Director: Richard Kelly (Donnie Darko, Southland Tales)
Story: Richard Matheson
Screenplay: Richard Kelly
Producers: Richard Kelly, Dan Lin, Kelly McKittrick, Sean McKittrick
Starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella,
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Running time: 115 min.
(3.5/5)What would you do? A classic philosophical question being asked to students and colleagues alike for decades ever since the short story, “Button, Button” was penned in 1970; published by Playboy Magazine. If you push a button, two things will happen. One, you’ll receive a very large sum of cash. Two, someone whom you don’t know, somewhere in the world will die. Do you push the button? How would you rationalize it to yourself and what might the ultimate consequences be? It’s a conundrum of a conversation that could go on for hours. Or in director Richard Kelly’s case, two hours.
This above scenario is exactly what is presented to Mr. and Mrs. Lewis. A financially struggling couple living beyond their means when a disfigured Frank Langella shows up at their door out of the blue offering them this very deal. Well of course it’s not much of a spoiler to disclose that eventually the button does get pushed (wouldn’t be much of a story otherwise would there?). When the payoff is delivered, Mrs. Lewis asks of her mysterious “business associate”, “What happens now?” He resonds with the answer that the box will be reprogrammed and the offer given to someone else “whom I can assure you, you don’t know.” So sets off a story of paranoia and mystery as to the nature of the box, who is this mysterious deal offerer and what are the consequences to the pressing of the button?
The movie is surprisingly straight forward and simple for a time but of course one can’t have a Richard Kelly film without at least some convolution. The topics covered range from something as mysterious as a macabre rash of unexplainable nosebleeds to alien invaders to the NASA Mars Lander missions. We have crippling disabilities and disfigurements as well as talk about the afterlife and the philosophy of Sartre. It’s a 20 minute, “Twilight Zone” episode through the eyes of the director of Donnie Darko and Southland Tales stretched to nearly two hours. Some may argue that these tangential issues tackled are merely more of Kelly’s unnecessary, madman rantings but in this case I think they actually help to deepen the mystery of the story and the inner workings of the characters’ minds rather than a misguided mess of ideas that go nowhere (as they do in Southland Tales).
Kelly seems to have figured out a way to restrain himself a little bit and not only make the story easy to follow and at least coherent, but he’s also managed to keep the audience’s attention and these seemingly “off the wall” musings are more than just mere distractions but actually interesting bits of ideas, thoughts and possibilities that give the audience something to chew on. But unlike his previous films, he doesn’t give the audience a bite that’s too big to swallow.
Now, the movie does come dangerously close to going off the rails at times. Existential doorways, divine intervention and a feeling that the movie is evolving into a creepily similar version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers are all things that make it sound like the movie is a convoluted mess. But just as these things emerge, we’re pulled back into some semblance of reality and those strange “what the…?” moments either suddenly make sense or are quickly forgotten in the briskly paced next moment. As I said, all of the batshit crazy material is carefully restrained or contained into memorable moments that are at least tangentially linked to either the story or a character’s ruminations.
While Cameron Diaz and James Marsden would probably not be my first choices when casting my movie, with The Box they work surprisingly well as sympathetic characters who are easy to relate to and understand. We’re completely on board with their plight and while they maybe make some wrong/immoral decisions along their journey, we can tell that they’re essentially good people and willing to repent for their mistakes. Unfortunately for them, life doesn’t always forgive or forget and they have deal with the consequences dealt their way. The audience must go along for the hell ride but with the knowledge and enjoyment that at least we like these characters and have someone to root for.
A distinct style choice one will notice immediately is the time period of the film. Very obviously the mid-1970′s; specifically 1976. At first I regarded this approach as simply a stylistic decision to make things “look cool” as the design is almost distractingly glaring. But it soon became apparent that this time period works best as much of today’s technology would inhibit a lot of the storyline. So call it a distraction if you wish, but it is arguably a necessary distraction and one that actually helps to serve the overall aesthetic and feel of the movie anyway.
Another thing that really stands out is the score by Win Butler, Régine Chassagne and Owen Pallett. The feelings of dread, anticipation or sheer terror exudes elements of 1950′s B-movies and serials. When needed, the music is loud, exciting and noticeable. But again, not a distraction; rather just one more element of temperament to keep the audience involved and surrounded with the mood of this slightly surreal world of intrigue.
As Kelly’s films go, this is certainly his most accessible picture. It uses the same philosophical and ambitious types of ideas that his other movies attempt to get at the core of, but here he manages to keep them relevant and interesting rather than a spiraling whirlwind of confusing nonsense. The mystery of what is happening or the delightful feeling of what will happen should keep the audience intrigued and on its toes rather than tossing them off the nearest purple waterfall to see if they can swim when they hit bottom. Fans of M. Night Shyamalan should feel right at home here as I was sure I would see his name in the credits as a “creative supervisor” or some other spiritual quide; because there are more than a few of his elements of film making on display here. I think it is possible that further screenings will bring about plenty of plot holes and inconsistencies not seen in the initial viewing and with more discussion among colleagues it probably wouldn’t take much convincing that this movie is a steaming pile of you know what. But in the moment I think the fundamental question the film raises, the style in which the story is told and the general sense of wanting to know what the hell is going on should be more than enough for an enjoyable experience in the theater.
.
Off to see this in 1 hour.
@ How would you rationalize it to yourself and what might the ultimate consequences be? It’s a conundrum of a conversation that could go on for hours.
well… but it’s not really a conundrum at all is it. It’s not like it’s moral dilema or something.
I’ll probably see this in theaters (if it’s around long enough) but the idea seems like it’s missing something. Like suspense or conflict.
“It’s not like it’s moral dilema or something.”
Are you being facetious/sarcastic? Unless you just mean that killing someone should sort of be a no-brainer to NOT push the button. Maybe that’s the case, but I think there are a lot of fairly rational (arguably “good”) people that would seriously consider taking the money. Put in that situation I think it wouldn’t be quite as easy as one would think to simply dismiss the thought of pushing the button completely and decisively right away.
I know that staring at that much cash would certainly have me at least entertaining the idea and trying to think of ways to rationalize it before ultimately probably not pushing the button.
*stands back and wait for Henrik to show up and call me despicable for suggesting such a thing*
@ Are you being facetious/sarcastic?
Well I havent’ seen the film. I have seen the twilight zone episode though.
explain the conundrum to me (I don’t really care about spoilers. I understand the ending is different from the tz ep, which is different from the short story).
It’s obviously wrong to push a button that kills someone….
what’s the other side of it?
Well I suppose the definition of a conundrum doesn’t exactly mean what I thought it meant; not exactly.
But don’t you think the decision to push a button for a million dollars is something one would consider doing… even if it kills some stranger in China? That’s the question. Would you do it? I think a lot more people would push the button than would admit it. If no one would ever know they did it and all they had to do was keep their mouth shut and someone they don’t know died, I think a lot of people would push the button and then try to rationalize it later.
I hear the sequels really good. Whats it called?
The Cylinder?
The Plank.
Boxes.
Loved the 70′s look to the film.
The situation reminds me of Harry Lime’s response at the peak of the ferris wheel when Holly asks him about the victims. It’s an interesting concept and great bar conversation, although I’m curious how he can drag out this premise for two hours.
I wonder how many people wouldn’t press the button? I bet the number is frighteningly low.
dammit. I typed some long ass response only to have my browser crash.
But the gist of it was that I think you’re right Jonathan, most people probably would push it. That’s because our sense of morality evolved to work in an environment of human feed back. When the victim is some nameless bozo in timbucktoo it’s easy to rationalize. And that is what totally undoes the premise. The conflict has no urgency. It’s not cinematic.
But what is cinematic is the consequence of making the decision. I’ll stay spoiler free for the moment, but the story moves past just individual responsibility to how humanity as a whole behaves. That and the great 70s look of the film as Andrew pointed out.
You’re right about the specific conflict of the initial choice, but that’s actually dispensed with fairly early on…It stayed interesting and engaging for me all the way through.
Granted, there were moments where I wasn’t quite trusting Kelly to pull it off. I think he did, but there’s a few elements that don’t quite come together. Also, there’s some terribly awkward dialog in spots, so-so acting and characters that I didn’t really care that much about – didn’t hate them, but wasn’t overly invested in them.
And yet, I’d probably rate it even a bit higher than Andrew. I think it’s great sci-fi and anyone who can tie in a quote from Arthur C. Clarke and make it relevant to the film is good in my books. As well, Kelly plays with the concept of “the box” as well – our homes, cars, even bodies are boxes that restrict us in many ways. We also depend on their outward appearances too much – the husband’s Corvette, the disfigurement of Diaz and Langella’s characters, etc.
Andrew, you may be right that further viewings may expose more holes or just a lot of half baked ideas (Kelly does throw a lot in there), but I’m kinda hopeful that I’ll pick up a few more things to close the gaps I currently see.
Easily my least favourite Kelly picture.
OK, so The Box is better than Knowing (perhaps the worst film I’ve seen in 2009), but only marginally so. It’s not quite as shrill, but it is also a pretty shallow exercise nonetheless. I’ll take Kelly’s messier efforts (Domino and Southland Tales) over this badly executed Twilight Zone tale. Maybe the whole thing would have worked if it was in high contrast black and white (a further underscore of ‘morality’ and noir, which is perhaps the tone the film should have taken…Kiss Me Deadly or something…)
Lots to say on the *SPOILER FILLED* cinecast coming up.
but…*MINOR SPOILERS*…I will say this:
Setting it in the 1970s was a ludicrous idea, because if it is all a big test. Well, looks like we passed, as it is 2009. I guess 2012 isn’t too far away though…
Sure there is lots of questions you could ask, (or as Bob mentioned you could delve into the ‘box speech’ about how we avoid morality with all of our more mundane distractions) but this is certainly not the picture that inspires passion (it did not for me) to further dwell on the elements of the films mystery, simply because it all seemed rather pointless.
Andrew will appreciate this quote from how BBC critic Marc Kermode described the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise….a long exercise to get from Point A to Point A. That is The Box.
And as an aside, can we dwell on how shitty the one-sheet is for this film?
Terrible poster.
I think the 70s angle worked well – it actually uses the Viking landing as a jumping off point. The fact that we are still around today is kind of irrelevant – I don’t think you have to assume that films set in previous decades will eventually end up where we are now.
I do agree that it doesn’t inspire passion – and I think that is partially at least due to the characters and the main actors (Diaz and Marsden). They’re both just “Meh” (for me anyway – it sounds like Andrew got more out of them). But I like the ideas and how they are worked into the sci-fi plot. I guess I’m tired of hearing about sci-fi movies that aren’t really sci-fi. And I admit that I’m biased because of the Clarke quote – that arranged a bunch of things nicely for me.
how’s the Arcade Fire score?
Bob: If they wanted a 70′s vibe, they should have simply done the poster with a “Finger on the Button” which can mean so many things. Floaty heads with a red paint stripe? WTF? And Diaz and Marsden are pretty lifeless, not so much a surprise for the former, but the latter was pretty great in the Superman reboot and even Enchanted so his non-performance here is kind of surprising. Always like to see Holmes Osborne (the dad in Darko) get some screen time, wish he had more, the police investiagion element of the movie is dropped pretty fast
Goon: The Score has a 1950′s sci-fi bombastic-ness which would be better suited to something more stylish visually than the flat compositions (exception being a huge underground lair and the NASA buildings both of which which are pretty great). I see what they were going for with the score, but it’s an awkward fit.
Total agreement Kurt (on the poster anyway). Finger on the button would’ve been good. Even this would’ve been much better. Is Diaz really that much of a draw to put her head front and centre?
I love Holmes Osborne (from Darko, “You’re not a bitch…You’re bitchin’, but not a bitch”) and though I agree that the investigation piece fell off, I may have to see it again to see if that fits into things. I didn’t think that Osborne would actually bring Marsden to the crime scene that easily, so I don’t know if that was poor plotting or if there’s a reason. I’m leaning to the former at the moment…
Also, I don’t really agree that the compositions were flat. There were plenty of visually rich moments – the outdoor scenes in the snow, the library, anything at Langley, etc. I really liked the look of the film.
“*stands back and wait for Henrik to show up and call me despicable for suggesting such a thing*”
Andrew, I am glad you did take something from my harsh reactions to statements you made in the past. I sincerely hope you are never faced with the option to kill strangers for money.
“Setting it in the 1970s was a ludicrous idea, because if it is all a big test. Well, looks like we passed, as it is 2009.”
I don’t think that’s the point the film makers had in mind at all. It is simply a way of A) just doing something that looks cool, but B) more importantly, takes away the possibility for the use of cell phones and internet – which would have ruined the story.
Why Richard Kelly’s THE BOX could be the best film of the year:
http://www.quietearth.us/articles/2009/11/12/Why-Richard-Kellys-THE-BOX-could-be-the-best-film-of-the-year
Andrew’s Reaction to the Moral Quandary ?
More importantly it ties into the Viking lander on Mars. The lightning bolt that hit Steward coincided with the lander’s first communication back.
And who is that Kurt guy who has already responded with a disagreement in the comments section? Quiet Earth sure attracts some loons don’t they…B-)
I do think that perhaps the review is a bit over the top. I like Kelly, but it’s just a wee bit early calling him a master. I also think it ends up doing the film a bit of a disservice in over-praising it like that. Few films can meet expectations like the reviewer has now set for it.
heh, I love kelly’s first two and I also love Domino (he wrote the screenplay), but that review is seeing something that is so alien to my experience that Agent Orange is about to turn into the ‘star child’ from the end of his 2001 analogy.
Kubrickian The Box most certainly was not and THE BOX will not likely ever get a ‘reconsideration’ such as Eyes Wide Shut seems to have received recently…
you “love” Southland Tales?!? I knew you were a fan but that takes the cake.
OK, maybe love is too strong a word, my review (http://www.rowthree.com/2008/03/19/extended-thoughts-southland-tales/ ) is quite critical of many parts. I probably tend to overcompensate in my reaction to the film in the sea of hate and anger than tends to surround Southland Tales.
yeah, I know how you feel.
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
I’m a pretty big fan of Southland Tales but I’ll take film over that one any day of the week. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around some of the stuff that comes up but I’m not completely convinced that it’s just aliens we’re talking abut here; Kelly also seems to be making a case for faith (not necessarily religion) – Mr. Steward has a little speech with his assistant where he talks about hope (in a roundabout way).
And why is is that the women press the button? Even when the people are all going off into the tunnel and apparently the location of the next test, it’s mostly men in line. I’m still trying to figure that bit out.
@ “When the victim is some nameless bozo in timbucktoo it’s easy to rationalize. And that is what totally undoes the premise. The conflict has no urgency. It’s not cinematic.”
I think that’s a bit shortsighted. The Lewis’ bring it up themselves when they’re trying to decide if they should push the button or not. The husband asks how well do they know each other or the neighbours? Or the guys you work with? It’s an interesting question.
The Box, and Women pressing the button. I think that is merely an accident because you are only aware of 3 buttons pushed in the film, which is hardly a statistical sampling.
Also, the ‘button pushing’ underscores the ‘neighbors but people we don’t know. Isn’t the small amount of button pushes people local in Richmond. This is only as fast as a very well marked Langella (half a face!) can seem to travel. It’s not like the box is killing folks in Morrocco or Iceland or Laos.
Honestly, I doubt anything Kelly shoved in there is accidental.
@Marina, “Honestly, I doubt anything Kelly shoved in there is accidental.”
I struggle with this statement. How much of Kellys work is rigour and how much is intuition? An interesting question to ask if I ever encounter the guy.
That’s a good point but I find that even the stuff that doesn’t make sense/seem to fit is in there for a specific reason (even if the reason is only apparent to the filmmaker). Kelly doesn’t strike me as a filmmaker that leaves anything in by chance. But it’s all speculation. Who really knows what Kelly’s every thinking?
@ Marina,
when I wrote the quote above I hadn’t actually seen the film. Having watched it I agree it’s kind of a non issue in the film. They manage to sweep that under the rug while running into other equally damaging problems in the story.
1. The film smacks head first into it’s own skepticism. Diaz spends the first half hour convincing herself the button’s not real, and then presses it anyways. Consequently the film’s inciting incident doesn’t make sense.
2. This script clearly has some unresolved last act problems. Most severely Kelly’s nonsensical editing choice at the end; cross cutting between Marsten’s final decission and the next couple. What is the sequence of events here exactly? The editing implies something that makes the point of the story moot.
I wonder if Kelly wrote the ending that way hoping he’d figure out a better one eventually. Or if this ending was studio mandated. That would be a good question to add to Kurt’s.
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
And I do agree that the button’s perpetrator being gods not aliens. I think the mars thing is a red herring. What Stewart’s knowledge of the afterlife as well as a few other clues I definitely think Stewart was an angel not an alien.
He was hit by lightning? Aliens don’t control the force of lightning, gods do.
Maybe the mars probe is like the tower of babel.
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
Yea, I guess there is a lack-of-self-determination, if Marsden’s decision is tied to the exact second the next couple hits the button (and also if Diaz hitting the button was time to the couple before them…) If it were just aliens then it doesn’t make any sense, but if it were “GOD” then wtf is that Arthur C. Clark quote popping up time and time again. Nonsense.
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
@ if Marsden’s decision is tied to the exact second the next couple hits the button
if??? I’ve heard other people quibble with this as well but it doesn’t make sense. Sure you could interpret it some other if you want but Kelly goes out of his way to make it as clear as possible that button push=>Diaz dead.
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
and think about it for a second:
Marster’s made the “right” decission by killing his wife. So humanity is not doomed for the time being (right?). Ok, I guess.
but his descission was actually made by the woman pushing the button. Which was the wrong descission that puts someone else in the same position.
What? So if the nameless woman hadn’t pushed the button then I guess Marsten would’ve let his wife live and taken the money but humanity would be doomed? Right?
What kind of “moral” is that?
I guess it’s no worse than every other theistic morality tale. Maybe it’s just a theist thing.
This indeed makes no sense. I’m in perfect agreement with you Rusty. I had a real strong dislike of the ending in a number of ways. Even moreso than the heavily ironic THE MIST ending which seemed there for ‘shlock value’ more than it making any kind of sense (C’mon the military were merely ‘steps’ away. The fog can’t be that sound deading. You can see (a la the button push) that timing can kill a narrative direction. Bad decision on the ‘button push’ editing, yes.
“What? So if the nameless woman hadn’t pushed the button then I guess Marsten would’ve let his wife live and taken the money but humanity would be doomed? Right?”
No, because one more person who doesn’t push the button is a good thing in the eyes of Langella right?
And anyway, I’m not convinved that Marsden killing his wife WAS the right decision was it? Why not let his life live and try to work through his son’s disability. I know it’s tough, but what happened to the kid was through no fault of theirs was it? Langella and crew abducted the kid and did that to him. Seems very un-God-like to me.
“You can see (a la the button push) that timing can kill a narrative direction. Bad decision on the ‘button push’ editing, yes.”
You could say the same thing about almost any time travel movie though. Sort of a different take on the grandfather paradox.
I would say BOTH of their decisions were wrong. Pushing the button and pulling the trigger are both murder. Period. The world is doomed ala The Day the Earth Stood Still style politics.
@ The fog can’t be that sound deading
That’s just nitpicking. The end of the Mist is awesome!
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
@ I would say BOTH of their decisions were wrong. Pushing the button and pulling the trigger are both murder.
but correct me if I’m wrong, it seems like that the film dictates to us that killing his wife is the RIGHT descision. We’re told that the fate of man kind depends on him making the picking right. Was he supposed to the money while his kid goes deaf and blind?
Besides, according to the end of the movie it wasn’t even Cyclops’s call. The nameless lady made the call when she pushed the button. So I’m even more confused as to what the point of the movie is.
is it just me or is the website kind of wonky right now?
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
unless, maybe letting his wife off the hook and is the right choice after all.
Of course he’s letting his kid take the brunt of the punishment but at least they’re both still alive. Sure the kid’ll be deaf and blind. But that happens sometimes at least he’ll have parents who love, plus a million dollars.
Now the kid inherrits a million dollars but he’s orphaned. And you KNOW that million’s not coming to him no strings attached. No way does Old Man Lightning Face’s fun house of intruige stop here, as the last shot of the movie (in the window) tells us.
The box constitutes a cycle of violence. A woman presses the button, causing her husband to kill, causing the man to become an Employee, and the curse is transfered on to the kid.
Each time the participant choses something over life. Maybe all any of them have to do to end the cycle is to choose life. The button isn’t causing Marsten to kill Diaz, it just sets in motion a deterministic sequence. But by exerting free will they can stop the cycle.(though, this would’ve been clearer if the two events had been shown happening simultaneously)
Langella has a line where he says the cycle will continue until enough people choose right. Maybe “enough people” is one. Spooky.
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
I actually think I just talked myself into liking the ending.
It’s ingenius because it presents itself as an abrahamic eye for an eye style morality tale. Wherein man is doomed by his inherited sinful nature.
But it then reveals itself to be an Eastern morality tale. Wherin man escapes his fate by rejecting eye for eye justice and reversing the direction of the karmic wheel.
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
“But correct me if I’m wrong, it seems like that the film dictates to us that killing his wife is the RIGHT descision. We’re told that the fate of man kind depends on him making the picking right. Was he supposed to the money while his kid goes deaf and blind?”
Rusty – everything you just wrote I think is correct. The movie DOES corner you into thinking that the right choice by the couple is to kill the wife. I didn’t understand that at all as it was happening. They don’t even really think about it. It’s as if the choice to shoot her was so obvious and I’m thinking to myself, “wait a minute… why do you HAVE to kill her!? Let’s think about this for a second.” So I think picking right would be to NOT shoot Diaz – thus the button would not be pushed… maybe?
“Of course he’s letting his kid take the brunt of the punishment but at least they’re both still alive. Sure the kid’ll be deaf and blind. But that happens sometimes at least he’ll have parents who love, plus a million dollars.” – This was my thought exactly.
I don’t think the button being pressed caused Marsden to pull the trigger; I think it was the other way around. Had he made the right choice, maybe the button would’ve simply killed someone else? Which of course is stupid. Because doesn’t someone on the earth die like every second anyway? Probably more per second than just one. So push the fucking button because people are dying by the hundreds every moment anyway.
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
@ I don’t think the button being pressed caused Marsden to pull the trigger
I don’t know. The way the scene is edited, it seems impossible to conclude anything other than the button is deciding Marsden’s actions.
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
************SPOILER BUFFER******************
I don’t know. It could be. But I just think it was one of those coincidences that’s just trying to send the audience a message. Maybe the box is simply a red herring. Someone always dies somewhere at all times right? So the button could be killing anyone. I think the button pressing and Marsden shooting his wife is simply a metaphor or something.
It’s reminding me of something that happens in another movie but for the life of me I can’t figure out what it is.
Getting back briefly to the decision to either kill Diaz’s wife character or leave the child deaf and blind – I totally bought the decision. Two reasons: 1) Though the child would indeed still be alive, if as a parent you could prevent them from being deaf and blind by sacrificing yourself, I think many parents would easily make that choice especially if 2) you’re in Diaz’s position where you feel terrible grief for the initial decision and a great deal of responsibility for someone else’s death and the handicapping of your own child. I’m not saying it’s the right decision, but just that I can easily see how it was made.
As for whether the button being pressed by the other couple actually leads to Marsden killing Diaz, I agree with Rusty in that the editing sure made it seem that way, but I’m not sure it is even related…The decision time for The Box is always around the same time as the decision the previous couple will have to make regarding child vs wife, so they will usually happen in parallel. But I’m wondering whether the button being pressed actually does kill anyone else – perhaps it means that YOU will die if you press the button. I know it’s supposed to be someone you don’t know, but there was earlier reference about whether the couple even knew each other. So how well do you even know yourself? Do you really know what you are capable of? Would Diaz’s character have thought that she could be selfish enough to press the button? And by the end, she’s different – acting very selflessly in giving up her life for her child.
Don’t know…Just running off at the mouth here. But I like the fact that the movie makes me wander down those paths – that’s gotta be worth something.
@Bob, “But I’m wondering whether the button being pressed actually does kill anyone else – perhaps it means that YOU will die if you press the button. I know it’s supposed to be someone you don’t know, but there was earlier reference about whether the couple even knew each other. So how well do you even know yourself?”
In the spirit of paranoid 70s filmmaking, that is the best explanation i’ve heard yet for “THE BOX” but man it is still one helluva stretch. The movie has to do what it is doing a bit better for me to give it a pass like that. Talk to me in 10 years and see if I feel any different, but then, I’ll probably be watching Southland Tales, the third directors cut.
That’s sort of what I meant by the button being a red herring. It didn’t occur to me that the button might actually be a way of killing oneself. I know that they have the discussion about “how well do you really know a person”, but to me, when someone says it is someone “whom you do not know” means you’ve never met them and do not know of their existence.
On the choice to kill or not kill Diaz – Agreed Bob. I’m not saying either is necessarily the right choice, but it seems like it’s just an automatic given in the movie as to their choice. I don’t have kids but I like to think that I understand the unconditional and unfathomable love one has for their children. So maybe the decision to them was a no-brainer. However, considering everything they went through for the past few weeks, you would think they would at least examine the possibilities before carrying out such an extreme measure.
Oh – and I also agree the editing made it seem that one thing leads to another. And I think that was on purpose. But I also think it is just coincidence and some sort of metaphor that he’s trying to get across to the audience. Maybe it’s simply the despicable nature of human beings in general. That everyone is destined to walk down the wrong path and make the wrong decisions based on greed.
except that at the end Marsden doesnt act out of greed. If he let Diaz go then they’d get a million dollars.
I suppose. But for me (putting aside the love for the child thing), the decision wouldn’t be based on money. It would be based on me not wanting to blow my dearly beloved wife’s guts all over the livingroom wall. But hey, that’s me.
but I don’t see how his refusal to do that could be called ‘greedy’.
Exactly. I don’t think greed should enter the equation. I’m just saying that the there are positives and negatives to both decisions. Neither is particularly good. For me, personally, the money would have nothing to do with it. I would be weighing the options between having to rename my child Helen Keller or blowing away my wife.
Putting aside Bob’s argument – which I think is totally valid – it would be something to ponder. Then the lady across town would still press the button and everyone in the Marsden household lives. Thereby breaking “the curse.” Or maybe thereby sending the message to Major Langella that we are capable of making decisions based on logic and the betterment of humanity. Though he may get the wrong idea and think it is about greed – which it clearly would not be.
Sheesh, now the analysis of the movie is heading into “SAW” territory, which is not a good thing…
Well…
A) yeah, it is sort of like Saw from the get-go is not? A test by some mysterious overseer of doing the right thing and/or sacrificing someone/something else?
B) Saw one is a great and innovative movie with shitty acting.
C) The more I think about this and the more I realize how much thought can go into this discussion is making me realize, as Bob said, “that’s gotta be worth something.” I’m betting in 10 years you’ll love this movie Kurt. I’m a bit surprised you’re not at least partially on board for doing right all the things that Southland Tales did wrong.
Yeah Kurt, you’ll love this in 10 years. You’ll also hate “Miami Vice” and realize that the dialog in “Deathproof” is really quite bad.
I look forward to that day.
B-)
OK sorry…I couldn’t resist. Don’t hurt me.
Was skimming through this thread and this:
“Marster’s made the “right” decission by killing his wife. So humanity is not doomed for the time being (right?). Ok, I guess.”
made me laugh. Is this guy (Richard Kelly) for real?