 cents." He only gets heated when Foster starts complaining about the price, to which the owner firmly states, "85 cents. You pay or go."
@@MoviesWithMark
I think that "It's not about the price, but also it is about the price?" is perfectly on point for this movie.
The way the camera shows the store owner breaking a roll of coins to load the register, among other specific choices in dialogue and such, DO clearly convey that it's not about the price of the soda, but about the store owner using his leverage to force a sale rather than just help DFNS out.
However, the characters themselves may not be aware of it. The transactional & monetary nature of capitalism infects every interaction in this movie. Even though it's always beneath the surface, it's too ubiquitous throughout the movie to be an accident.
IMO, that dissonance where DNFS does not understand why his social expectation has broken down, and then lashing out at something close but not right (first the price of the soda, then onto less correct things like the shopkeep's race, ect) is a BIIIIG part of the movie.
.
From the gangbangers demanding a "toll" to the black version of DFNS protesting outside a bank due to a denied loan, it's honestly impressive how many times the film really pushes that button. Every problem has a thread saying "capitalism did this." Even the home video of DFNS' turning dark does so with something like ~"I bought her the damn rocking horse and she's going like it! Now get her to stop crying and put her on it!" It's not a naked "this guy was always evil" it's a moment to realize he's been infected, and affected, by the same evil he's been rebelling against.
.
When DNFS first asks just for change, the shopkeep denies him with something like ~"no change, make a purchase."
And *that* is what DFNS should have objected to. That's a kind of common courtesy of a "good society" that is within the shopkeep's power, But in the movie, the transactional, money-grubbing interactions have become so normalized, both characters don't even think of that denial as being the unreasonable step.
Instead, that anger finds a scapegoat. It's not the unwillingness for change, it's the price of the soda being so high as to "not leave enough" for his needs. The "price" of the status quo grows and grows, until some cannot afford to pay.
The movie does a masterful job of showing, not telling, how those kinds of misdirected outbursts can happen, and how destructive they can be. Even characters like the neo*azi show what happens when that misdirected anger is *not* acted upon as DNFS does, but is instead allowed to stew and grow.
.
I just love how much the black DFNS just shreds any hope of DNFS being a simple bad guy clearly in the wrong. In such a short amount of time, you have a mirror of DFNS who can't take it anymore, doing his breakdown "right," and he still gets dragged away by the cops for just protesting. That once scene sneaks in an entire layer to the film. DFNS and his violence cannot be ignored. How many others snap as the black guy does, the "right" way, yet we never even notice? How many people forget the black guy?
I honestly don't know if I've ever seen a move more carefully give the mass audience the pieces and threads needed to understand the ways in which capitalism rots at society, while still hiding things enough to make it to that mass market.
@@haydenhuffines8648 what do you want to replace capitalism with?
Go to another store. Jesus christ. It ultimately doesn't matter what his real problem was with the store clerk. His actions are not justified.
@@haydenhuffines8648 commie tool
Ok. The characters name is Bill Foster. I am not sure if it was mentioned in the movie much, but I remember hearing his name said several times in a commercial for this movie.
While I can understand his frustrations, I feel, at the most, the only thing he could have accomplished for himself was a degree of notarity.
Other than that, he would have been caught and society would go on as normal.
So, I see this as a sad journey of a man, who seemed to not be able to adapt to changing times.
To me, the title says it all, "Falling down."
A mans fall from grace, from an ordinary joe, to a reckless individual.
It could also be said that it shows America's fall, from the quest of the American Dream, to a disilusionment of the belief, from bygone days, that if you work hard and follow the rules, you will get your nice home, in a clean decent neighborhood, to live out your days in peace and happiness.
Bill Fosters look is a representation of that, crew cut, glasses, pocket protector, white shirt and tie. He looks out of place in the modern world and decends into violence, anger and bitterness like those around him.
He’s basically a nerd, a vengeful nerd. He worked in the defence industry, was let go because of defence budget cuts. The Cold War ended and he was out of a job because the geopolitical landscape changed, he was no longer needed.
@@chrishenniker5944what does him supposedly being a nerd have to do with anything?
I mean it's not anything that requires any analysis, the movie is straight forward.
"Is that what this is about... because you were lied to?", "... they lie to everybody".
It's really just about the disenfranchise from society when you find out how fucked up everything is.
It’s much deeper than that but most don’t get it
@@VegasTwins Sounds like something a Lynch fan would say. It's just too deep for you to get it!!1
I mean the emperor's new clothing.
Sure, you can blame any number of factors, the economy, the heat, racism, poverty and so on but the theme is just the theme, disenfranchisement from society.
... which again is summed up nicely in the showdown scene, where the detective simply says "is that what all this is about?!?!??!"
As in, that little, lol. You could argue the whole point of the movie, is about how little the movie is about.
@@notsure6796 that line is important but your interpretation is surface level thinking, it’s yet another part of the pendergrass and foster parallel, and also a reference to how the average person can relate to foster cause they lied to everyone
@@VegasTwins Which is... still just alienation from society. We examine how much bs everything is, including the main character, the babyless wife that went crazy, coworker willing to have an affair and even the movie itself. The spineless nature of lamers in retard land... is what push people over the edge. But, the theme is still just about snapping.
He is clearly crazy (as evidenced by his conversations with his ex-wife), but he is also a product of the system, which is inherently broken. We see this when the “NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE” guy is arrested while a man on an actual rampage isn’t. If people broadly and en masse are aware of how the system is broken, it is more dangerous than dealing with a lone wolf, which society is desensitized to. That’s why the police move to immediately arrest the guy with a sign.
You know, it's not 'broken,' it was meant to work that way.
His wife removed him from his home and the daughter he loved most of all because she “felt “ he could be dangerous. When she cut the ties to his happiness and made him all alone he became bitter and angry.
@@map3384 It was not that simple and it was definitely more than a 'feeling'. They make a point to specifically show in the film that D-Fens was clearly emotionally unstable at best, even before his bad day. He reflects on this when watching the home movies and even he was unsettled by his own behavior when on the outside looking in. You say she "removed him from his home" as if he was some unassuming victim who was just targeted by his wife for no reason. If he was willing to behave like that while recording, we can reasonably extrapolate that he behaved the same or worse off-camera. Verbal/emotional abuse and erratic emotional changes are big red flags that someone's mental health may not be on the up and up. And when you have a child involved, their safety and emotional/mental security is paramount above everything else. Bill was clearly troubled, but he was also a grown man. He made his choices and unfortunately never got the help he needed before it was too late. If I were his wife, I wouldn't take the chance on my kid's life if I even thought for a single moment that my partner was capable of doing them serious harm.
@@cjdouglas3464 She assumed he could do something violent against him. Taking his daughter away from him was violent. Women always assume and assume wrong. It’s why 90% of divorced are filled by women.
@@map3384 Bro, what are you on about? You’re dropping a lot of blanket generalizations, idk if you’ve just had bad experiences but your bias is very heavy. First, 70% of divorces are filed by women in general, the 90% only applies to college educated couples. And there are a MILLION different reasons why people file for divorce, to say it’s all bc “woman make assumption” is disingenuous and completely ignores the complexity of actual human relationships. Cheating, abuse, irreconcilable differences, the list goes on. Taking away his daughter is a heavy blow, but once again the film shows you that was a consequence of Bill’s own actions. He brought his wife and child to tears because she didnt want to ride a damn horse. Does that sound like someone stable to you? His wife didn’t want herself or her child to end up another cautionary tale about a guy going off the deep end. “Women always assume and assume wrong”…well clearly Elizabeth wasn’t wrong. It doesn’t matter what he lost, it doesn’t make it okay to murder people. He lost his family because he couldn’t address his own anger/mental health. You’re trying to absolve this grown man of personal accountability. He made a choice to do what he did.
Something people gloss over with this movie is D-FENS is a bully and probably has been for a long time. The way he interacts with the store clerk, the minimum wage fast food kids, his wife, and the way his mother seems terrified just talking about him all point to this. I kind of think the “layoff” was just what he told people happened at his job and he was possibly fired for aggressive or threatening behavior.
I can see how you reach your opinions, but I don't agree with them. Dfens believes that if something he wants is good, then it CANT be wrong. That's why when he bought his daughter the pony, he keeps saying put her on the horse when shes crying. He needs to believe what he's doing is right. This is in the end is an anti-hero, he truly believes he's doing good things.
Store owner he saw as a thief, gangsters were self defense, nazi was eye for an eye, Whammy Burger is common sense.
The start of the movie shows him coming to the end of being just another cog in the machine, he literally gets out of a 10,000 dollar car to WALK to see his daughter. Why? Because he believes it is right that a man gets to see his daughter on their birthday, no matter what rules society puts in his way to stop it.
This isn't about tradition, this is about his perception of justice.
So now I made my case, do you see where my position falls short?
What if... it can be about tradition AND Dfense's delusions that he's the good guy? In a lot of ways, he acts out his own Western "making the world right" self-narrated fable in ways that are overexaggerated, Hollywood-like in the vein of old cowboy stories? Stories that got more and more black and white, simplified and all about the hero with the gun, and never seem to show that even the villains might by someone to pity, someone with a family to mourn them too. Even gangbangers who break the law have siblings or parents to leave behind in many cases. 50s cowboy movies NEVER EVER show the Hero assaulting women or murdering children, or anything beyond the most shallow tragedy with the Bad Guy. Those Baddies never have motives beyond greed, lust or rage to be bad, they never steal to feed families or to defend their home.
The true Old West histories involved lots of gruesome torture of innocents by all parties, and the mass genocide of native Americans, deep prejudice against anyone not white and meager rights for women. His obliviousness to the innocents he terrorizes is like a whitewashed spaghetti western or wholesome serial show like Gunsmoke where the bad guy gets punished and the hero is pure and never overreacts or accidentally shoots the wrong person.
Personally, I think tradition and the sense of easily dissected justice- a type of morality with no grey area and only heros or villains and no in between are pretty tightly wound concepts. I watch a lot of older movies and shows, I love a lot of it, but it can be jarring to realize how different the values of the times were. Both the time in which the story was written and filmed, and the historical times the art is trying to idealize.
I think the retirement party, with the cowboy hats might be influencing me, but every man I know who is close to my dad's age (a child in the 50's) is OBSESSED with western stories. Not all of them are white dudes, but the media they all consumed was absolutely steeped in Lone Ranger and cops and robbers.
@@aazhie Not delusions
@@aazhie No he isn’t acting out like that
@@aazhie It isn’t a self narrated fable
@@aazhie what a load of drivel
I hate to criticize but.....an off brand soda in 1988 was 25cents.
Do you still think he overreacted lol
Yes. He absolutely overreacted.
1. This was 1993 not 1988 and soda cans of that era usually cost $0.50-$0.75 (it's also not off-brand, it's clearly Coke). $.50 is also the price that he counters with.
2. It is not worth busting up a store just because you won't get change to make a phone call for buying one can of soda. Especially since the entire reason he went into that store was to get change to make that call. If that's what was important, he could've just bought gum or something. But, no, he chose a Coke and decided to die on that hill and insult the owner for being Korean.
@@MoviesWithMark Im not justifying fosters actions in the slightest, but you have to admit, the store owner was being a bit of an asshole. The scene starts with him litterally stocking the register with change, yet he refuses to break a dollar for foster saying he must buy something.
@@joshuarubenstein2298 Okay, so he didn't want to make change and said Foster should buy something? So what? You think that warrants Foster's tirade? You ever wonder why the owner had a baseball bat at the ready? You think he might've been robbed in the past and doesn't want to be as open with his money, prices, or store policies? The argument of "he started it by not breaking a dollar" is a weak defense for Foster's actions.
@@joshuarubenstein2298 Interesting, your excellent response was shadowbanned by TH-cam. I can only see it on my phone by clicking your profile pic to see your last 3 comments.
TH-cam censorship at its finest unfortunately. Looks like MoviesWithMark doesn't like people mildly disagreeing with him.
As a former fast food employee it’s horrifying to see how many people seem to thinking murdering me is justified for not getting eggs, or even cold fries.
If D-Fens was played by a woman of the same age, half the people praising him would be calling the character a Karen.
@@thingthang2904 We could also find feminist praising the character for fighting against patriarchal society and racism (if you cast a women of color).
@kapilsethia9284
Self Report right here
He stated “ I have a gun in my pocket “ and the Proceeded to force the policeman into duel , there is no police officer in this world that would not have shot him
Maybe not in America ... here in Scandinavia police very seldom draw a gun and when they shoot they try not shoot to kill.
Police will defend themselves @@Axel_Andersen
@@AndrewOzolins Sure, but in a country I live they most of the time use proportional violence, they do not shoot to kill always, which seems to be the norm in American cinema, TV as well as reality.
But if someone pulls a gun on you, what they're really saying is that they're going to kill you. It is proportional to respond with deadly force if someone is actively trying to kill you.
It doesn't matter that it's a water gun either. He told the officer it was a real gun and then violently reached for it. Was the officer just not supposed to believe him?
@@anoriginalname8695 That is not what I said nor implied. What I said was in reply to "there is no police officer in the world that would not" ... and I simply stated that this is different from USA in many countries.
I feel like you're missing the point of the final scene a little
D-Fens is (somewhat) exonerated in this scene because he chooses not to kill Prendergrast, but accepts that he's the monster and dies for it by using the water pistol to force Prendergrast into shooting him.
Notice how after the shoot-out, Prendergrast wipes some water off his face. D-Fens "won" the dual, he hit Prendergrast in the head with the water-pistol before Prendergrast could gun D-Fens down. If D-Fens had chosen to carry an actual pistol in his pocket, his rampage would not have been stopped by Prendergrast as Prendergrast would be dead and D-Fens would be free to, in all likelihood, commit murder suicide on his ex-wife and daughter.
But he didn't. D-Fens chose to carry the water pistol and chose to die rather than kill more.
YES... except it's not clear whether D Fens would of mudered his wife and daughter. He did make a reference to men murdering wives if they dishonored them, in South America... I think he was capable of killing his wife. But he would die for his daughter.... which he did, in a way.
lol He had a real gun at the end of the film.
They manage to steal it from him
I feel he misses the point entirely.
He wouldn't have killed his daughter...
This movie is the embodiment of "Every Villain sees themselves at the hero of their own story".
Defens didn’t see himself as a hero but a man on a mission which is his demise.
@@map3384 Yes but that is my point. When I say "hero" I'm referring to a person who feels justified and righteous. In Defens situation, he was constantly talking about what is wrong with the world as if he was the guy with the moral compass. Good villians throughout history do that all they time. Do mass murder for "the greater good". They shoot up a club killing some bystander but it's okay because its revenge and just unfortunate. The point a villain has a warped sense of self and thinks they are justified when doing villainous actions.
It's the most honest social commentary movie ever made. Anyone can be a Bill Foster. Bill is every working class guy that's ever lived and didn't know it. You think you live in a "Free" country? Name something that's free? I'll give you "Air". Go for 2? You understand some of the pieces, but you're missing the picture. You still gotta lot to learn. Welcome to Amerika.
I love Falling Down and I'm often confused how little of audience it has today, on the other hand I meet less and less people who have seen Taxi Driver either, other than D-fence I'm used to that, it's always been like this as far as I remember.
I see many videos talking about who is the evil in Falling Down and who isn't. While D-Fence certainly isn't the good guy I wouldn't say he is evil either.
It's a character most ppl, American or not (I'm born and live in the EU) can understand his motivations while not agreeing to his actions. I like the movie because I can watch it from a different angle over and over again. The angle I'm thinking about right now is we all feel anger about little things we feel helpless in, but what if we would act on it? And that's D-Fence... Today, for me, could be something different tomorrow
I live in the Czech Republic and in the 90s, this movie inspired a webpage that is now one of the most popular and long-lasting Czech webpages. It is called D-FENS, has screenshot from the movie on the front page and mostly deals with political and societal issues. Even leaked some informations that forced police to investigate cases of corruption and other crimes.
The cracked killer. You dont know how many of us are this character. Perhaps its best.
Thanks Kanye very edgy
Wow, he is literally you, huh? Clown.
Maybe my moral compass is fucked, but I have zero empathy/remorse for what happened to the old rich guy on the golf course. And I'm not even a Leftist.
The old rich guy sucks and Foster makes a solid point about the waste of property amid disproportionate wealth. The old guy's death, however, is fittingly a stroke of luck for Foster more than of his own actions. Not to mention if Foster were to proceed further down this line of thought, he'd end up confronting the "property is theft" ideas of anarchists, and I doubt Foster's mindset of American patriotism would radicalize him to such a degree. Also, it'd take a lot more than one dead wealthy golfer to better handle land rights. To sum up, the golfer dude sucks and there's little pity for him beyond basic human nature of not wanting people to die, considering he could most likely afford the most lavish of healthcare.
@13:32 many people in the 90s viewed this as a comedy - dark, absurd & sarcastic. I was one of them.
Pretty much. I still think that was the idea and take it as such.
Everyone wants to be D-Fens, no-one wants to be be Prendergast
You first.
But everyone SHOULD be Pendergast, and even if his rage is very understandable, no one should become D-Fens.
Amazing this is being debated 30 years later and I get it - this was a complex movie that will elicit different reactions depending on your point of view. For me, Diouglas’ - Bill Foster - DFENS gets all the attention but I was drawn in by Duvall’s performance a Prendergast. It serves as a mirror to Douglas’ Bill Foster. It’s shows that a man who is being passed by and looked over can work within the system to drive positive outcomes. To me it’s a cautionary tale of how two similarly situated individuals can have grossly different outcomes based on how they interact with society. The ending is sad for Foster but ultimately redemptive for the most beaten up character who arguably had more pain and reasons to be angry having lost a child - Prendergast. Despite all his pain and the shell he has withdrawn into Prendergast decides to push forward in a positive way and I think ultimately finds his voice. Prendergast works within the system to prove his value to society. Foster lashes out at it like a child and self destructs. Yes society is not perfect but how we decide to act within it can drive wildly different outcomes was my takeaway.
No matter how shitty it gets, be a Mr. Pendergast, not a Mr. Foster.
Great analysis. Falling Down is my favorite Joel Schumacher film and is terribly underrated.
This analysis is completely stupid
Pretty sure its his only good film
It’s actually a pretty flawed analysis.
@@systemofadown945 Don't let the Batman films he did mess with your perception of Joel Schumacher. He was actually an extremely talented director with many good films under his belt.
@@My-Name-Isnt-Important ill give him another shot then maybe
A corrupt government is a corrupt people.
The individual comprises a role within society, and makes up the system. It is the individual who determines outcomes, not the straw man system which is often blamed for the bane of what is accomplished.
Often, people are tending for the purpose of survival, not the falsehood of good heartedness.😢
He is the anti hero, just acting like everyone else wants too, everyone being pushed down in a dead end job.
I have the widescreen edition with lots of features on DVD, including commentary tracks.
Me, too.
“Am I out of touch? No. It’s society who is wrong.”
Well if you think society is evolving you are knowingly being blind. The movement of society towards liberalism and self indulgent individualism and self victimizing for gain while leaving anyone with some bit of respect in the dust to be stepped upon. I can see a day where those people have had it and those people are the truely strong ones then and only then will the soft shitty people of modern day society will have what they have coming. People have become too comfortable so they create problems in their own minds and consequently infringe on others rights just because they are soft. There will be a rude awakening to those people and when it comes they will fall. I don't care how much people whine that this is pessimistic and horrible to say because these people should know nature isn't fucking fair it will swallow the weak whole. And it seems everyone is just getting weaker and weaker. And I say good riddance I'm tired of these self indulgent first world complainers who almost never experience anything hard in their entire lives. I can't wait to see it happen. Modern society has allowed itself to embrace being ignorant, and worst of all fucking degenerative. And anyone who dares point it out is yelled at by the same degenerate weirdos who will likely see a day where their lifestyle has spelled their doom. Even more fun for me is if that doesn't happen I'm sure when they are older they will regret who they were. It's such irony.
Exactly
"gets mugged by latinos"
"yeah you're the problem whitie!"
...
People who are complacent with the system ITT
The main character here doesn't realize that both can be true
Looks like we have a critic.
Intersting take but i think everyone in the film is the villian in their own way. Take the store owner. He doesnt set prices, but he is a selfish jerk. He could have offered change but decides to take advantage and make a quick buck. The whammy staff are being little hitlers. Not saying Dfens is right, but he isnt entirely wrong either.
Calling D-Fens the bad guy is like calling Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker the bad guy in “Joker.” Obviously they’re objectively the bad guy. If you’re hyper-focusing on that then you’re ignoring the point of the movie. A protagonist can be objectively bad, and an antagonist can be
objectively good. Watching a movie like Falling Down and repeating to yourself, as you are in this review, “But he’s the bad guy so whatever,” accomplishes absolutely nothing.
If I watch “Joker” and come out with the same mentality, I’d discount the entire premise of the movie simply because Arthur is objectively bad and that would be my takeaway. When, in reality, the theme of Joker revolves around the effects of societal pressure and humiliation on mentally ill people, and their reluctance to embrace evil when goodness fails them. Thus, the message you’re supposed to take away is “Treat others with respect, as you don’t know what they’re going through.” Joker isn’t meant to be instructional, you’re not meant to leave the theater saying “Okay, now I know how to start a riot if I ever need to!”
The reason I keep bringing up Joker is that it’s effectively the same premise as Falling Down. Society beats on a guy so badly that one day, he snaps and does a lot of bad stuff. It shares a moral with Joker; treat others with respect. And like Joker, it’s not instructional; you aren’t supposed to believe that D-Fens is an objectively good person, and that if you’re ever stuck in traffic you should destroy a convenience store, hold up a fast food joint, hang out with neo-Nazis and explode a construction crew.
I agree with your interpretations of both films but I don't think that means that the above video is stating redundant things. Both the Joker and Falling Down have been interpreted by many as a revenge fantasy. Men taking charge and rebelling against a flawed society (rather than just men who think they're doing that). Just look at how many people clapped and cheered in theater's when the Joker did his first kills. Imo they're not just clapping that sexual harassers are being murdered. They're clapping for the Joker emerging from the ashes, like a phoenix. A moment of glory, not abjection. What is meant to be a tragic turning point where a horrid society turns a man just as horrid, is seen as a point of catharsis and clarity with people rooting for and validating the character's actions.
For the record I like both films, but the "can you really blame him?" take is a popular one and one I completely disagree with (because yes, I do blame them).
My biggest pet peeve with this movie is how the writer introduced that tape of Bill being a bad parent. It felt heavy handed in the purpose of guiding the audience's perception of the protagonist. A kind of "Ah shit we made this guy too relatable, better make him insane/abusive so that the audience knows where to side" moment
I mean it fits with his character. He is a man who thinks the world owes him because he did the "right" things. He thinks he is owed a job a happy family a pleasant day etc and that he is justified in using violence if the world doesn't meet his expectations. This is an overgrown entitled man baby who would totally snap at his family if they didn't behave how he thought they should.
I agree. I wish they could have came up with a better way to end the movie other than making DFNS legit crazy. Would have been more interesting to end the movie with him still being morally ambiguous. But audiences don’t tend to like that
Everyone seems to read too much to that tape ... I don't think it says the bill was a bad parent or abusive spouse. It was just one random sample from his life, with a sample size of one we cannot draw too much conclusion. Me, I'm not violent, never laid a hand on anyone, but yes as a parent I've been angry and frustrated a few times and once or twice lost my temper and said words, still I don't think I'm a bad parent and I think my family and friends would agree.
@@Axel_Andersen They left him because of his anger issues. His wife goes to the cops numerous times about him. Later on in the movie he threatens to kill his wife on the phone. This guy was a self entitled asshole who in the end cared about nothing but himself and thought the world owed him.
@@Axel_Andersen on its own it's just a snippet, but we also learn earlier in the movie that his ex wife had a restraining order placed on him. That gives the tape a kind of different meaning. She herself admits Bill never hurt her and their child. Without the tape the viewer is brought to think the restraining order is overkill and it ties neatly in the injustices Bill is faced with, but the tape is put there to suggest that maybe he is the bad guy after all
The key takeaway i had of this film is that it kinda reminded me of the joker's philosophy in dc comics of it takes one bad day to make someone snap. But as explained by this video the repressed anger is dangerous thats why its a good thing for people to have hobbies like music, or anything in general that keeps their mind sane
I could explain why this movie is in every way perfect, but instead I’ll just point out that I’m now angry that fast food restaurants don’t serve lunch all day, but they DO INDEED serve breakfast all day.
The breakfast is not served after 11 30, not 11 .
Splitting hairs, honestly.
Not to defend the fascist crazy Army Surplus guy, as weird it is to say his murder was also unjustified, he wanted to (in a twisted way) do a civil arrestation on D-Fens. Granted, it could be argued that D-Fens reacted in a self-defense but still I believe the main protagonist of the movie is truly the bad guy and he's always taking his anger on the wrong people.
Well done for the review. I'm glad I found it after Falling Down was suddenly picked up by a number of YT reviewers that interpreted it in a way that is, well... right-of-centre. :)
Your perspective is refreshing. I disagree with it, but it's very well argued. The most interesting bit is where you argue that the fascist and D-Fens are philosophically the same, in that they're both conservatives pining for a purer West in which "the needs of women and minorities weren't considered". You keep the same stance when you say that progress is inevitable, and D-Fens has become the bad guy by trying to stop it rather than adapt to it.
I could agree with the last bit, at least in part, as the way to react to a changing landscape as a small cog in the machine is to find another niche that'll want you, and not be too attached to whatever came before. However, I caution against calling this "progress", both as it's historically fallacious, and ethically perverse. Our study of history shows that the only thing by and large progressing is technology, whereas everything else (politics, society, ethics, population) goes in cycles, consistently with the theory of Empires. In an empire's decline, you see the degradation of social capital, rise in inequality, instability in politics, leading to a fall due to external forces that know how to push those internal forces until the house of cards crumbles. The external force could be another healthier empire (Rome vs Greece, Turks vs Byzantines) or a force of chaos (early middle ages vs Rome).
But in your prior snarky affirmation, that's where there lies something more sinister. On a blue-sky political level, you're implying that "the needs or women and minorities" are at direct odds with the prosperity and the satisfaction of the rest of society, thereby validating the right-wing point that left-wingers' progress IS indeed a zero-sum game in which 50% of the population loses so that the rest can gain - so ultimately, a power struggle. I'll leave you to ponder on the ethical consequences of this thought, if it's indeed your thought.
Besides, D-Fens is not a man that felt cheated by either women or minorities. The most right-wing thing he said is telling the Korean shopkeeper he doesn't understand his English - as he's being treated like absolute garbage by a person who is in a position of power over him: he has a resource D-Fens cannot afford. You see, the problem with "adapting" to progress is that there are many ways to do it. Arguably the easiest is to be a leech. EVERYONE he lashes out against falls in this category. From the shopkeeper to the golfer, they gained a source of survival *at someone else's expense*, either by finding someone to exploit or by dumping the problem on to the next person in line. The counter-example is by Pendergast himself, the only one to really give D-Fens and the audience a lesson. He retires gracefully after showing that he's the only one who knows how to do his job: he knows how to interrogate, follow a trail, treat his colleagues with respect. The only person in the whole film with a moral standing, and with a shred of competence and charisma.
This reviewer gets it. 👍🏽
4:34 Santa Klaus Barbie? This movie is a microcosm of Breaking Bad with Micheal Douglas doing in 2 hours what Bryan Cranston did in 5 seasons/6 years.
I guess we will ignore that "society" is increasingly becoming more dedicated to its own version of D-Fens. Lashing out against those we feel have wronged us, either real or perceived, is becoming the norm from all corners of society. I mean, speak your narrative and all but, all are culpable.
I think someone else said it best when describing Foster as personified white-middle-class anger: all the people he encounters look and act like subjects on the news, just superficially mean or violent and without any good reason. They are caricatures of people a suburban dad could point his finger at on a TV screen. It's like Foster lives in the irreal world of news media, he climbed into the screen to attack these angering people.
A prophetic movie about MAGA insecurities and victimhood at what they don't understand.
Ironically “MAGA” don’t claim victimhood.
That’s all minorities do on the left, that’s your entire identity.
missed the point award
@@cooler_carpington Congratulations on your award, I guess.
* Modern society, not Post-modern, Post-modernism is the Criticality of Modernity, D-Fens is the thesis of Post-modernism.
Of course, it's important not to put D-fens on a some pedestal but if not standing up for yourself is part your future, pretty sure I want no part of it.
I think he's an example of a broken man. A man who has, Fallen Down, and hits rock bottom. He's an example of how the system can make a normal man break and become the bad guy. He was unjustly given a restraining order chich kept him away from his daughter. Even the wife says it was unjustified, but the, "Judge wanted to make an example out of him." He lost is wife, kid, and job and has become a man without purpose.
There are analogies between this character and Travis Biggle and Dustin Hoffman in Straight Time where the protagonists develop a morally righteous attitude to try to rationalize their bad choices. Ironically in the 50's you probably couldn't order breakfast around noon or just before.
Not ironic.
Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver.
@@Madbandit77 You talking to me????? That's the character.
A good analysis. I also find Defense as a sort of typical shooter who goes on a killing spree.
Good , Bad , I’m the guy with the gun- Bruce Campbell ( Army Of Darkness)
The comparison between Prendergast and D-fens is one of complete opposites, but both are frustrated. The both start in the same traffic jam. The both have snow globes. One has been fired and unhappy. One is retiring and unhappy. One is going home. The other is staying at work. One has a daughter and can't see her. The other had a daughter and can't see her. One has a wife he wants to reunite with. The other has a wife who he wants to stay away from. The main difference between the two is that one handles injustices with compassion, despite being heckled by his superiors for being too nice. The other goes off on a rampage.
Dude is the hero.
"rather than attack the system"?? please tell me how exactly do i attack the system that brought as where we are? thank you
Criticize, protest, and seek ways to dismantle unjust systems through grassroots political movements and groups. Activism can do wonders. A recent example was when citizens called the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by Dick Durbin and urge them to prosecute Clarence Thomas for his corruption. So many called that the number stopped taking calls and they're now moving forward with a case against Thomas.
@@MoviesWithMark sure, they will now and then give u these little things, make u feel like ur actually changing something.. all of the important shit that they wanna do, u will never be able to touch , and they will continue to do it, like they have been..
Then you keep holding their feet to the fire. You continue to hold those with the most power accountable for their actions, to the point of protest and revolution if need be. I'm not sure what you want here. Do you just want to bitch about the system and then do nothing about it? Or do you just need an excuse for a Falling Down larp?
@@MoviesWithMark there was a guy in the movie who was protesting, and yet he was hauled away by cops.
Sorry, but that’s not enough
Protests work better in groups than solo. More attention and accountability for police brutality has come about because of protest organizations and their campaigns.
Around the time the movie came out I worked at Lockheed for about a year, and there were guys there who looked and dressed just like him
This movie is such a pain to analyse. I don't know what Shumacher was intending with this film. It's hard to see if he is supposed to be a fantastical anti-hero for a flawed perception of America on the account of the director, or a criticism of the motives of this so-called "anti-hero"
Essentially, my main question is, "is this film accidentally, or intentionally satarizing D-FENS?". Are the faults of his character intentionally put there in order to show his flaws that were there from the beginning, or to simply show "he is angry and acting irrationally"
As you said earlier with the "I miss this, but not that" part of the good old days bit, both D-FENS is looking for a time which was pleasant for him, but at the cost of the concerns of others. This begs the question - are the filmmakers aware of this, or were they tone-deaf.
It's more of a Michael Douglas film than Joel Shumacher's. Shumacher did direct and did his job very well. Douglas though spent his own money to get the film made. He went to bat for the screenplay and did what he could do, to make sure it would be made.
I think the film makers are pretty aware of that, which makes it more of the latter
In fact it is you who are stuck in a tunnel vision of how the challenges imposed in dfens life is entirely of his own making, he didn't ask for the inhospitable attitude of the korean, nor being mugged and nearly being murdered in a drive-by, his actions were reactive of a world that actively tries to profit from the misery of a man out of touch with himself
It is by turns one and then the other. Schumacher wanted Bill "D-Fens" Foster to ultimately be the villain, but like Joaquin Phoenix's Joker, he is a villain that has a good backstory.
Nice video though you got a lot I can’t agree with. Like when you say he could have taken him in at 12:20 (using that so you know I watch it all) but that scene is a suicide by cop and no the cop can’t just move slower and bring them in - the cop has to shoot and protect himself - which is what the person shot wants because they can’t kill themselves. Things like that. But I liked what you tried to do even if I disagreed with parts of it.
Good commentary, but what's with the cheesy fake VHS tracking lines?
I don't like it.
I also don't like the commentary
@FriendlyCrooc Then explain why you don't like it.
Probably to avoid copyright detection. It's corny, but sort of necessary if you want to do media analysis and make money on youtube.
It's not there anymore, but now on DVD that is.
Great essay, I agree for the most part 100%. You put into words some great themes I've thought about but had never had the chance to put down into words. I think in Hagakure, Yamamoto Tsunetomo, said something that resonated with the theme of this movie heavily "It is said that what is called "the spirit of an age" is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation."
I always appreciated that passage because I never understood why people cling so violently to the past?
People cling to their interests and their values because they remain their interests and their values. They are not clinging to "the past". They quarrel with others because their interests and values and those of others clash. Neither side [as if there are ever only two] represents "the past" or "the future" except in very practical senses like changing economic power or demographic balances, which are not "the past" or "the future" in any inherent, law of physics kind of way, but the kind of subjects that are actively in contention. The result of the contention determines which is "the past" and which "the future", presuming those mean anything.
13:05 (all the way to screen right) Most absurd thing in the movie to me, was seeing muscle man in a speedo trying to act like a random passerby
I frequently return to view this because of how ideal this video essay is. Within thirty-eight seconds you know the plot, the two leads, their motivations, and how it'll all end. It's crystal clear that this will be a thorough and effective video. It won't be wasting time on speculations; the focus is instead on solid analysis.
Hey, me too
This analysis is way off. The movie was about mental health. William foster had issues with rage. Prendergast’s wife had mental issues in regards to losing the daughter in a sudden death. Their mental defects affected everyone around them.
Never said it couldn't be viewed through more than one lens.
@@MoviesWithMark true, everyone has an opinion. Right and wrong can depend on “from a certain point of view”.
According to the commentary Bill is crazy as soon as he leaves the car
Nah, he was crazy before he got in it that morning.
@@kagato23 they mentioned in Los Angeles no one leaves their car if you're travelling through a place u don't know
The best classic movies that are masterpieces don’t tell you this character is the good guy and this one is the bad guy. If we’re judging the characters on a black and white scale, then, yes D-Fens is the bad guy. Life is not always black and white though and the more realistic scale to judge on is shades of grey where most people live. Everyone has a light and dark side and Falling Down’s characters live in this world. Especially D-Fens. You clearly see that he has always been a good guy but with that resentment and anger bubbling just beneath the surface that can easily make you become the villain given the choices. Even Detective Pendergrast says this indirectly by saying “they lied to all of us, they lied to the fish. But that doesn’t give you any special rights to do what you did today”. He’s saying we all deal with the same system but we have a choice on how to deal with it. I feel like this is the real message in Falling Down. I also feel that the director wanted to show us that there are real inequalities that happen and it’s not smart to keep poking the bear, so to speak. Yet, just about everyone D-Fens encounters does manage to irritate him in some way but again, that’s because of the years of being taken advantage of that he can’t tolerate anymore. This film was a work of genius because it was kind of the first to explore a complex character who isn’t 100% the villain nor completely the hero either. It’s a point of view movie where the director lets the viewer decide and that’s just revolutionary. Shows like Breaking Bad would later use this same concept to complete perfection.
This film is like First Blood.
Rambo is seen and treated as a villain as well but all he is a a victim of crooked people who pushed him over the edge.
Both D-Fense and Rambo are strong men who only want an easy time. All D-Fense wanted is to spend time with his daughter on her birthday and all Rambo wanted is to get breakfast at a town as he passes through.
Weak men create hard times and D-Fense and Rambo had to deal with weak men who give them hard times. All they wanted was to create and have an easy time by doing their work, but weak men ruined it and made the hard times when they are done with their work.
First Blood is about hard times for veterans made by weak people. Falling Down is hard times of retired working class citizens made by weak people.
And to be honest, Michael Douglas' Bill D-Fens Foster is a more realistic depiction of a marginalized character going mad than Joaquin Phoenix's Joker is.
That quote “I’m the bad guy?” Is the question many Americans refuse to ask themselves today.
What's your answer to the question? Are you the bad guy?
Are you the bad guy?
The inchoate rage that comes when you begin to realize you are now essentially irrelevant. That you do not matter. That your life has been a waste. Forgive me if I'm slightly out because I've not seen it in years. I considered this as much character study as a warning. If we remove the small and simple kindnesses from the world, and dish out small hurts to all around us just as we have been hurt, then society is in a fair old amount of trouble.
Your analysis of the intended meaning of Falling Down is by and large correct. You just need to remember one thing it's a movie, none of the events in the movie actually happened and they are more or less intended as propaganda. Or as another reviewer put it, the point to the movie is if you don't like how things have changed you are the problem.
Society is the bad guy and he becomes engulfed in it
Phenomenal analysis! Interestingly, in Brazil D-Fens was seen as a hero.
Sempre a esquerda em izzy
@@Gabriel-no6wv ????
@@Gabriel-no6wv aleatório demais
Not a phenomenal analysis dude. DFens was always the hero
@@Gabriel-no6wv Not
I have to disagree and society in a way the new way America is not how it used to be. I feel like society pushed him to break
"weird hill to die on but hey atleast you died."
That was just perfect 😂😂😂
I think that this is a pretty good video. However, I think that the humor of the movie creates a greater ambivalence than what is articulated here.
I thought the breakfast menu ended at 11.30?
This video essay pretty much nailed it.
The video essay is absolutely wrong on many issues, it's effectively a political rant thinly disguised as a movie review. It purposefully lies about the protestor scene, because movieswithmark wants to talk about his political propaganda and the real scene doesn't fit into it. Being honest about the scene would prove the protagonist isn't a racist, so the whole ideological point of the video would fall apart. I was born in the eastern bloc and I have seen this too many times. For example a 15th century religious movement being described by the communist party not as a religious movement, but as a proto-communist collective. In the same way the narrator wants people to think D-FENS is a racist sexist, while it is clear from the movie he doesn't care about race, has a deep connection to a black man in the same situation as he is in and he sacrificed everything for his family, which consists of 3 women.
Absolutely not. It's just a leftist ranting about "waahh, white man bad"
At the Heart of every middle clast worker, maybe if we look deep inside ourselves.. maybe we are the bad guys of this society.
Nah- if you live in peace and work hard and get screwed anyway, you may not be a hero or a victim, but you are not a villain either. If you cease to live in peace and do violence for gain or revenge, you may or may not be a villain but you are doing as plenty of others already do, you just joined in.
@@randomobserver8168That will make a a useless meaningless lifeless NPC.
Thank you so much for having a take that doesn’t glorify D-Fens and his actions. It’s been a little worrying to see so much of that.
Yeah no. D Fen’s actions are justifiable and this dude is a completely stupid. D Fen’s actions should be glorified
Perhaps Foster/D-Fens & his actions
can't be entirely glorified, but they can
certainly be understood, perhaps even
applauded in some cases. Various people
(whether on their own or as part
of companies, organizations, etc.) continually provoke him.
His responses are almost never
instantaneous, cruel, malicious
or arbitrarily vindictive. Instead,
he initially questions anything/everything
suspicious, which is smart & healrhy
& should be encouraged. In Foster's case,
though, he's decided he's got nothing
to lose (& he's probably right),
which makes him very dangerous
to anyone who tries to push him too far.
What's worrying the complete lack of empathy for him. It's worrying to see a man being destroyed in slow motion and not a single person tries to reach out except the cop at the very end, but by then it's too late. This is a film about mental illness and what happens when it's brushed aside as fucking "entitlement" because it's too much effort for twats to be considerate.
Aggrieved Entitlement: The Movie
Great assessment!
Finally a review that gets the point of this film. Too many people misunderstand this movie and take away, "he's doing what we all feel like doing" rather than seeing the film for what it's meant and it's deeper symbolism.
This was a commentary from a looney leftie. DFENS was the GOOD guy. He lost everything to his bitch wife who refused to let him see his own daughter on her birthday. That's one for the leftie feminists. He lost his career and became obsolete, unable to support his own family that he wasn't allowed to see because of maternal favouritism in the family courts. He needed psychological help which he didn't get. He was a hero and he went down like a hero. If you're in your 20's, you might see DFENS as crazy. When you reach your 40's then you begin to say, "I get it". DFENS built missiles, a nations defence. Then they throw him on the scrapheap and so does his wife. He was pushed over the edge by society and his nasty wife which is why he reacted the way he did. This could happen to anyone.
@@70ad25 yea, brandishing a firearm at minimum wage fast food workers for being forced to follow company policy is certainly "good guy" material.
@@70ad25 Wow, this take is like reading Oedipus Rex and deciding it's a fabulous idea to marry your own biological mother... LOL
Fun facts, most the guys I have discussed this movie with are 40 or 50 and they absolutely think anyone who behaves like Dfens is a bad dude. More than a few of them are even conservatives, but they would never handle a gun in a room full of innocent families and young adults. Only a psychotic maniac, a tweaker or someone who needs sedation would think that's a good idea. He's basically the Unibomber, who guess what? Was a murderous psycho attacking the USA...
Have you never even considered the notion that you might identify way too much with the guy who was confusing a Nazi into thinking he was a Fascist? XDDD
@@user-jt5qc9og1p Don’t bother explaining. Right-wingers are brain dead
K
Interesting that this was about six years before Columbine, although shootings at post offices ("going postal") had already begun. Now it seems we have a new D-Fens every week at some school, workplace, mall, church, etc. In addition, this country has been involved in some war or another continuously since then. Perhaps this movie foreshadowed all of that.
I know they are. Not my problem
Willy Loman takes back the night.
"The best villain is the most relatable villain"
-a homeless guy I met while hallucinating on drugs
A director could make the most obvious societal commentary, going so far as to make the main character wear a T-shit that says "I am an asshole and very stupid", name the character 'Dick McShithead', and it would still have Edgy boy fans doing a circus worth of mental gymnastics to explain why he's the hero for today's men.
Not
You have a lot of research
to do about misandry.
Like the others said, yeah Foster isn't a good guy, he did wrecked the korean without reason, he could had just tried in another store, but i don't he could just do that with all the shit on his day.
he did acted right with the gangsters and the nazi, but the rich old man was the real point of no return. but even them, he isn't a complete monster, vide his dispair when he thinks he hurt the little girl
a very good movie and a great character indeed.
Every action of his day is connected to his larger mission of going to his ex-wife’s home, even though she doesn’t want him there, she doesn’t want him calling, and she has an active restraining order against him. He wasn’t in his car going to work. We know that. A store owner got beat up, a bunch of minimum wage fast food kids had to dodge gunfire, and an old man died because he was hell-bent on stalking his ex-wife. And considering the bag of guns he held onto the closer he got to her house, he may have had other ideas.
Hey...
This is a great video, good job!
Great video, I enjoyed watching this.
This video sucks and it isn’t great
Ewww
The scene with the Nazi is one of the most important scenes in the movie and is incredibly relevant now.
D-Fens is angry that he's being associated with the Nazi, but he's not ashamed of his actions. Much like in todays world where most racists are only angry that they were called a racist -- they don't believe they are racist so how dare you. Self reflecting on if they actually did anything racist isn't even in the cards -- or they do know they are racist and play stupid. This has changed a little bit recently, but back in the 90s/00s there was definitely a "Well such and such isn't literally a nazi or in the Klan" handwaving away of daily racism. But even these days you can still dog whistle your way through being racism and people will still handwave it away.
D-fens is just like "I'm not literally a Nazi so what I'm doing is fine!" even though he commits a hate crime in the Korean grocery store.
I think the issue with this viewpoint is that comparing D-FENS to a literal nazi is glossing over the reasons why D-FENS does what he does. He was never racially motivated with the actions he did. Sure, maybe the nazi would also do what D-FENS did but motivations and reasons are clearly different between them.
The Korean store owner scenario points this out even more because D-FENS only destroys the store because the price of the soda can reflects to him the modern-day inflation of items that he believes shouldn't be so expensive, _not_ because of the ethnicity of the store owner in question.
For clarification, I'm not defending D-FENS' actions, just merely pointing out the differences of intentions.
So, you’re saying that D-FENS is like Tucker Carlson
Is it a hate crime? Or more fed up of people coming to his country and then taking the mickey? You telling me the store guy couldnt have been a decent human being and gave change instead of trying to cop a quick buck? Yes, DFens flies off the handle and commits an obvious crime, but its not a hate crime. If anything hes responding to the Korean guys sheer self centeredness. If anything, id argue the Korean is commiting a hate crime.
He didn't attack the clerk because of his race or ethnicity... You're the kind that will call white on black crime a hate crime, but not when black people attack white people...
R3tard award goes to OP 🎖
I'm the bad guy?
Thanks for calling him the “bad guy.” You’re right. Racism plays a big part. You don’t get to be violent, no matter what. It’s unjust. He is that, which he despises
missed the point award 🎖
@@cooler_carpington how so?
Despite D-Fens being the antihero and social critic, he's really selfish, self-centered, self-absorbed, and myopic. He can't see how others have it worse yet they still push on. He doesn't see that the Asian shopkeeper works long hours and deals with assholes all day, 7 days a week. He doesn't realize that the people in the fastfood place might be working class and just want to enjoy their lunch. He doesn't realize that he put his wife/kid through years of misery.
That's the point of the film. Everyone wants to focus on their own issues and think they have it rough, when there is always someone else that has it way worse. The film has a lot of various messages though, and you really can not honestly judge the film or the main character by just a few specific things.
Prendergast calls him out this way at the end of the film. For all the reverence D Fens gets if everyone lashed out the way he did things would be worse. People who glamorize D Fens should imagine themselves as one of his victims.
And what does that say about the world around him? I am a firm believer that environment is the main contributor to how we grow up and develop a personality. Foster is a good man who was abandoned by a selfish, self centered, self absorbed and myopic society. The korean shopkeeper decided to be an asshole and not allow foster to simply break a dollar. The fast food place had breakfast on standby (we see the employee grab one off the counter when he pulls his gun out) yet refused to give it to him, instead letting it go to waste. His wife doesnt realize that she completely shattered any hope that Foster had when she abandoned him and kept him from his daughter instead of helping him overcome his issues.
This doesnt justify the rampage, but its important to realize that foster was not a bad man, he was just the byproduct of a sick world.
@@joshuarubenstein2298 You're absolutely on point!
It's wild seeing everyone here dump on this man because either He'S aN eViL ⚪ mAn or some other poor excuse to cover why they don't understand him.
It's fascinating how these people openly side with the person who deliberately refuses to even let D-FENS see his daughter even for her birthday, if just that.
These people are evil.
Good video. Very interesting takes. I don't agree with all of them, but I get it. Cheers
Didnt his ex-wife have a restraining order?
That she didnt want but some judge wanted to set an example.
Yeah