By OminousFlare 2 Comments
So, I just finished watching Hard Candy, and while watching Hayley torturing poor little ol' Jeff, a thought popped into my head; Hayley had the same amount of chances to kill Jeff as any supervillain in the world. Even if she did hope for Jeff to learn a hard lesson, she could had skip all the 'Have a drink, you're going to get dehydrated' crap and get on with it. But she didn't. Why?
As far as I'm aware of, most psychopaths like to toy with their victims before slowly skinning them, removing their organs, or taunting them about their pitiful lives. The last example applies mostly suitably for supervillains, of course, but the gradual speed of their elimination methods also apply here. Now, I know most villains who pulled a death trap cliche weren't insane, but think about it. Could the killing methods of real life psychopaths have somewhat influenced the writers into incorporating this concept?
Naturally, superheroes being superheroes, aren't helpless victims waiting for Buffalo Bill to skin their costume, making Death Traps rather silly at best. But I personally feel this plot-device could have been utilized much more effectively in reflecting just how twisted a psychopath's mind could be, that he would rather offer the superhero some water before eliminating the threat. It would definitely turn this whole Death Trap concept around. And as I wrote above, most death-trap setting villains aren't anymore insane than they are plain greedy for the money, but I feel it would kinda give it a more realistic tone, if anything, to base some of these owners of traps on real life psychopaths, incorporating their killing methods (or, better, innovating them) to give villain a better excuse to set a death trap. The villain wanting a slow death for the hero as he was slowly tortured as a child. The villain wanting to make a centerpiece out of the hero's flesh. Anything.
Confession time: I haven't got to the '90s era of Spider-Man comics (or any comic at all), where all the gritty stuff happened, so I don't really have the right to criticize here. These are just some of my thoughts thrown out there, hopefully giving the writers some idea if they are ever to spot this blog in the one in a million chances.
Hard Candy was a little bit overrated, but it's still a breathtaking movie - the first time you watch it. Most of its entertainment comes from its shock values. BUT, don't get me wrong. I'm not implying that it has low cinematic values. It has an excellent script, and is every bit of what a thriller should be. Definitely worth a rewatch, even if it, like sex (ironically enough), won't be as amazing as the first time. :)