The unsavory background reeks of something the studio had added to dilute the message. The conclusion that corporate employment or modern urban life is something that genuinely can justify a violent reaction is not a popular message. Falling Down was kind of the proto Fight Club, except Fight Club carried its anti corporate, anti consumerist message to its logical conclusion (and suffered for it once 9/11 happened and falling skyscrapers became leaden with toxic connotations).
I'm a huge fan of the movie and I've said for years that the wife subplot and backstory does critical damage to it. The line "I'm the bad guy? How did that happen?" would have hit a lot harder if he was just an ordinary guy who snapped. It feels really tacked on as if it was the subject of a rewrite. You remove that and his still follow a pattern of DFENS becoming more sadistic with each encounter. Particularly the golf course scene where he gleefully watches a man dying of a heart attack. It's also a movie very much of the early 90's and is directly confronting a lot of issues the city was having during that period. The Vietnamese store owner is a very specific reference to racial tensions in LA when the movie was made. It really does start off as something special and then turn into Standard Late 80's/Early 90's thriller right at the end, saved only by the final line. However, I do feel the movie has a lot to offer on rewatch as there are so many details and nuances in it. The RU-vid Channel Moon has done a fantastic, in depth analysis of the movie, one of the best Ive ever seen. The interesting thing is, every analysis I've seen of the movie a very minor character is often the core of it and that is Not Economically Viable. I don't even think he's in it for a full minute but he makes such a massive impression. I'd really recommend checking out Moon's video if you have the time. It's called Falling Down Tried to Warn You and it is about how Falling Down depicts the erosion of the social contract in America.
I really like your point about this being a tantrum. I think your insight would’ve made for an even better movie. I do like this film. Even under the implication that this meltdown is a tantrum, I still think other factors and points are well-made enough to be effective. I also like dark movies and this is one I can rewatch every few years or so I seen it many times on HBO while I was in high school. There is a duality at play, a story about a man and social context. Here, I believe the two are related, but shouldn’t be confused with each other. So, if you want the character to die, that’s OK because he is dangerous. However, that character study does not undermine the social critique.
That's interesting because I directly mention Do the Right Thing in this video, which is a film that I very much admire and can completely see the societal messaging of. And that movie came out in 1989, which was 4 years before the release of Falling Down. So yeah, I think your comment makes no sense. 😂 But if you think I missed something, why don't you try and enlighten me then?
I always took it as he's a guy with problems (like everyone), but his relationship with his wife falls apart which sends him "falling down" into a downward spiral for the rest of his life. His environment and just the societal state of things continue to push him down more and more...and the traffic jam in the hot weather just makes him snap. We only get direct insight into one day of his life. He's been suffering for a long time. None of that justifies anything, of course, but that's just how I've always understood his character and this movie. I've always been sympathetic for him because it's sad there are people like him out in our world who need more than the world gives them. These are just a few of my thoughts. I'd have much more to say about it, as I have always really liked this film and still do.
I could be wrong, and I'll admit it's been awhile since I watched it, but my perception of it was always that that the reveal of his backstory was an intentional bait and switch. That you're *meant* to assume he's just a normal-ish but obviously at his breaking point guy who initially has grievances that you can almost even relate to-- but then as he becomes more unhinged and his behavior more violent and less excusable we also discover that he was never a 'normal guy' to begin with. He was always the villain. And *that's* the commentary. There are so many people, especially today and especially older, conservative, heterosexual, white men- that have managed to convince themselves that they are victims of modern society. That something has been taken from them, that immigrants are the boogeyman destroying their communities and every issue and inconvenience in their lives is somehow the fault of someone else. But often times they are entirely the makers of their own circumstances and whether they want to admit it or not... the villains of their own stories. That's what Falling Down is about.
The guy did everything right. He did everything he was told would give him the American dream. Then he had a fight with his wife. He didn't physically hurt her, never hurt his kid, but the Judge decided to make an example of him. Lost his wife and kids and house. Job he had dedicated his life to and served his country layed him off because reasons. Mental health was dismissed. Can't get a job because he's overqualified and also too old. He did everything he was supposed to do and lost everything. Then he lost his sh!t. Every step he fell down he gained more freedom, more power, more agency, and took it out on everything he saw as wrong. Impolite people, high prices, immigrants who don't conform, no customer service, false advertising, gangs, racists, self important rich people on golf courses sucking up valuable real estate when there's a homeless problem, fraud construction projects and bad traffic, bums, "Not economically viable", stolen valor, loss of common courtesy and decency, and the courts who made an example of him. He's going to take the life he was promised by "Falling Down". He did everything right and (at least in his mind) his vigilante spree was righteous. So the question "I'm the bad guy? How did that happen?" IS what you're supposed to ask yourself after watching the movie. Pendergrast the cop on the other hand did everything wrong. Gave up his agency to his wife, gave up his freedom to take a desk job, no one respected him, retiring early, moving to a town he hated, he's a mirror to the protagonist. He "Fell Up" and took back his life. If you find neither character to be relatable I dunno what to tell you. I think it rubbed you the wrong way and you set your mind against our dude from the start. Watch it again in a few years. See what you think of it after life knocks you around a bit. If you still get nothing, well...congrats on your blessed life I guess.
Will first off, he didn't do everything right because the film established that he had a history of violent behavior towards his wife and child years before his big freak out at the beginning of the movie. Society didn't cause him to go crazy, he already was to begin with, and that's why this movie didn't work for me.
To find out what the movie is trying to say, look at the Duvall character, who is openly disrespected by everyone except his Latina partner, who also accuses him of being henpecked at one point. If there's no character depth, it's because character depth would complicate the process of injecting a society with white guilt and anti-white prejudice. Find a director willing to blackwash "Falling Down," and you'll find someone who has transcended the racist messaging in it. I wouldn't hold my breath.
His character development is not much different compared to the Batman villains. People start as the good guy but develop into something evil, and it must fit within a 90 min story, so it must be a bit superficial.
I don't necessarily feel like his background invalidates the messaging or makes the movie less interesting. There's people all across the "spectrum" of how well balanced they are as individuals, the movie probably more accurately shows how someone who is just slightly prone to violence can be turned into a full on killer by the right circumstances and with enough things not going their way. I think probably where the movie falls for a lot of people is not being able to empathize with people who are unlike them or 'worse' people than the average. There's plenty of guys like that out there, they don't wake up in the morning deciding to be evil. DFENS doesn't view himself as a bad person, and people rarely do. Arguably they are not inherently bad people, they struggle to control themselves when tested the way we are all tested by life. It would likely just be inaccurate to depict a completely normal person reacting the way he does. The vast majority of people don't react this way to having a rough episode in their life, but a few do, this kind of shows how that path can happen in an entertaining way. I quite like it :)
@@nathanmoore5435 He probably isn't inherently a bad person, for any likely definition of bad. He is a bad person due to his actions, where he has a choice even if that choice is made harder by his lack of self control, or other characteristics. When something is "inherently" something else, it means it's an essential part or defining characteristic. I'd argue that no human is ever inherently bad, but it's easy to forget it when they commit various atrocities.
