I am commenting more on other users' comments than on the film itself. The film mostly avoided the mistake of being an indictment of the death penalty. It may confirm the feelings of those opposed to the death penalty. It had no effect on my indifference to the use of executions as punishment for people who kill innocent civilians without justification.
It is imprecise to talk about executions in the criminal justice system and to generalize from it about all state-sanctioned killing. Military action that results in death is state-sanctioned killing. I have much greater sympathy for the unintentional victims of justified military action than for convicted murderers. That is, for example, though i would support defense of a country's citizens from a cognizable threat, as in the United States' action against the Taliban in Afghanistan (and in contradistinction to the threat Bush drummed up to invade Iraq), i have great sympathy for so-called collateral damage from errant or imprecise bombs and for friends and family members of these victims. In the priority of my sympathies, i place efforts to avoid such collateral damage and to compensate its victims and survivors far ahead of worrying about the fate of convicted murderers. Can't those of you opposed to the death penalty find greater sympathy for more worthy causes? If we're one step away from a perfect world, then we start worrying about convicted murderers. Before then, there are more worthy objects for our limited resources.
I liked the film for the most part. I found the use of filters that darkened various parts of the screen (sometimes a top band, sometimes a side band, sometimes around a central oval, sometimes just a corner or other area) both distracting and yet of symbolic importance. Symbols that are less obvious, less distracting from the story, are more effective. This device called too much attention to itself.
It is imprecise to talk about executions in the criminal justice system and to generalize from it about all state-sanctioned killing. Military action that results in death is state-sanctioned killing. I have much greater sympathy for the unintentional victims of justified military action than for convicted murderers. That is, for example, though i would support defense of a country's citizens from a cognizable threat, as in the United States' action against the Taliban in Afghanistan (and in contradistinction to the threat Bush drummed up to invade Iraq), i have great sympathy for so-called collateral damage from errant or imprecise bombs and for friends and family members of these victims. In the priority of my sympathies, i place efforts to avoid such collateral damage and to compensate its victims and survivors far ahead of worrying about the fate of convicted murderers. Can't those of you opposed to the death penalty find greater sympathy for more worthy causes? If we're one step away from a perfect world, then we start worrying about convicted murderers. Before then, there are more worthy objects for our limited resources.
I liked the film for the most part. I found the use of filters that darkened various parts of the screen (sometimes a top band, sometimes a side band, sometimes around a central oval, sometimes just a corner or other area) both distracting and yet of symbolic importance. Symbols that are less obvious, less distracting from the story, are more effective. This device called too much attention to itself.