Frailty...Can Someone Explain? (Spoilers)

[TC]

Okay....I understand most of the movie except for this point....Why was Fenton a demon?  Was it because he killed his Dad?  Or was he actually a killer too since the Feds found bodies in his basement (when they raided his house at the end)?

[Susan]

From what I got, Fenton was never the killer. He knew his younger brother was the killer and was writing those notes hoping to lead police to him. Matthew McConaughey only "Posed" as fenton to lure the FBI detective in order to kill him since he was the final name on the list. McConaughey was really the younger brother who's father's last whispers pretty much told him to finish the list..he was the only one who believed in his father and demons because he was younger and more impressionable. The only real demon murdered in the movie was by Fenton, and it was his father. The movie only suggests (imo) the reality of demons because maybe it was told more to the perspective of the father ..who was probably a schiztophrenic. The younger brother set up Fenton to look like the killer to tie up loose ends, since he was a policeman he was smart about that and knew the FBI would not stop until they found the killer...particularly when the last victim is an agent.

Personally, i just didn't like the movie all that much. What was the fuss?

[Haze]

I think that in actuality there really were demons, the reason I belive this is because the people are able to see what they did. How could he have seen that the police officer killed his mother? Thati s actually the only reason, other wise I would agree with you.

[chris]

Fenton became a demon the moment he turned against God.  Not only that, he grew up to become a vicious serial killer who kept his victims (trophies) in his basement.  Also, in the world of Frailty, demons do in fact exist, and Adam and Dad were the good guys.  The writer pointed out that Fenton cries and moans when a demon is killed, but never sheds a tear and couldn't care less when a real human is killed.  The writer said he was confused why so many people find the ending ambigious when he made it quite clear that Fenton was a demon and God's Hands were real.  Bill Paxton was not a madman, he was a good father who refused to kill his son when God told him to (unlike Abraham who was ready to kill Isaac at the drop of a hat).  Great film, one of my favourites of all time.

[Susan]

To me, the father believed what he wanted to believe when he touched the people. That hysteria went to his young son who "claimed" he saw something too while the other brother didn't. Younger kids always want to believe in something magical. I think we have to remember that sometimes in films we aren't seeing it from an unbiased standpoint. Sometimes the film allows you to view events as they unfold through the viewpoint of a certain character - thus allowing us to see imagined sins and the fbi man saying "how did you know". I think the audience is left to believe what they want to, whether it was real or the schiztophrenic hallucinations of the killers justifying their actions. Fenton only became a demon when his father realized he would betray him by not going along with his plan. The minute he expressed doubt the father insinuated "Well, i don't want to believe what I was told about you"..using that as a scare tactic since it was obvious that if he didn't play along that his father could just easily target him next. I don't think he would have, I think he just wanted to instill enough punishment and fear into him to keep him from talking.

Fenton never actually saw god either, he was starved into hallucinations where I think his subconcious mind came out and told him how he could end it all. Kill his father. The younger brother thought it "Wasn't fair" that he didn't get to talk to god or see stuff, and believing that fenton saw something made him even more convinced the whole thing was real. He even wanted to make a list of his own of people he didn't like because he was so anxious to participate in it all and feel like a superhero. He idolized his father, he never saw him for what he truly was - which I think led to his conviction that his father had to be right. So he continued with finishing the list. Ahh..the sins of the father.

It's like in "Radio flyer", while at the end we SEE the younger brother fly away magically on the wagon and years later hanks gets a postcard, it doesn't mean it actually happened. Just through the perspective of how one character see's, or chooses to remember it.

[chris]

It could be looked at that way, but then how do you explain the video-tapes blurring out Adam's face.  Also, the FBI agent's memory being completely erased.  Those are pretty big coincidences.  Also, despite Powers Booth saying "How did you know that", he was rendered harmless by Adam's touch.  If it was indeed hysteria, the FBI agent didn't seem one to fall prey to it.  The writer mentioned that if he put horns and a tail on the demons the audience would have no problem with Dad and Adam and would wonder why Fenton opposed them so much.  It's also interesting to note that the older Fenton was trying to out Adam as the God's Hand Killer, so he and his fellow demons could run free.  Satan's demons and God's Hands were at war.  The story is told from Fenton's perspective (so we think), so it is shocking to find out that he was the "bad guy", but it makes sense why Adam would chose to tell it.  Like his Dad, he probably had problems with killing kin, and when he tells his story to the FBI demon, it's probably venting and a bit of wishful thinking in his memory.  Adam loved his brother and tried to tell the story more as a eulogy, and it's obvious he is pretty broken up about it in the back of the car.  You should watch it again, keeping the ending in perspective, and it's like watching a completely different film.

[Susan]

Every survelance tape i've ever seen has been pretty unreliable and it's not really a proof given point that directs us to "unseen forces at work". And as for what the FBI agent said, well before he said that fenton was questinioning him about his mother. It's possible as a policeman, he looked into the agents background and made an assumption. OR, we aren't hearing what the agent really said. We're simply seeing as how Mconaughey's character is himself imaginging the situation. Sometimes what we see isn't always the truth. I've learned some filmmakers use interesting techniques that slyly trick the audience into thinking what they see is an unbiased view but may actually be the world through the characters eyes.

Sure adam loved his brother, but he felt his brother betrayed him and his father as a family member, as a son. The power of belief can be so strong. In the end I don't feel adam ever had any special power of sight, I think he just believed..basically..what he always wanted to. Because what it came down to was how much each son truly loved his father. You had two choices, to believe and carry out seemingly evil acts in the name of God, or not to believe which would drive a wedge between you and your family. Maybe that goes for the audience as well.

i'm not saying my reasoning is the right one, I think the film is clever in that it let's the door swing both ways. It's simply the one that i believe to be truth, and if anything it can be taken metaphorically. Like in "The Shining" the film snuck in really heavy social commentary that from an obvious standpoint had nothing to do with teh horror aspect of it.

"Frailty" could be a commentary on religion and the blood we have shed in the name of it for the name of good and everything holy. And Fenton perhaps representing a groupof those who had to break free from it, ultimately betraying their father and maybe the belief of God because in their mind they couldn't justify such actions that have taken place in the name of God. And in centuries past there were many persectutions, and public excecutions in order to rid the world of evildoers (who were often falsly accused by those around them for their own beneficial gain or revenge) The father never offered "proof", the sons were simply expected to put their faith in him.

Ok, I have this habit of psycho-analyzing films. ;-) But you know the worst thing is when i hear people say they watch movies so they don't have to think. Now for some movies that may apply but in general, if a film can't make you think while it's entertaining you..what's the point?

[Mofo Rising]

I'm still going to go with the "obvious" conclusion, that McConaughey really was Adam and there really were demons that needed killing.

For one, all the "coincidences" at the end.  Also, the FBI agent who was waiting with McConaughey in the office was unable to recognize him as being the same person as the Sheriff.  I'm not saying FBI agents are super-geniuses or anything, but lack of attention to detail is probably something they filter out during the selection process.

Moreover, the movie supports this conclusion.  It all leads up to that moment and final revelation.  Watching one of the behind the scenes shorts on the movie, everybody involved really seems to consider the climactic scene to be of high importance.  Seems like a bit of a stretch to have an entire movie pushing you to one conclusion only to have it pull the rug out from under you, forcing you into a different conclusion, just to have it be a smokescreen for the original, somewhat modified, conclusion.

Having some of the contradictory scenes only be "in the characters mind" seems like too much for me.  Maybe in the flashback scenes, but in the film's present?  Occam must be spinning around in his grave.

It is an interesting theory, and you're free to believe it, but I can't buy it.  Not with this collection of evidence.  Taking that with the attitude of the filmmakers, I'm going with the demon interpretation.

I am however with you on the over-analyzation of movies.  I've long since realized that a movie, or any art really, has to engage my mind for me to find it interesting.  And if you look at FRAILTY in metaphor, all sorts of interpretations seem to be possible.  Of course, if you look at anything in metaphor you're bound to get some interesting interpretations.

EDIT:  IMDb lists McConaughey's character as Adam Meeks.  I don't really trust IMDb that much, so what do the end credits say?

[Susan]

I didn't check credits, I'm sure mcconaughey was adam..no question. It was clear that it was the only lure since he set up his brother to get the agent to go with him. Then he could reveal who he truly was, that he was really the young one who believed..and then grew up.

As for attention to detail I think that happens to everyone, even agents who aren't considering a situation fully to be one where they need to memorize that individual. Adam may be one of those people with that common face that blends in the crowd, not standing out. I could have found evidence far more compelling had the "demons" really been more malicious in their earthly form. I mean if demons are going to waste time on earth, why not spend all day bein downright evil? Plus they were names on a sheet of paper that could have been anyone in the entire world. And the father decided to just find the name that matched in the phonebook.

The concept is just so reminicent of stories of those who believe so strongly in their faith that they are willing to sacrifice their children as Paxton was. "The Rapture" was one, but also in real life. That woman in texas who drowned all her kids did it because she said she was posessed by the devil and by killing them she saved them. People do things all the time that are calculated and cold saying they were told to by an angel or God. How deep can your faith go? How far are you willing to go for your God? The real question is, if you really were crazy (schitzophrenic) and didn't know it but thought you had a meeting with an angel who told you to do an evil deed...if you were truly faithful and felt you couldn't turn your back on God, would you do it? Could you assume you dreamed it if it meant you might burn in hell? Well that's the feeling I got that Paxton probably faced.

But I think if he TRULY was told by an angel to kill demons, that as a man of faith he would have never under any circumstance killed an innocent..as he did with the sherrif. This was clearly a man covering his tracks. Fenton is old enough to understand whats right, what's real. But the younger one is more impressionable and Fenton knows he's been brainwashed. He "wants" to believe in his father. One can naturally assess that if religion became a strong part of this young boys life that might have further convinced him that what his father did was right..because of the willingness to believe in the extraordinary.

I still wasn't knocked out by this film, but it's certainly the type of film that has opened up alot of debate from what i've seen based on...what we've been discussing. I think maybe the only one who knows for sure is the director/writer. I'd love to know their assessment..but of course they'd probably say something like "We leave that up to the viewer to decide"

ugh!

[chris]

The writer and director both say that Fenton is definitely a demon, as are the people Dad brings back to destroy.  As for killing the sheriff, Bill Paxton is only human and he made a mistake.  He and his kids were warned if they told, someone would die.  The writer actually holds Fenton responsible for the sheriff's death, he knew his Dad would kill the sheriff, and it was a deliberate act of sabatoge.
You've taken some giant steps, (writing off the videotapes, the FBI agent not recognizing him, and Powers Booth being blown over by a simple touch) to avoid that Dad could be right.  When I saw this movie in the theater, the moment Fenton killed his Dad a portion of the audience cheered, and then walked out stuned by the final conclusion.  It had quite an effect on them.  I've noticed that the people who I've talked about Frailty with, who are either athiest or borderline anti-religion really dislike the ending.   But the writer and director both state that this is not a message movie, they didn't have an agenda in telling it.  What they wanted to do was scare and disturb people.  Judging from the crowds I've seen it with they succeeded tremendously.
I'm not saying that the movie can't be viewed in two ways, but from what we're shown, I side with Dad and Adam on this one.  It should be viewed as a "what if" movie which asks, "What if the old testament God was alive and well and living in Texas?".

[Susan]

>>"What if the old testament God was alive and well and living in Texas?".<<

then we're all going to hell in a handbasket ;-)

[Mofo Rising]

Well, this is a discussion of the film itself, not the philosphy behind it.  I agree with you on all the metaphorical points.  It's just the actual story/physical points of the movie itself we're disagreeing on.  Silly, of course, but it's the reason we're congregating on a message board devoted to b-movies.

I agree that this movie is making a point about the complete and total belief of religous constructs, and how do you believe something that God himself tells you in these days of pyschological analyzations?  Nobody believes in an actual god talking to you, no matter what you do.  That's the point I think the movie was trying to make with it's "surprise" ending.

Now I have no doubt that the movie was trying to make a statement about the belief in God, and more importantly in the visons that "God" is providing you.  That's why I think the end of the movie was supposed to be taken literal.  The hook was that what if all this was real?  What if there were actual demons that were trying to destroy "God's Green Earth", as it were.

The film is not trying to prove or disprove the actual existence of angels and demons.  It's using the possibility to make a point about faith.  In the case of this movie, the demons are real.  It's a twist because nobody in this day and age really believes in the existence of demons.

I follow that the film-makers don't believe in the case themselves.  They are simply presenting it as a "what if", and that's where the horror creeps in.  Which is what I'm arguing about.  Not the literal existence of demons, I just think that this specific movie was using it as a plot point.  And of course as a plot point it should be consistent.

I still think that's the aim of the movie.  That's what they are trying to say.  It's a movie.  Good for a goof.

Like I said, I'm still with you on the over-analyzation of movies.  This thread has already got me thinking more about the movie than I otherwise would have.  In fact, I'm with you that this movie wasn't that great.  This thread has got me thinking about it more than anything else.  (Funny how that works.)

So I think it comes down to the "believe if you will" question you are talking about.  But I think they went the extra step and added the horror that all the suppositions (as horrible as they were) were real.  That's where the true horror lay, simply because it was so unexpected.

But I'm discussing the "story" implicatons of the filmmakers, not the "metaphorical" implications.

Crap.  I wrote so much.  There's no good answer to this.  I hope this discussion is good enough.

[chris]

Spoke in the voice of Dad:

"You're not a demon, are you?"

[TC]

I agree that this is a great movie and one that I will definitely have to take a second look at.  I listened to the audio commentary tracks on the DVD which answered a lot of the questions I had.

[Susan]

>>The hook was that what if all this was real? What if there were actual demons that were trying to destroy "God's Green Earth", as it were<<

Then I'd have to ask why that list was so short? I dunno, all the things that happened seemed circumstancial, they were to me the kind of thing that wasn't proof but more...suggestive evidence that one might choose to point out in almost any similar situation that has happened in real life. Maybe the actual existance of the demons was irrelevant to the importance of the "Faith" of the believer and what horrific things they are capable of doing. I mean the only way that made it easier to watch people being hung in Salem was the firm belief that they were truly witches.

It almost doesn't seem important anymore what the intentions of the filmmakers were, they may not have even been making a movie to raise any type of intellectual stir..but they did regardless. And often I think that movies can be interpreted different by viewers, and I always welcome that with any film. I love to hear other perspectives and debate it out, not to prove right or wrong but I guess to merely point out what I saw in it vs what you saw in it. Because I think everyone takes something different from a film, that the great thing about it is that there isn't alwys necessarily one way of seieng things. If so it would make it quite boring!