QIs life in Mexico City really like that?
AI watched Man on Fire when I was younger and at the time I was thinking, wow, I've got to stay away from Mexico! Now, some 8 years later, I'm living in Mexico City (http://www.mexicocityvibes.com/life-in-mexico-city.html). Either things have calmed down a lot or Man on Fire is a ridiculous portrayal of the city. Fair enough if it was somewhere like Ciudad Juarez, but D.F. seems fairly normal.From an article online at Fox News Latino published on March 29, 2012, it appears that for many life in Mexico is like that. "An average of 49 kidnappings per day occurred in Mexico in 2011, marking a significant increase from the prior year, the Council for Law and Human Rights, or CLDH, said in a recent report.A total of 17,889 kidnappings occurred in Mexico last year [2011], up 32 percent from the 13,505 abductions registered in 2010, the non-governmental organization said." http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/03/29/kidnap-victim-kills-4-gunned-down-by-police-in-mexico/#ixzz29HJNYIxm
QThe trade at the end seems unfair. Why did Creasy trade both himself AND Aurelio for Pita?
ACreasy needed Aurelio as insurance to Pita's safety.It is made clear at the beginning of the film that 75% of the victims do not survive, and those that do will likely have body parts mutilated even if the ransoms are paid (the victim shown during the opening titles had his ear cut off before La Hermandad released him). So the circumstances for the final trade were:1) Creasy in exchange for Pita.2) Aurelio in exchange for Pita being returned unharmed and all in one piece.La Hermandad could not harm Pita in retribution for Creasy buckshooting Aurelio's hand off because Creasy had already done so before The Voice revealed to him that Pita was still alive. If The Voice did proceed to harm Pita, then Creasy would've done even more to Aurelio as well, and it would've been a lose-lose situtation for both men.Creasy is willing, in the end, to sacrifice himself for the sake of Pita. Creasy undergoes a transformation early in the film; in the beginning he was an alcoholic loner who even attempts suicide but the round misfires. Pita manages to rouse feelings of compassion in Creasy and he develops a friendship with her, giving him a new found sense of life. When Pita is kidnapped and believed to be killed that is taken from him, and being a man with nothing to lose he is prepared to burn down the world till justice is served.Upon the revelation that she is alive, Creasy must decide how valuable she is to him. Throughout the film, he shows he is prepared to do whatever is necessary for her (in getting justice), and for Creasy, to give up his own life for her is the ultimate sacrifice. Creasy would have likely never have done that for anyone in the past, and being a killer sees himself beyond redemption (if you recall his talk with Christopher Walken's character) and his sacrificing himself for Pita is his act of redemption and absolution. He was also critically wounded, and he probably didn't see himself making it past the day alive anyway, so he was more than happy to trade places with Pita, who was at the beginning of her life.
QWhy did "La Hermandad" lead Pita's family to believe she was dead? Were they planning on ransoming her later on?
ANo, 'The Voice' said "I'm a business man. A dead girl is worth nothing. She is alive." This means he lead the family to believe she was dead so they wouldn't try to get her back. So La Hermandad probably would have sold her as a slave of some sort, most likely in sex trafficking.The dvd special features with commentary by Lucas Foster, Brian Helgeland, and Dakota Fanning this issue comes up in discussion and they state that the original idea was to increase the ransom amount but it never made it into the film due to time.[Here's another viewpoint, written by another viewer:]The answers offered above are contradictory. (It was to increase the ransom, it was so the family wouldn't try to get her back.) Personally I don't buy either of these answers. Certainly leading the family to believe she was dead would not increase the ransom amount; on the contrary, it would destroy any chance of getting any ransom at all. So even if that's what they said in the commentary, it makes no sense at all.Selling the girl as a slave doesn't make a whole lot more sense either, for several reasons, the biggest being that the girl was worth a lot more to her family than she would be to anyone else. Why sacrifice a huge payoff in the millions, and settle for a pittance instead?No, there's only one answer that makes sense: It's junky crap that was thrown into the movie to make the movie more exciting by providing a big surprise at the end, regardless of the fact that it would never happen that way in real life. Any semblance of realism sacrificed to commercialism of the crassest kind. I don't blame them for not wanting to admit in the commentary that that's what was going on.
Share this