Collateral

[Luke]

I think Objectivists would like the movie Collateral. It doesn't really show life how it can and should be, but it hints at that in dialogue. What it shows is how life can and shouldn't be. It's definitely value oriented. I think that Cruise's character is smart but defined by a mistaken premise, and the plot and theme of the movie are driven by it. The movie ends where the logic of that premise does. I don't want to go into a lot of detail and spoil it for people who haven't seen it. Is there anyone who has seen it and understands what I mean? I wanted to talk about it with someone.

[Ed from OC]

See my comments in the "Two Good Action Movies" thread.

**** SPOILERS ****

As for Cruise's character, no, I disagree. He is not acting from mistaken premises; he is evil. He is driven and methodical, even intelligent and perceptive, but he is a hitman. He is willing to casually kill innocent people, like Foxx's character, or the attorney.

I think the interesting internal conflict is in Foxx's character, and the internal change he undergoes (from passive reactor to purposeful pursuit of values) helps elevate the movie from the standard banality of modern action films.

[Luke]

**** SPOILERS ****

As for Cruise's character, no, I disagree.  He is not acting from mistaken premises; he is evil.  He is driven and methodical, even intelligent and perceptive, but he is a hitman.  He is willing to casually kill innocent people, like Foxx's character, or the attorney.

I think the interesting internal conflict is in Foxx's character, and the internal change he undergoes (from passive reactor to purposeful pursuit of values) helps elevate the movie from the standard banality of modern action films.

Wait a minute. From the beginning of the movie, Vincent is talking about how nobody cares about anyone, and that everyone is an insignificant speck to a world that will not remember them and will keep spinning after they're gone. After he kills the first criminal-turned-witness, he makes that point again saying that because Max doesn't know the dead man it doesn't matter that he's dead now anymore than it matters that the so many people in Rwanda die so quickly. The premise is that you only have value if someone else values you. Moreover, since he doesn't value himself, Vincent doesn't have a purpose of his own. He has only the purpose that someone else gives him, which ends up a brutish one described on a disk as a list of targets. That he mentions the story of the LA man who died on a train without anyone noticing is important too, because he thinks that story describes everyone including himself, and his actions consequently lead him to the same ending.

He finds out that Max has a long-term goal, but doesn't pursue it diligently or take the necessary risks. I agree with you about the quality of Max's development, but it's driven by Vincent, who amazingly articulates to Max the importance of pursuing goals without realizing the mistake of his own life. He uses the same life-is-a-speck talk to accomplish this. Only when talking to Max this emphasis is different. It's YOUR life that will be over soon, so do something now. There's a selfish motive implicit in that line, but Vincent doesn't value himself and he can't have a selfish motive.

That theme climaxes in the car crash. Afterwards, there's nothing more that Vincent can say that will help or advance Max's character, and he runs out of the scene. Max is about to put his head down and go on the same way when he sees the picture of the girl he likes on the floor of the torn up car. She was tied to his highest value after he gave her his only picture of the island. He realizes he values something, and goes running off to save it from....the predatory emptiness embodied by Vincent. So it gets symbolic in the last scene, but the importance of values and a selfish motive is driven home very skillfully.

I'd say more, but if you disagree with this interpretation of events then the other details wil not help convince you that there's more to this movie. I agree that Vincent is evil, but he's evil ultimately because he doesn't value himself and he takes that to its logical conclusion.

[Petey]

**** SPOILERS ****

Wait a minute. From the beginning of the movie, Vincent is talking about how nobody cares about anyone, and that everyone is an insignificant speck to a world that will not remember them and will keep spinning after they're gone. After he kills the first criminal-turned-witness, he makes that point again saying that because Max doesn't know the dead man it doesn't matter that he's dead now anymore than it matters that the so many people in Rwanda die so quickly. The premise is that you only have value if someone else values you. Moreover, since he doesn't value himself, Vincent doesn't have a purpose of his own. He has only the purpose that someone else gives him, which ends up a brutish one described on a disk as a list of targets. That he mentions the story of the LA man who died on a train without anyone noticing is important too, because he thinks that story describes everyone including himself, and his actions consequently lead him to the same ending.

He finds out that Max has a long-term goal, but doesn't pursue it diligently or take the necessary risks. I agree with you about the quality of Max's development, but it's driven by Vincent, who amazingly articulates to Max the importance of pursuing goals  without realizing the mistake of his own life. He uses the same life-is-a-speck talk to accomplish this. Only when talking to Max this emphasis is different. It's YOUR life that will be over soon, so do something now. There's a selfish motive implicit in that line, but Vincent doesn't value himself and he can't have a selfish motive.

That theme climaxes in the car crash. Afterwards, there's nothing more that Vincent can say that will help or advance Max's character, and he runs out of the scene. Max is about to put his head down and go on the same way when he sees the picture of the girl he likes on the floor of the torn up car. She was tied to his highest value after he gave her his only picture of the island. He realizes he values something, and goes running off to save it from....the predatory emptiness embodied by Vincent. So it gets symbolic in the last scene, but the importance of values and a selfish motive is driven home very skillfully.

I'd say more, but if you disagree with this interpretation of events then the other details wil not help convince you that there's more to this movie. I agree that Vincent is evil, but he's evil ultimately because he doesn't value himself and he takes that to its logical conclusion.

Luke,

Try placing Vincent as the Relativists during Ancient Greek, while Max is Socrates in action rather than words. Vincent may understand the concepts of values and goals, but his opinion above all else is the only thing that matters. As you stated that Vincent lacks selfishness as to how he doesn’t value himself. He does value himself; he says this at the end while Vincent is chasing Max and Ida (the attorney) on the train.

"This is how I survive Max." Vincent cries as his last argument for Max to allow Vincent to finish his work. It was as if Max was now holding the gun to Vincent’s way of life. Vincent was selfish all along, hence the word Collateral, selfish for his survival. Vincent's job as an assassin in Vincent’s mind is no different than painting a house. There is a goal, now attain it. To Vincent, killing the people on his list is his Collateral because he is, then allowed to survive longer from the Collateral he receives from assassinating the people on the list. That’s the contradiction to Vincent, is that he wishes he will live, but does not wish or care of others to live.

I think that most people forget that Vincent's character develops too. When Max starts to believe Vincent's philosophy that "nothing matters" and begins to speed and eventually crashes, Vincent has several chances to end Max's life. The question is, was Vincent hesitating and trying to call Max's bluff? Or Did Vincent not want to hurt Max? Was Max really collateral to Vincent's purpose at that point?

Another interesting clue in the movie is when Max and Vincent visit Max's mother. Max's mother says that "Max wouldn't do anything unless a gun was at his head." Max responded to this failed expectation from his mother and threw Vincent's work off the highway. Vincent used this motherly insight and experimented with Max's survival instincts. As far as completing Vincent’s mission, I think by doing this it jeopardized the mission more than helping it. However, Vincent ran out of options, and he manipulated Max by forcing Max to run out of options: Vincent forced Max to go to Felix for the last 2 kills and possibly die or Vincent would kill Max's mother or kill Max in the car there.

The real question is where Max gets his Values, not how Vincent lacks them.

Petey