34. "Nayman wants a statement; the film presents reality." In response to In response to 32
Nayman called the film "lazily ambivalent" which I wholeheartedly disagree with. It's lazier to make a statement and act like that stance is the answer to what, at this point, is an unanswerable question.
And the idea that not signing the paper is a sign of weakness is a perfect example of a critic seeing things in black and white. The idea that not dying over something that won't change if you do or don't sign it but rather staying alive to possibly fight another day is ridiculous to me.
I feel like people would have preferred a film in which Kate thought she was doing good, slowly realized they were crossing the line, and then takes a stand. I liked this one better because it felt more real to me - someone rushes to help but soon realizes that they are in over their head and might be crossing the line, by the time they figure it out, their team realizes they can't trust her and take her out. She then has to figure out how to survive and maybe how to keep her morals and maybe make a difference.
Of course, the ultimate issue with any film about the drug war is that nobody knows how to make a difference so there's no possibility of a nice epilogue where the hero saves the day or takes the stand that changes everything.
The film has its flaws but I think a lot of the criticism is that the film didn't say what it wanted it to say (and what they wanted it to say isn't actually true.)