Episode #1.28
- Episode aired Oct 16, 2012
YOUR RATING
Photos
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Featured review
1.28: Untitled by Thomas Bradshaw: Relevant, smartly writing and thought-provoking
I'm not sure when this film was written in relation to the shooting of Travyon Martin (IMDb lists this film as released in October 2012, while the shooting was early 2012), but whether it is by fortune or design, the subject of this untitled piece is the 'stand your ground law'. It is a quite clever piece which has a lot going on. I cannot comment on how Americans view this law, but to me it does seem like a nice idea that can be defending if you discuss it in terms of specific (and emotive) examples then it makes sense. However on the other hand, it does seem to be encouraging an aggressive stance rather than avoiding trouble, defusing situations etc.
This piece does not mock the law but goes 'all in', illustrating an extreme situation which perhaps those defending it from their homesteads may not intend. We open in what appears to be some form of motivational speaker is talking about his time in the Crips and his time in prison for murder – a situation that is not unusual. We think at first this will be what it appears – a 'scared straight' presentation, but instead it is an appeal for money to help lobby to extend the 'stand your ground' States to be the majority – specifically as the speaker says quite bluntly, States where African-Americans and perhaps gang members generally are involved in violent altercations.
It is a clever way to discuss the law because I already felt uncomfortable with the way it was validly applied in the Martin shooting, so the idea of it being used in a shootout where on gang member comes after another is not something that computes. However the logic in the writing is correct – if a gang member is in his house when another gang member attacks him, resulting in the former killing the latter, then the law would apply and the gang member would not be acquitted of murder on the basis that he was defending himself on his own property. This makes the viewer feel uncomfortable, which is right but also odd – and for me it made me realize then when I think of a situation where the law could be justified, I have the image in mind of a white, middle-class man defending his beautiful wife and family from a 'thug' (implication intentional) in his front room in the middle of the night. The question is why this is okay but the situation of someone involved in a turf war over drugs being sent to prison for technically defending himself – and it is a question that I thought that the film asked in a clever manner, because it lets the viewer get there themselves off the basis of our individual reaction to the scene we see.
As with the writing, Hart plays it straight and there is no snideness to it; the scene is what it is – and we are left to work out why we feel uncomfortable with it, and why it is that those that would defend the law in the mental image I describe, would be against it in the cases that are suggested in this film.
This piece does not mock the law but goes 'all in', illustrating an extreme situation which perhaps those defending it from their homesteads may not intend. We open in what appears to be some form of motivational speaker is talking about his time in the Crips and his time in prison for murder – a situation that is not unusual. We think at first this will be what it appears – a 'scared straight' presentation, but instead it is an appeal for money to help lobby to extend the 'stand your ground' States to be the majority – specifically as the speaker says quite bluntly, States where African-Americans and perhaps gang members generally are involved in violent altercations.
It is a clever way to discuss the law because I already felt uncomfortable with the way it was validly applied in the Martin shooting, so the idea of it being used in a shootout where on gang member comes after another is not something that computes. However the logic in the writing is correct – if a gang member is in his house when another gang member attacks him, resulting in the former killing the latter, then the law would apply and the gang member would not be acquitted of murder on the basis that he was defending himself on his own property. This makes the viewer feel uncomfortable, which is right but also odd – and for me it made me realize then when I think of a situation where the law could be justified, I have the image in mind of a white, middle-class man defending his beautiful wife and family from a 'thug' (implication intentional) in his front room in the middle of the night. The question is why this is okay but the situation of someone involved in a turf war over drugs being sent to prison for technically defending himself – and it is a question that I thought that the film asked in a clever manner, because it lets the viewer get there themselves off the basis of our individual reaction to the scene we see.
As with the writing, Hart plays it straight and there is no snideness to it; the scene is what it is – and we are left to work out why we feel uncomfortable with it, and why it is that those that would defend the law in the mental image I describe, would be against it in the cases that are suggested in this film.
helpful•00
- bob the moo
- Nov 8, 2014
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content