Our Sponsor Sideshow Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Off Topic: Off Topic:
The Red Dragon, madness & legal insanity

Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jul 25 2015, 4:24am

Post #1 of 16 (1077 views)
Shortcut
The Red Dragon, madness & legal insanity Can't Post

So tomorrow Richard Armitage debuts as the Red Dragon, Francis Dolarhyde. Although Richard's stated goal is to try to find the "humanity" in his character, I don't think there is any humanity to be found. I've read the book & seen both movies, so I'm pretty familiar with the character. Yes, he's clearly delusional and yes, he suffered horrific child abuse, BUT he also methodically stalks his victims, kills children, and seeks revenge against both a reporter & Will Graham. He is truly a monster. He also has enough sense to try to fake his death by putting another body in a burning house. This got me thinking about insanity in general and legal insanity in particular. The question is, would a real-life Francis Dolarhyde be considered legally insane?

In the USA, the definition of legal insanity (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, but I work in a law school and have discussed this with professors) is generally not knowing the difference between right and wrong, AND not being able to participate in your own defense. Statistically the defense results in acquittal about 5% of the time. John Hinkley tried to kill then President Regan because he was in love with Jodi Foster - he was found not guilty by reason of insanity. On the other hand, Andrea Yates was suffering from post-partum psychosis and was off her meds when she drown her five children - she was initially convicted of 1st degree murder, a conviction which was overturned about 5-6 years later. On her re-trial she was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Both Hinkley and Yates were committed to mental institutions, and as far as I know both are still there.

So would Francis Dolarhyde be convicted or acquitted? Obviously he's a fictional character, whereas Hinkley and Yates were real people, but I would say all three were definitely delusional. But is being delusional the same thing as not knowing the difference between right and wrong? In the case of Dolarhyde, I think his ability to stalk and plan his assaults proves that, while his motivations are delusional his abilities are grounded in the real world. His brutality puts him in the same category as Ted Bundy. And there's the real question: obviously its crazy to want to kill people, but merely being crazy isn't the question. The question is, do they know the difference between right & wrong? Bundy at least attempted to conceal his crime by dumping the bodies in the woods - and not all of his alleged victims were found. Dolarhyde makes no real attempt to conceal his crimes, but the level of planning to me suggests he planned to not get caught, to escape, which to me says he is at least aware that what he's doing is illegal. And again, his level of planning would make any claim that he can't participate in his own defense not credible. So I for one would convict him of 1st degree murder, and yes give him the death penalty. Sorry, Richard.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


swordwhale
Tol Eressea


Jul 25 2015, 2:34pm

Post #2 of 16 (995 views)
Shortcut
kudos to the brilliance that is RA... [In reply to] Can't Post

...don't think I can watch it though...

And while my gut instinct is, in cases like this, to scatter the atoms of the perpetrator/villain to the far corners of the universe, I question the usefulness of the death penalty. i doubt it keeps anyone from committing a crime. i feel like they should be locked away safely for eternity, contemplating their inner insanity.

keep calm and open paddock 9

Na 'Aear, na 'Aear! Mýl 'lain nallol, I sûl ribiel a i falf 'loss reviol...
To the sea, to the sea, the white gulls are crying, the wind is blowing and the white foam is flying...

Member of Manure Movers Local 101, Raptor Wranglers & Rehab, and Night Fury Trainers Assoc. Owned by several cats.






MatthewJer18
Rohan

Jul 25 2015, 7:42pm

Post #3 of 16 (978 views)
Shortcut
Here's a clip from tonight's episode and an interview w/ Richard, if anyone is interested [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.thewrap.com/...ge-red-dragon-video/ (This is the first five minutes of the episode and Dolarhyde's intro.)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/...al-red-dragon-810643


Quote
We learn about his crimes first and then backtrack, did that affect the way you played it too?

Yes. I studied Bryan’s script for 308, but I also looked at the novel that Harris created and I was specific about whether we would see Frances committing those crimes. If we were, it would be something that I probably wouldn’t have been able to take on. I found it too disturbing and it was something that I wouldn’t want to depict on screen. But and in a way that was quite helpful to the character because he has separated himself from his own crimes. When he watches them back on film, he is so abhorred by what he’s done, it takes him to a place of anguish whereby he tries to destroy himself. We really meet the man first before we find out what he’s done and we see him struggling with himself; we see him falling in love. I think it’s an attempt on Harris’ part to make us really look at the paths that are taken by human beings to drive them to such dark places.

What do you make of a character who has this great compassion for love and sensitivity, yet is able to murder an entire family?

It’s a fictional character, but at the same time, as human beings it's easy to make a judgment on somebody. Yes, we must judge their crimes, but it’s also important to understand what it is that brings people to that place. We are all born equal and children are nurtured in a certain way. It’s a little bit of a lottery as to what luck you’re born into and what kind of life is offered to you. In this rare instance, this man has turned into a monster. There’s a real self-awareness in this character, an understanding of what he is and what he’s done. There’s a thrill, but there’s also an abhorrence at himself, which is fascinating to study.


When they talk about finding the "humanity" in the character, I don't think they're trying to suggest that Dolarhyde is actually a great, misunderstood guy on the inside. He clearly isn't. There's no attempt to sugarcoat the fact that he's a murderer who is responsible for the deaths of entire families. At the same time, it's interesting to study what brings people to these dark places and how some objectively bad people can also be capable of moments of sensitivity and empathy. Dolarhyde is simultaneously aware of what he's doing and horrified when he watches the tapes later; that's such a fascinating contrast for an actor to explore.


(This post was edited by MatthewJer18 on Jul 25 2015, 7:48pm)


Elarie
Grey Havens

Jul 25 2015, 11:55pm

Post #4 of 16 (965 views)
Shortcut
Have to disagree on this statement [In reply to] Can't Post

quote: obviously its crazy to want to kill people
------------------------------------------------------

This is a statement that I hear frequently when people are discussing crimes but I couldn't disagree more. I really believe the urge to kill is completely human and has nothing at all to do with being crazy; that it's just one part of the spectrum of all the urges and emotions that humans feel, with different people falling into different places along that spectrum and either acting on those urges or not acting on them, according to their training and temperament. I think a lot of people nowadays just don't want to admit, even to themselves, that they belong to a killer species and so they play with words to cover it up, the same way we package up our meat in the supermarket and don't think about the actual slaughter of the animals because it bothers us. In another forum a few weeks ago I used the word "evil" when discussing the Charleston shootings when everyone else was using the word "crazy" and someone else replied, "there is no such thing as evil" and to that I can only say, "What complete and utter rot". Anyone who has been on the receiving end of evil knows that it exists.

But... to get back to the question of whether Dolarhyde is insane -I don't know - I haven't read the books or seen the movies, but I'm going to give the TV show a try tonight just because I'm so anxious to see what Armitage does with this kind of role and the trailer looks pretty interesting. Hopefully there won't be anything too gruesome and I'll be able to watch the whole story arc. Fingers crossed! Smile

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.

(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Jul 26 2015, 12:23am

Post #5 of 16 (955 views)
Shortcut
Some people are sick; others are sickening. [In reply to] Can't Post

You're right; it is not inherently sick to have a desire to kill. What is sick is to think that killing is justified in order to fulfill one's own delusional desires. On top of that, many people have trouble separating the sick from the sickening. The mother who puts her child in an oven to 'back the devil out of him' is likely to be mentally ill. The husband who beats his wife and kids because he has lost his job and taken to drinking may need help, but he is not sick. The sexual abuser of children might be sick, but his (or her) actions are evil. He may deserve a chance to reform, but recidivism should earn him a bullet in the head.


I'm reminded of what Will said about Dolarhyde in both book and films: Someone took an innocent child and turned him into a monster. You wish you could protect and nurture the boy he once was; at the same time, he needed to be taken down like a mad dog, if necessary.

"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jul 26 2015, 1:50pm

Post #6 of 16 (924 views)
Shortcut
And I have to disagree [In reply to] Can't Post

I think all people are CAPABLE of killing, maybe even think about it from time to time, but the vast majority don't - why? Maybe fear of God, fear of consequences, or maybe just a realization that once taken, a human life can never be given back. But there are those that do, and if we disregard war or self-defense, the reasons are often anger/jealousy or money. And then you've got serial killers like Ted Bundy (a real life Tooth Fairy, if you want to read something truly disturbing), who seemed to kill for sport, for pleasure, and for some sexual gratification. Even he admitted it was crazy, as in pretty abnormal. Obviously Andrea Yates was completely off her rocker; as a mother I really can't see why she killed her children except that she was crazy. I guess in this instance "crazy" is something way outside the norm - and more severe than just shaving one side of your head or something.

I'd be interested in your take on last night's episode - I think it could be difficult for someone who's not read the book or seen either of the previous movies to know what Richard was doing, or Will for that matter.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jul 26 2015, 2:21pm

Post #7 of 16 (913 views)
Shortcut
1st episode & the Insanity plea *spoilers* [In reply to] Can't Post

First off, I really don't want to discuss the death penalty here (Lord knows some of my posts have really taken a life of their own), but the insanity plea, which as I mentioned results in acquittal only about 5% of the time. I imagine that most jurors will dismiss it because it's all too easy to say it, and because they can't get past the crime itself. A fine example is the recent conviction of James Holmes, the Colorado theater gunman.

And yet in TV Land, Hannibal Lecter is found not guilty by reason of insanity. Well, it was in the book, but statistically I think he'd get the needle, which again makes me wonder if the USA has the right definition for legal insanity. A guy as intelligent as Hannibal would surely be seen as capable of participating in his own defense, so what does that even have to do with anything? Someone with an IQ below 70 may not be able to participate in his/her own defense, but they are not "crazy," they are just (for lack of a better word) developmentally disabled - not the same thing at all. Other arguments for insanity are that the killer didn't know the difference between right and wrong AT THE TIME they killed, again something extremely difficult to prove. And if the killer makes any attempt to conceal the crime, well I think that blows the argument out of the water. Andrea Yates not only made no attempt, she called the police & turned herself in, but she is one I would have called crazy. I guess I'd call Hannibal crazy as well, just the nature of the crime was so abnormal, but I don't see how he's legally insane. I once read an article about serial killers that claimed the very fact that they were serial killers (again, something way outside the norm of even 1st degree murder) should be proof enough of insanity, yet the crime would almost always result in a death penalty conviction. I don't really agree with that conclusion, because the issue isn't insanity so much as legal insanity, or maybe criminal insanity would be a better word.

As I mentioned to another poster, I'd be interested in anyone's take on last night's episode. I imagine that would be tough for first time viewers to follow - and very interesting that Richard said he didn't really want to be committing the crimes, but rather dealing with the aftermath. I'm not sure Francis was really "horrified" by what he did, *spoiler!* until he started dating Reba, *spoiler* but then again it's been a long time since I've read the book and I can't seem to find my copy anywhere - GRRRRR!!!!!

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Elarie
Grey Havens

Jul 26 2015, 2:55pm

Post #8 of 16 (911 views)
Shortcut
Last night's episode [In reply to] Can't Post

Spoilers? Not sure if any of this is really spoilers but just in case...
.
.
.
Well, I watched the episode and was pretty riveted and didn't find it too gory to watch except for a few seconds when I did literally cover my eyes, but the rest was OK enough for me to watch. I think I understood what was going on with RA's character simply because I've read several articles about it and a couple of his interviews, so I wasn't really lost in terms of who he was and who Will was and why Hannibal was in that room and so on, although I have no idea who the dark haired woman is. And the way the scenes were photographed and the way Will reconstructed the crime in the house was very cool - I wasn't prepared for that and loved the way they did it, especially the "ghostly" images with the flashlight. (Of course he went at night and used a flashlight instead of just turning on the lights when he came in - that actually made me laugh a little bit.)

As for RA's performance, I just thought it was super intriguing and chilling. On the one hand you have this physically beautiful man (even with the scar) who normally people would be attracted to, but on the other hand his subtle mannerisms and facial expressions are sending out some very scary signals. I thought the balance was perfect - this is not an obvious guy that you would cross the street to avoid, but a short amount of time in his company would raise warning signals in your mind and you get a real sense that something is not right. Great stuff and I've surprised myself by looking forward to the next episode very much and finding out more about all the characters but especially Dolarhyde.

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.

(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jul 26 2015, 8:49pm

Post #9 of 16 (875 views)
Shortcut
RA's performance [In reply to] Can't Post

Okay, that's good. I think I get what he was trying to do, almost pantomime in some scenes, and then that weird one where it looked like lights coming out of his eyes and mouth. That may be a reference to the broken mirror pieces on the victim's faces. In fact I thought the scene where he broke the mirror and was looking at two distorted images of himself was both artistic and explanatory. I have to give this series props for some really creative, artistic filming, even if I understand why it was cancelled. It does drag at times. I can't wait to hear him talk! It's interesting what you said about his appearing so normal, even attractive Wink, and yet sending off vibes that would make others stay away. What I remember from the book was that he was NOT an attractive man, certainly didn't see himself as such, and was certainly socially inept and kept to himself because of it. Of course, I may not be remembering that right, and since I can't find my book I can't double-check.Mad

Btw, the dark-haired lady is Dr. Amanda Bloom, who used to work with Jack (Lawrence Fishburn) and Will in the FBI. She's not in the book. Apparently Hannibal has promised to kill her, hm. Hannibal was more of a supporting character in "The Red Dragon," and didn't escape until "Silence of the Lambs," so I think it's unlikely he'll kill her before the series ends - but 'ya never know! As for Will not turning on the light, he was trying to re-create the scene in his mind, and since the Tooth Fairy didn't turn on lights, neither did he. That's his talent, being able to get inside the mind of the killer. He was one of the first profilers written about. I always thought it was funny that William Peterson, the original chief of "CSI" played Will Graham in "Manhunter," which is "Red Dragon" by another name. Good movie and definitely gruesome, and definitely didn't make Dolarhyde look sympathetic. If anyone can do that it's Richard, but honestly I don't think even HE can do that. But if he does, he should get an Emmy for sure.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Altaira
Superuser


Jul 26 2015, 11:09pm

Post #10 of 16 (865 views)
Shortcut
A note for clarification [In reply to] Can't Post

First, thanks Kilidoescartwheels, for letting me post this in your thread. Smile

There's been some confusion lately about when it's okay to post about a show, movie, etc. other than in the weekly 'What Have You Been Watching' (WHYBW) thread. This is a great example of a thread that's in the 'grey' area. Although it's based on a movie, it encourages non-movie-related OT discussion. The part of the thread that discusses a particular episode is a perfect example of something that should wait for the weekly WHYBW thread. The part that's not is a perfect example of something that goes 'outside' the movie to explore larger themes. Thus, the gray area.

In this case, I wouldn't lock the thread because there's enough discussion that's not just about the movie. Any topic that *is* just to discuss a movie or TV show, however, should wait until the weekly thread.

Again, the reason behind the weekly thread in the first place is because the OT board was occasionally becoming overrun with individual threads devoted to one movie or one show, pushing other OT topics off of page one. Hopefully, this helps clarify a little for anyone who might be confused.


Koru: Maori symbol representing a fern frond as it opens. The koru reaches towards the light, striving for perfection, encouraging new, positive beginnings.



"Life can't be all work and no TORn" -- jflower

"I take a moment to fervently hope that the camaradarie and just plain old fun I found at TORn will never end" -- LOTR_nutcase





Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jul 27 2015, 2:51am

Post #11 of 16 (845 views)
Shortcut
Thanks for not locking it [In reply to] Can't Post

Elarie and I were talking about the episode, but most of the conversation is about the shows subject matter of insanity. The show was just the launching point. I understand why you try to keep the threads under control. This thread is really my rambling thoughts, started by watching last night's episode. Sometimes my brain works in mysterious ways.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Elarie
Grey Havens

Jul 27 2015, 11:53am

Post #12 of 16 (817 views)
Shortcut
Sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

We really did start out talking about insanity and the use of the word "crazy", etc. but then somehow the conversation veered off into RA-world...

Hmmm.....Strange how that keeps happening....BlushTongueSmile

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.

(Old Icelandic Fe rune poem)


Annael
Immortal


Jul 27 2015, 2:31pm

Post #13 of 16 (791 views)
Shortcut
I think it's a bit more complicated [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
who seemed to kill for sport, for pleasure


Sane people kill in self-defense or in defense of others, for money or other social advantage, or out of jealousy or envy (two different things: jealousy is when you think someone is going to take away something you have, envy is when you think they have something you can't ever have and you destroy it so they can't have it either - terrorism can be seen as the extreme form of envy, although usually the terrorist himself justifies it as some kind of self-defense).

Insane people kill because something's wrong with their brains. It could be brain chemistry, which I think is the case with Yates; or it could be far more complicated and result from early and extreme abuse that has warped the person's cognitive abilities as well as their pleasure/pain circuits. A sociopath or psychopathic person simply does not reason as a sane person does; nor do they seek or receive pleasure in "normal" ways. Instead they have been twisted so that their ideas of, as you say, "sport" or "pleasure" or sex involve harming someone else. There's an addictive component as well, and addiction also changes brain chemistry. So such people tend to escalate their activities over time because they don't get the same "high" from just repeating the act. Most serial killers start out with animals, but in time that's just not enough. But at the same time they are usually aware that it's wrong, just as an addict know. The Lovely Bones brought this out, that the killer knew what he did was wrong and tried, by killing animals instead, to assuage his need to kill a child, but in time the urge got too strong.

For this reason my main charity is an organization that seeks to stop the cycle of abuse and help families with young children all learn better ways of dealing with their own anger and pain. Getting to the little kids as early as possible is, I believe, the only way to prevent this form of insanity. By the time a child is a preteen it's probably already too late.

We certainly do seem fascinated with serial killers. Why?

(btw a friend of mine dated Ted Bundy way back in the day. He was active in the local Republican Party & her dad was the local chairman; she thinks he was trying to please her father. Fortunately she wasn't his "type" . . .)

I am a dreamer of words, of written words. I think I am reading; a word stops me. I leave the page. The syllables of the words begin to move around … The words take on other meanings as if they had the right to be young.

-- Gaston Bachelard

* * * * * * * * * *

NARF and member of Deplorable Cultus since 1967


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jul 27 2015, 4:21pm

Post #14 of 16 (778 views)
Shortcut
WOW! [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm really glad your friend wasn't his "type" either, YIKES!Shocked

I don't know if I'm so fascinated by them as just trying to figure them out. And since I work at a law school alot of bizarre legal topics tend to come up in conversation with professors. My personal theory is that we've always had "serial killers," but because of wars and other conflicts they were able to hide their atrocities more easily. But during peacetime that becomes more difficult, and of course in more modern times there were reports and newspapers that probably made it easier for the public to realize what was going on. I doubt Jack the Ripper was the first serial killer, but he was the first one reported on in such detail. Maybe our "fascination" stems from what I said earlier, about how the vast majority of us will NEVER kill anyone, so why does someone like Ted Bundy or James Holmes do it? It's like watching a horror movie with vampires & werewolves, or Jason and Freddie - except that they are real, which is actually even more scary. You are right, if we could figure this out and better predict who will or won't, and intervene early, that would save alot of heartache. Then again, Bundy and Holmes are as different as they come, so such predictions won't be so easy.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Jul 28 2015, 2:39pm

Post #15 of 16 (700 views)
Shortcut
Here's an interesting story [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...re-they-were-famous/

Since we were talking about Bundy - odd that right after our conversation this article would come up. I read a bio of his called, if I remember correctly, "The Only Living Witness," written by 2 journalists after Bundy was convicted. One of the journalists was fairly anti-death penalty BEFORE the interviews, but afterward decided it was an appropriate thing to do for someone like Ted, and he wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Okay, and I have a book about Jack the Ripper, maybe I am a little fascinated by them.Crazy

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


Brethil
Half-elven


Jul 28 2015, 4:44pm

Post #16 of 16 (694 views)
Shortcut
A fabulous Bundy insight, FYI [In reply to] Can't Post

is 'The Stranger Beside Me', by Ann Rule. She knew him, as a good friend, and as a crime reporter followed the crimes of the anonymous new thing, a 'serial killer'. Until he wasn't anonymous anymore. If you read it, get the latest edition as she added updated material over the years. Some fabulous personal and professional info in there.


I've taken care of a few serial killers. They were very mild mannered people, not threatening at all. Part of the danger.








 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.