Gothika, 2003 - DVD

MAJOR SPOILERS

First off... the title means nothing. I don't get it.

I have a huge problem with rape in films. Huge problem. I think it is, by far, the most heinous crime a person can commit. So, when I see it in film I find it very difficult to be subjective about the movie, when I'm so disappointed by the fact that people like Joel Silver and Robert Zemeckis (Executive Producers on the film) are making money off of something so terrible.

This is a very touchy subject because people going to say "What, and you don't have a problem with murder?" Well... the fact is that the people who are murdered, they don't have to live out the rest of their life knowing they were violated. We've all become desensitized to murder. Hell, children have become desensitized with it. Violence is a part of our society, regardless of how civilized we might think we've become. But rape is something that people don't just get up and walk away from.

The movie starts out with a very interesting premise. I have been a fan of the Dark Castle films. 13 Ghosts, The House on Haunted Hill, Ghost Ship and I'm looking forward to their remake of House of Wax. So, I went into this film knowing I was going to be entertained on some level.

As the film progresses, we're given no real plot, because the setup takes a little too much time. Sure, we have to find out why Miranda Grey killed her husband... ok, but we're not given any reason as to why she has become to focal point of Rachel Parsons, the ghost that Grey ran into at the beginning of the film, and who possessed her to kill her husband, played by Dutton. It's pretty much by chance that she's chosen... though if you want to read deep into it, the ghost set up a sink hole and a rainy night to get Grey to be crossing a bridge on her way home... ok.

Fine, that's fine... we're building up to the point. But one thing that irked me, and reminded me a little too much of The Sixth Sense, is that Parsons is violent towards Grey, which doesn't make sense. We get Parsons bashing her around, slashing her with knives... doesn't make much sense, but it is used to push the plot. Subsequently Grey is shown the crime scene photos where the words 'Not Alone' are drawn on the bedroom doors in blood. 'Not Alone' is also what Parsons carved on Grey's arm... and breathed onto her cell wall.

In the beginning of the film, while Grey was still working at the prison hospital, we're introduced to Penelope Cruz's character Chloe, who is telling Grey that she's been raped by the devil three times in the last three months. So... right off the bat you know that we're going to be introduced to one of the bad guys. Unfortunetaly, right at the beginning of the film, it's pretty easy to determine who the badguy is. Gutierrez, the writer who also brought us the Elmore Leonard adaptation of The Big Bounce, doesn't really do his job here. We're introduced to only two main characters, besides Grey, in the beginning of the film... and only one of them has a 'God' complex... so, figuring out that Dutton is a, if not the, badguy is pretty easy.

So, we know that as a side plot, we're going to have to deal with a rapist. Grey doesn't believe it... but Gutierrez gives us a definitive line that is truth, "How can you trust somebody who thinks you're crazy?" So... that sets the tone for that particular sub-plot.

As we get deeper and deeper into the story, with Grey being admitted into the hospital for killing her husband, and also being in a state of catatonia for three days... and not remembering a thing... slowly Rachel Parsons begins not only beating the shit out of Grey and scaring her, but also giving her clues.

At one point, Grey breaks out of her cell, with Parsons help, and finds her way into Dr. Graham's office, played by Downey Jr.. There, she finds more clues, including an article describing the suicide of Rachel Parsons on Graham's computer. And then, suddenly, Rachel appears on a streaming video screen on the monitor, in the solitary ward. For some reason, Grey sees this as a threat to Chloe and goes running to help.

It's more of an excuse to get Grey into solitary to find that Chloe is being raped... and it's not the devil. It's someone with an angelic tattoo on his chest. A white chest.

Ok, at this point it's pretty obvious who the other murderer/rapist is. Gutierrez is trying not to show too much, but at this point it can be one of three men. Dr. Graham, who has no motive... Phil Parsons (played by Bernard Hill), who would then have raped and killed his own daughter... nope. And last but not least, the best friend of Doug, Sheriff Ryan (played by John Carroll Lynch). Come on... it's obvious who it is, and this is the problem with thriller/horror films like this. The writer doesn't make any effort to present other possible characters. He gives the audience a choice, early on... and in the end, there is no real surprise.

Dr. Grey is surprised because she's on the inside... but if you're not going to surprise your audience, why are you going to surprise your main character?

I would like to use the film Scream as an example here, of a clever way to disperse the possibilities of suspects. Kevin Williamson uses a very clever technique in the film, in which a large number of characters are wearing the same type of boots. It helps to keep the audience on their toes. It could be anyone, the killer... and not until the end does he give us a great plot twist.

In the acting department, this must have been a role that Berry had to finish up some kind of contract with. She'd just won an Oscar... it was a strange film to follow up Monster's Ball with. I've enjoyed her work. The X-Men movies, Swordfish, Die Another Day... lately she's done some good work. I think she's going to fail miserably in Catwoman, due out this year... we'll see.

I dig Robert Downey Jr. as an actor... and I hope he really starts to change his life. I've been of the opinion, in the past, of 'Why the hell does he keep getting rolls, when all he does is go back to jail before, during of after production?' Who knows. I really enjoyed him in In Dreams, Wonder Boys and, of course, loved his work during the 80's Rat Pack days. He's good in this film, but written poorly. His character is supposed to be the 'maybe' character, but comes off sooooo much as the 'maybe' character that he doesn't fit.

I have to say that you have to be pretty desperate to take on the roll of a rapist. I'm not sure why Dutton and Lynch decided to take on these roles... I suppose being in a 'Halle Berry' movie kind of wipes out what kind of roll you're taking... or maybe work is just work. I don't know. But I have lost respect for a number of people associated with this project, including these two actors.

I'm going to get on my soap box for a moment, I hope you don't mind.

Films that portray this type of violence, whether you are trying to develop a character who has gone through such a tromatic experience, or whether this is the M.O. of the killer... fine. Fine, these things happen in life. But, take into consideration that 1 out of every 4 women have been the victim of rape, or attempted rape... and to put it onto the screen where they can see it... well, I think that's just deplorable.

Why is it that films like Boys Don't Cry, Irreversible or Monster (recent films, I know, but they're good examples)... films that deal with such heart wrenching situations... why aren't the proceeds, or at least part of the profits, going to rape prevention centers or clinics? Actresses are winning Academy Awards for their performances... producers are making money off of the films... I just don't see why the money isn't going to the people who could use it... especially when it comes to something like this.

Now, I don't want to be a hypocrite. I am, in a way... I'll admit it. There are movies out there that I watch and are entertained by, which include horrific scenes such as these. A Clockwork Orange. L.A. Confidential. Once Upon a Time in America. It's terrible... and I wish that these films would also recognize the ruthlessness of the crime and help organizations out... I could argue that these films have artist merit. I could also argue that both A Clockwork Orange and Confidential were based on novels. But, in the end, I won't use those arguements.

I don't know. This is just me talking, and I'm sure that there are things that people can point out to make me look like an idealistic fool. Ok, I'll accept that. But I have a very difficult time accepting Hollywood decisions and greed when it comes down to films like this. I certainly don't want anyone writing me and telling me 'it's life.' That's not a reason, so please don't do that. I've never heard, in my life, of anyone donating the proceeds of their salaries to a charity like this, when the movie focused on something like this. There's something fundamentally wrong with that.

In recent memory, Tim Robbins is the only actor that has ever addressed what his character went through and made it a point to bring the problem to the forefront of his speech, that abuse was something that happened every day and awareness was the first thing that people could do to help stop the problem. I didn't hear Hilary Swank say anything like that... or Charlize Theron. It's a shame.

I will say that Sean Connery acted in Robin Hood for two days, got paid $250,000 and donated it all to charity. Good show. Does Halle Berry need more money? Does Robert Zemeckis or Joel Silver? Now, I have no proof that they haven't donated some of their money to help these types of victims, but I certaily haven't heard of any such thing... so pony up, boys. Do the right thing. Stop lining your pockets based on a misery that a portion of your audience had to sit through and possibly relive. Help those who need it, not just yourselves.