Talk:Frailty (2001 film)

Spelling
The IMDB cast list shows the surname as Meiks rather than Meeks, although their plot summary agrees with the latter. Where can we find the definitive spelling? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I just looked at the credits, and their surname isn't listed, so I guess it's up for debate. --Closedmouth 04:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The back of the VHS lists the name as Meiks. I've, therefore, made the appropriate changes. &quot;Country&quot; Bushrod Washington 17:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The subtitles in the DVD spell it Meiks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.34.243 (talk • contribs) 00:24, February 16, 2007


 * Really? I must have a really crappy DVD then. I'll double check... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGyverMagic (talk • contribs) 20:11, November 10, 2008

The "God's Hand" killer
"However, the "God's Hand" killer is the real Fenton, who kept the bodies of his victims as trophies in his house basement." Why did Fenton kill people? I thought, Fenton did not believe in the visions of his father and brother... --Moscvitch (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fenton was a serial killer and killed for pleasure, supposedly because he really was a "demon". Annie D (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Moscvitch (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, he was probably physcologically damaged by his father who killed the demons.Androo123 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fenton was emulating the actions of his Father and Brother in later times to "mock" them. Fenton knew he had a demon in him and why his own father hesitated in killing him. The "actual" killings done my Adam and his father were never discovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.132.63 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to the previous statements, it is mentioned by Adam that Fenton killed in the name of the God's Hand killer in order to lure out Adam. That Fenton used the nickname to lure out Adam is clearly mentioned in the article. Scoochi2 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this story is based on the story of Joseph Kallinger? I'm not sure if it is or not, but I just learned about Kallinger today and there are some striking similarities: Kallinger murdered people with his young son, claiming that he was directed by God His older son accused him of child abuse (with two other children out of Kallinger's 7), but then recanted. The son, Joey, was later murdered, his body found in an abandoned basement. Kallinger was evidently digging a giant hole in his backyard or basement... to meditate in or something? I can find no documentation about this. Anyway, maybe some serial killer buff will know more. Uncleosbert (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Rating of Movie
At the bottom of the page, at the details section, it says the rating is R (restricted +18). But I saw this movie at school, surely the teacher did not make us watch a R movie?!Androo123 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just checked the imdb page, it says the film's rated R there, too. Annie D (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The Greatest Game Ever Played?
Why is a link to this movie at the bottom of the article? Can someone explain the purpose to me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.40 (talk) 01:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Perception versus reality
Many who have seen this film have shared interpretations of what constitutes reality in the story that make it much less clear-cut than the plot of this entry would have one understand. As a reference point I'll submit a link at the end to Roger Ebert's review that presents this issue well.

To this I add my takeaway, which involves how the frame narrative that begins with "Fenton" telling the story of how it all began in turn weaves in many possible interpretations, not just making it Fenton's (or subsequently Adam's) perspective, or what either would have Agent Doyle believe. It also becomes Doyle's perception, who serves as our proxy, hearing the story that conjures all the images we see and hear ourselves.

In other words, what constitutes reality here depends upon whose narrative you believe. What Paxton achieved is a story that challenges our perceptions about the ostensible reality presented by a film narrative. We should ask ourselves: At what point do we suspend our (dis)belief and accept that some narrative plot point is in fact objective reality when, up to that point, it had been presented as a subjective work of the imagination?

Even until the end it remains an ambiguous tale about what we choose to believe, or are indeed tricked into believing. What I find particularly flawed in the plot section of this article is how it takes subsequent claims by the narrator of the frame story (Fenton/Adam) and places them unquestioned within the back story as objective fact. Case in point: Later in the film, we see images of Adam "seeing" what his father had "seen". These explicit images are presented the first time when he ultimately says he had believed his father from the very beginning. But the plot of this article places this scene as if it is an objective reality within a linear narrative.

First, given the twist that Fenton turns out to be Adam (only as far as we can ever know) in the framing, it only gives us another reason to question what he claims to be the truth. His visions are just as likely delusions implanted into an impressionable child's imagination who'd want to believe his father is a righteous man and not a delusional psychopath. Let alone can we rule out any detail instead being an outright lie.

Even as we are presented with the "showdown at the rose garden", whereby ostensibly it is revealed via visions that Doyle murdered his mother, which in turn would ostensibly support the father's having been truthful all along, we should ask ourselves: Why should Doyle's admission of guilt mean the visions are real? As Doyle notes, "Fenton" is quite the detective. Just as it is possible that an agent of the law such as Doyle can murder his own mother, so too is it possible that the devious mind of an amateur "demon detective" like Adam could be subject to the grand delusions of his father in spite of the fact that he successfully cracked the case of Mother Doyle's murder.

In other words, his detective skills can be real, but that doesn't mean the visions of which he speaks (and we by default then see) are real, only that he says he believes they are. Adam's ultimate claim that he believed his father from the beginning via received visions would call into question his reliability as a narrator, and by extension ours as a reliable interpreter of the "true tale".

After the link to the following review is a quote I think would serve this entry well: https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/frailty-2002 "The sons and father are trapped in a household seemingly ruled by fanaticism. There is, however, the intriguing fact that when Dad touches his victims, he has graphic visions of their sins--he can see vividly why they need to be killed. Are these visions accurate? We see them, too, but it's unclear whether through Dad's eyes or the movie's narrator--if that makes a difference." 77.191.162.172 (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)