I suppose that is where we disagree, then. I don’t see violence the same way as the film does. I don’t see Mildred’s desire to kill the potential rapist as her dropping to Dixon’s morally wrong level; I see it as wrong due to the unproven allegations, but if they were to be proven I’d back her up completely. That is…

If the film could have stuck to Rockwell’s character being an ignorant racist, I would be less harsh on the film, as would most people, I presume. The fact the film went one step further and made him an ignorant racist who tortured a black man is really where I draw the line in my ability to understand the character…

Let me rewind and try to more reasonably state my stance (I apologize, I was a little tense when I wrote my comments, and didn’t take to the time to explain myself properly.)

I agree, the film certainly goes out of its way to make Rockwell a victim that we should feel sorry for.

I mean we can go in circles all day, but the way I see it, you can have add as many dimensions to a character as long as you take the time to do it; the character development for Rockwell’s character was rushed and poorly handled, which lead the filmmaker’s intent to be misinterpreted, thus the inevitable backlash and…

The only opinions that are wrong are those that cause harm to others.

You can admire things from films that you otherwise find problematic.

Yes, because everyone’s opinions on art, no matter what, is correct.

They are people with opinions that differ from yours, so of course that makes them morons!

People are allow to argue the intent of the movie, it’s called having an opinion. And yes, they are misunderstanding to filmmakers intent - they are not misunderstanding the film, because again: opinions - but that is only due to poor filmmaking that didn’t succeed in what McDonagh was trying to do and failed to…

Every writer of fiction needs to be conscious of what they are writing, and of how people will react to it, of if every element that they feel the need to include is necessary for the story, and of if they have the ability to write about said elements. McDonagh clearly was not. A writer can not just be not interested…

Missouri*

It is, though. The film, after Rockwell read the letter, is constantly showing him becoming a victim: from the scorn of the two black characters that turn from him in the bar, to the way he is treated by his mother, to getting beat up, to getting set on fire, to committing himself to doing to good thing that leads to…

Making nasty jokes at the expense of black people, dwarfs, and gay people, instantly stops it from being “an act of personal creativity” and forces it into representing people who are not the author, which means the author is required to take a stance on issues, to explore issues concerning those people, otherwise the…

I know McDonagh’s thinking was “I can’t make a film about a Texas town without making a racist character” but he really should have. That, or at least create a black character who isn’t a plot device for the white character, a black character who you can use to add depth to your story AND examine all of these issues…

If there was one black character that wasn’t used as a plot device and instead created a character that could explore all of the issues that making a character who is a racist and who tortured a black person brings up, then NO ONE would have had an issue with it.

They can but the writer shouldn’t let it go unexplored why they didn’t get their comeuppance. Otherwise they are just taking part in why no one gets their comeuppance.

It’s not that he is trying to redeem him - go ahead, it’s going to take a lot - but it’s that the film acts like it successfully DID redeem the character with something as simple as a sentimental letter, which is why people can’t jive with it.

Everyone understands this. You can’t watch the movie and not understand what it’s about. People are talking about all of the things you pointed out. Reviews that I read have all pointed this out, and yet still criticize the film’s portrayal of race and police brutality. The film shows no type of correct anger which…

No, they see the film suddenly shift gears and turn completely sympathetic toward the character. They don’t need punishment - it is realistic that he isn’t punished - they need the film to not act like we should be okay with his character by the end, comfortable with him like McDormand’s character and that boy he beat…