The Life of David Gale (2003)
Spoiler
Page.
Okay: If you're here, you've presumably
seen the movie.
Do you really think Gale and Constance
are willing to go to such extremes to make their point?
To me their actions don't prove their point. They
wanted to prove that innocent men die due to capitol
punishment. I think we all agree that this indeed
does happen without either of them having to die.
I don't need someone to frame himself for me to believe
this.
Also - does this act of contrition
really prove that innocent men go to their death due
to our system of corporal punishment? I mean, Gale
is hardly innocent. He's guilty of fraud, conspiracy
to commit a crime, not rendering aid and a few other
crimes. Sure, these won't land you on death row, but
I don't see how "cheating" the system proves that
the system doesn't work. If we're trying to prove
that innocent men can be framed, then yes, the statement
they make with their deaths is valid. But if we're
trying to prove unequivocally that the system is wrong,
a large leap of belief is still required. Therefore
their actions resulting in supposed martyrdom, don't
work as effectively as they should, especially to
cost them their lives.
Now - I'm not arguing for the death
penalty. What I'm saying is that Gale gives his life
in the hopes of swaying public opinion about the death
penalty. He wants to prove that innocent men die but
he really doesn't prove this. Again, he wasn't exactly
innocent. In many ways he could be considered guilty
of helping to cause Constance's death. After all,
if someone is going to commit suicide and you don't
stop them, and you could have, aren't you almost guilty
of murder? A questions for ethics majors perhaps but
a paradox that helps to negate the impact of Gale's
death for me.
And finally, is the film trying
to show in some way that perhaps Constance and Gale
really didn't want to die? When Winslet's Bitsey attempts
to reenact the crime, she is obviously going to die
if not stopped by Zach and the Goth chick. They do
stop her death (Gale and Dusty do not give Constance
the same second chance). If Gale had pulled the plastic
bag off of Constance's face and offered her a chance
to change her mind, do you think she would have?
Gale (and his cohorts) point Bitsy
to the truth about his innocence in seemingly enough
time to stop his execution. She is late, perhaps,
only because her car breaks down. Again, this is all
highly questionable as to if she could have even done
anything if she had arrived prior to 6pm. But isn't
Gale supposedly secretly hoping she'll come through
and save him? Is it possible we are to believe Gale
engage this reporter secretly hoping he would be saved
at the 12th hour?
My whole problem with the film is
with Gale's actions. He sets out to prove a point
with dramatic and overzealous misdeeds. In doing so,
he negates his whole message. I think the film is
weak, because it doesn't prove Gale's point with any
sort of a force. I got a better anti-death penalty
message from "Dead Man Walking." On the other hand,
by being much more complex and foggy on Gale's point,
by allowing us to question whether or not what he
did was valid, regardless of right and wrong, by showing
us the protagonist's flaws, "The Life of David Gale"
allows for much more dialogue and contemplation on
the subject than that other film ever could.
Back
to main review
