Well we have different opinions. I was talking about Guy Pearce's face being changed, not his outfit. In my reply I said nothing was wrong with Joaquin and Jeremy's clothes. They looked too much like their actor selves as opposed to their characters. I could have cited others who do face changes for characters. Gary Oldman is another example.
I don't understand what you mean by his face...he looks like Guy Pearce.
I suppose this is more of an issue with the make up artist than anything, the characters are plain and ordinary people. Just like people would have looked back then. Marion Cotillard's make up is very natural looking, appearing as if her character isn't wearing any at all.
I'd argue Joaquin Phoenix looks a bit weary in this film.
My statement about maybe they got jacked before they got on the train by other corrupt officials or some general low life predators like who ever it was that raped them on the ship and caused the "person of low morals" to be added about them on the ships manifest record.
This didn't really seem likely to me, the police would have no reason to believe they had even left NYC. They would have no reason to stop
that specific train.
Also, if Bruno is confessing, that pretty much puts them in the clear.
To me they were back at square one and the fog represented the gray area of the world. Here are two decent women with only each other headed out into a world of hopefully more good people than bad.
The film seemed to imply that Ewa and Madga escaped and it was now Bruno who was in that situation. So I'd say the film came full circle in a way, except that it really hasn't. Bruno has an epiphany and chooses to confess. He's not a prisoner, there's something liberating about his atonement. Very much like one feels after they have just converted to something, I suppose that's the only way I can explain it.
Either way you look at it, Bruno has promised to put them in the clear by confessing to the police.
They could have had a one minute scene where they were on a train and it pulled into some CA station. Although that would not have exempt them from other advantage takers but would have shown something better toward her sister's TB situation.
Why? What would be the purpose of this? It would redundant story telling. We know they're going to CA, we don't worry about them anymore because Bruno has reassured them that he will confess to Emil's death.
Also, the whole point is that this is a story about Immigration through Ellis Island and New York City. Most Immigrants ended up moving away from New York City after they landed on Ellis Island, but the story of their hardship is really about New York and Ellis Island.
As for the lay dying statement, Joaquin said he thought his jaw was broken from his beating by the cops. Yes, the opium made him woozy but a bone infection can lead to death.
This seems a bit unlikely, at the worst it would heal awkwardly.
And we would definitely know at this point if his jaw were infected and if he were in need of a hospital.
But this isn't even the point. the very fact that you are having these thoughts about Bruno's character, shows how effective the ending is. You want to know what happens to Bruno after the end of the film. You want to know whether he lives or dies, or hangs for Emil's death.
It doesn't matter what the police departments thinks or wants. What matters is what the jury, judge, lawyers, and court of law takes into account during the actual trial he will likely face. The police can try their best to skew his story, but at the end of the day he has a lot more going for him than that. But that's my logical perspective of the whole situation. What would really cement his case to the jury would be a witness reinforcing a murder in self defense.
Even a crime of passion wouldn't have necessarily lead to the death penalty back then. Most people who tended to get the electric chair did it for carefully thought out cases of first degree murder.
But in general, the point is that Bruno has atoned for his misdeeds. Whether or not he goes to jail or hangs isn't as important as atonement.
Lawyers always point out people with motives that are questionable (or low morals like hookers and pimps) and someone who has already lied as a doubtful witness. Since we saw none of what happened to him, he may very well have faced a murder rap or died from infection.
He may...but is that likely? Is that the most logical ending? He could theoretically die of pneumonia in prison, he could die crossing the street, or drown on his way back to the shore. He could kill himself later on.
Also, why would his Lawyer purposely argue against him?
The police department did not care for him, that's because he probably owed them money and favors. But a lawyer isn't necessarily in the same camp as the police. Neither is the court, neither is the jury. Just my thoughts.
If a witness says that Emil held a gun to his head, the case is pretty much over. Even the most corrupt cop or lawyer couldn't explain that away.
reply
share