Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I enjoyed the movie up until the climax, but then once I got there I was left scratching my head with questions.
I'm not an American and do not know a lot about American laws and culture in the 70s. So maybe someone can help me out.
SPOILERS FROM MOVIE
So in the movie, the Dad (Jake), finally finds his daughter at a strip club like place. The P.I. who is concerned for Jake's well being, follows him there. Jake tries to get his daughter back, from Ratan, and Ratan runs out of the building.
The P.I. about to go into building, bumps into Ratan, as Ratan runs out. Ratan runs into the street, and the P.I. tells him to freeze. Ratan keeps on running, probably not even hearing him, and the P.I. pulls out a pistol and shoots him.
Now is legal in the US for P.I. to shoot an unarmed, running man, especially if the P.I. fails to identify himself as an officer? All he said was "freeze a$5hole!", which is really not identifying yourself as an officer of the law at all.
Then he just shoots him and kills him, or at least we never see Ratan after that, and I assume he's dead.
And it's not like the P.I. new that was Ratan did he? He was just guessing. And even if he did know, the police didn't have any proof on Ratan for anything illegal did they? I mean it was all hearsay, and circumstantial, so was he allowed to just shoot him for not surrendering?
Also, how come the police never questioned Jake in the end or anything. The P.I. tells him to go home and let us clean up this mess sort of thing, but the whole reason the P.I. shot Ratan was cause he of what Jake did, so wouldn't the P.I. want Jake to stick around to make his butt look good to the police, or even try?
Also why did the cops even let Jake go? He comes out with a woman wrapped in a blanket, and hes' all covered in blood on his jacket. So wouldn't the cops think, hmm maybe we should question this guy? But they don't.
"Now is legal in the US for P.I. to shoot an unarmed, running man, especially if the P.I. fails to identify himself as an officer? "
No.
"Hardcore" was a film that was both aimed as a blow to porn, while being a type of emotional porn in itself. It wasn't particularly intended to be realistic, but more to give an emotional view that would draw the audience in. Scott gave a decent performance, even though it was within his standard character portrayal.
The deaths in American film are predictable, due to the continuing homage to the Hayes code. By the end of a film, the bad guys can be killed with impunity, any character that has killed can be killed, the good guy is always held harmless, the police are only incidental to most plots. Anything blond and female in the 1970s was considered innocent and to be protected.
Movies are storytelling. Even so-called documentaries are storytelling. Don't confuse them with reality, and expect plot holes.
Oh okay, I felt that this was a plot hole though, or it opens the door to plot holes that are not answered. However, this movie came out way after the Hayes code and it deals with the porn industry, and gets pretty up close and personal about it, so why are the filmmakers giving a darn about paying homage to the Hays code?
And even if they did want the bad guys to die, why not kill the villain off in a way that makes more logical sense?
Oh okay, I felt that this was a plot hole though, or it opens the door to plot holes that are not answered. However, this movie came out way after the Hayes code and it deals with the porn industry, and gets pretty up close and personal about it, so why are the filmmakers giving a darn about paying homage to the Hays code?
And even if they did want the bad guys to die, why not kill the villain off in a way that makes more logical sense?
The Hayes code never really went away. It never could, given the influence of the Catholic Church and other church groups that exert political pressure for censorship or strict moral decency criteria in mainstream film. What happened was it morphed into the MPAA and rating system. In order to get even an "R" rating, certain standards had to be met regards to swearing, blasphemy, and allowing crime to go unpunished. The "X" rating was looser on sex and adult themes, but sometimes the film makers had to go with NR - not rated - to bypass the meddling. Porn, of course, bypassed the whole thing. The priest in "Cinema Paradiso" would have been ringing his bell through the entire screening.
In a movie that wants to play with the audience emotions, the death of the bad guy only has to be a NIGY,YSOaB!, so that the audience gets catharsis.
But they Hays code did go away in the sense, that movies from the 70s broke all sorts of rules. For example, in The French Connection the villains got away, where as in the Hays code, the villains are always to be caught in the end. And to say that women are innocent and to be protected, well there are a lot of movies, before Hardcore, where that did not happen.
So why did Hardcore feel they needed to obey these rules, and end the movie all squeaky clean for a dark gritty crime movie, when other movies before it, had the guts not to?
Because hardcore dealt with a touchy subject and Scott was a major property.
Please remember that movie making is a business. It is based upon making money, and then making more money. Scott did some edgy roles, as in "Hospital," but wasn't about to lose a career on a single film. Had it been a no-name actor from an unknown independent, it might have been different.
But if the movie has to have a Hollywood-ized ending for such touchy subject matter, because of a big star, that kind of hurts it in a way, doesn't it?
But if the movie has to have a Hollywood-ized ending for such touchy subject matter, because of a big star, that kind of hurts it in a way, doesn't it?
Depends on the movie.
"Ice Station Zebra" was really a lousy movie by the book, but for the stars, at the time, it worked out rather well.
All that really matters is that people buy the ticket, they come out of the movie house in a new bright light, and they tell their friends to go see it.
Like they say in Dr. Who "The Leisure Hive" (which, interestingly enough, does have some relevance here), "Who cares if an alien doctor lives or dies?"
Who cares if a low life involved in snuff films (a big issue at the time) dies in an illegal way?
I remember seeing this movie when it came out in the theaters. I was a teenager at the time, and all I cared about, if memory serves was that they bad guys "got it". Pure emotion. I think Scott did a decent job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
