Introduction to Insomnia
Insomnia was not just a film about a murderer and a policeman; it was much more than that. It diagnosed conscience as an integral part of a policeman's work, as well as the concepts of honesty and honor that fall under the umbrella of conscience. There are always two logics behind a policeman's work: the first is applying the principle of justice in every detail, even at the expense of ultimate justice, and the second is applying the principle of achieving ultimate justice, even if justice is shaken in the details.
Certainly, there were very important observations about the work of the policeman, which may touch on sensitive aspects of his personality, the negatives and positives of which are reflected in his work, so that ultimate justice becomes hostage to personal whims.
Many police officers are oblivious to their mistakes and refuse to admit them, driven by an unwavering belief that they are right and that their actions are for the good of society.
Sometimes the fog that leads to error resides in our minds, not just in our surroundings. Things may seem ordinary at first glance, but a closer, more scrutinizing look is what complicates everything.
The film "Insomnia" is filled with many excellent scenes that captivate you with their dialogue and masterful acting. However, here we will focus on the key scenes that drive the plot developments in "Insomnia."
.jpg "Insomnia poster")
Number one
The first scene was the chase through the fog, in which Officer Hap was killed. The closer we zoom in, the more the fog seems to thicken, leaving it to the viewer's imagination. You can assume good faith and no intent, or you can assume malicious intent and premeditation, but there's no direct or explicit confirmation of either.
This scene marked a significant turning point in the plot for three reasons. First, Will Dormer's assistant officer had been killed, necessitating a separate investigation. Second, Will Dormer had to clear himself of suspicion, as it would be devastating. Third, Walter Finch witnessed the murder and overheard Happ's words to Will, further complicating matters, as he now possessed leverage over Will, who was handling his case.
Firing impulsively in foggy conditions is highly improbable, especially for a seasoned police officer like Dormer. However, this doesn't definitively prove he intended to shoot, as Walter also had a gun and had already shot a police officer during the chase. Therefore, Dormer's impulsive action was somewhat plausible.
Hap's reaction was violent and painful. When Dormer rushed to his aid, he pushed Dormer away, his eyes filled with accusation. He was dying, accusing Dormer of shooting him. Dormer tried to explain, but his explanation seemed weak to Hap, who had died at the hands of his friend.
Dormer's initial reaction was shock. He desperately tried to save Hap, but seeing and hearing Hap's accusation that he had intentionally shot him only deepened his trauma. He tried to clarify the situation, but to no avail.
The scene is powerful and directly impacts the events, and it carries the fire of suspicion toward Dormer, who was not even 100% sure of himself. The scene was filmed with quality and skill, maintaining a balance on both sides, with deliberate killing on one side and none on the other, which contributed greatly to the scene's strength and to Al Pacino’s balanced performance.
Number two
The scene that brought Dormer (Al Pacino) and Walter Finch (Robin Williams) together on the ferry, followed by a lengthy conversation about the murders of Kay Connell and Hap, saw Walter convince Dormer that they shared a common cause, as neither of them had actually intended to kill, and it was all an accident.
It was a scene filled with back-and-forth exchanges. Walter tried to justify his actions, saying he had never touched her like that before and that the murder had deeply affected him. He was implicitly trying to influence Dormer by instilling in him a profound sense of guilt for something he hadn't truly meant to do.
But Dormer had already grasped the whole situation and told him directly that this wouldn't win him any sympathy and that, ultimately, he had killed her because, deep down, he had intended to touch her and get closer to her.
From that point on, Walter immediately tried to change the subject, bringing up the killing of Happ. He analyzed what had happened in the fog, arguing that it wasn't a mistake and that he had clearly seen what transpired from his position. He questioned why Dormer hadn't told them it was an accident.
Walter went further, suggesting that Dormer should feel relieved about what had happened because Happ, Dormer's partner in previous cases, would have testified to the unvarnished truth, potentially ruining Dormer's reputation and future.
However, Dormer didn't respond or attempt to justify or persuade him with logical arguments. He tried to tell Walter that raising this point in the investigation would turn against him. But Walter was trying to create a balance, hoping to find a way to deflect suspicion from himself. He threw the ball into Dormer's court, and Dormer readily accepted.
They then agreed on how to proceed with the confrontation at the police station when Walter was questioned about what had happened.
It was a fascinating and incredibly important scene that lasted several minutes. It felt like a mini-match between the two sides, each trying to impose their style of play to control the flow of the game and, ultimately, the final result.
The feeling I sensed from them was mutual fear. Dormer feared ruining his legacy and future, while Walter feared conviction, imprisonment, or execution.
Both stars in this scene delivered wonderful performances, showing both anxiety and strength. Their eyes and features conveyed anticipation of the other's reaction, and what is beautiful about the scene is the smoothness of the dialogue and the strength of the hypotheses presented, as if each of them is exploring the depths of the other to see the truth.
Number three
The scene in which he spoke with the homeowner about a previous case he and his friend Hap had investigated revealed much about Dormer as a police officer who sought only absolute justice, regardless of details that might not lead to it.
Dormer's conversation with the woman revealed that he had presented false evidence to incriminate the kidnapper and murderer of the child. He knew the man was a murderer, but lacked any real evidence to convict him. Therefore, he did what he believed was right to achieve absolute justice, fabricating the evidence himself.
The conversation implied that the old case was about to be reopened for further investigation and a more thorough examination of what had actually happened. His friend Hap would reveal the unvarnished truth, without embellishment, which could completely incriminate Dormer and potentially lead to the child killer's release.
This scene demonstrated Dormer's inner turmoil, his struggle with a conscience that needed to be tempered, even momentarily, to allow for absolute justice. Dormer was overwhelmed by guilt over the man who killed the child, and he was trying to find solace in the woman's testimony.
But the woman's concise words dispelled his confusion. She told him that what he believed at the time was right, and that whatever his conscience would accept and live with was the most appropriate course of action. This eased a part of him about his past dealings with the child's killer and paved the way for his next move regarding his murdered friend, Hap.
However, the woman's reliance on emotion alone when making crucial decisions about others is, in my opinion, completely illogical. Passions and feelings can easily become intertwined, giving us false or misleading indications, and our feelings are not always accurate.
Insufficient evidence is also a facet of achieving absolute justice. For example, a habitual criminal cannot be convicted unless there is irrefutable evidence of their guilt, not merely because our intuition tells us they are guilty. As long as they are a habitual criminal, I find it perfectly just to acquit someone for whom there is insufficient evidence.
This scene is very important in the film. It clarifies past events that are connected to the present, highlighting a part of the truth and a glimpse of what will happen next.
Al Pacino's performance with the woman was also brilliant, conveying a great deal of remorse that instantly transformed into peace of mind, and from doubt about a previous decision to a firm belief in the correctness of the decision made at the time.
Number Four
In short, this is the scene of Officer Dormer's death, and the brilliance of his words to Officer Ellie, who tried to discard the evidence incriminating Dormer. He immediately stopped her, telling her she must be fair and uphold the truth, even if it meant sacrificing someone she loved or going against her own desires.
This is what Dormer finally realized. But in his final moments, which left the audience deeply saddened, he is now paying the price for tampering with the evidence in an attempt to rectify the situation.
The question I pose to you, the viewers, is: Did Dormer deserve to have his name preserved without a single trace of doubt, or to have his name and reputation tarnished after his death by tampering with evidence and the accidental killing of his colleague?
Comments
Post a Comment