Maybe That is True Friendship: Brokedown Palace (1999)

Next up in our Girl Power series, Jonathan Kaplan's Brokedown Palace.

Though there have been countless comparisons between Kaplan's 1999 film and the much more successful (both critically and commercially) Midnight Express, Brokedown Palace, at least in my opinion, stands on its own.

Perhaps the biggest difference between these two films, and what I believe to be Brokedown's both greatest strength and greatest frustration, is the ambiguity of the characters.

The film tells the story of two American best friends and recent high school graduates, Alice and Darlene. Like so many films about teen girls that have come before it, Brokedown Palace juxtaposes its two main characters.  Darlene is the "good one" while Alice is the "bad one." Before Darlene leaves for college, the girls decide to have one last trip. Instead of going to Hawaii as originally planned, they decide to go to Thailand without telling anyone.

Photo credit: ofalltime

The trip is cut short, however, when the girls meet a charming Australian man calling himself “Nick Parks.” Both girls are completely infatuated with him and, using his endless supply of charisma, Nick convinces them to meet him in Hong Kong.  All hell breaks loose while the girls are in line waiting to board their flight to Hong Kong.  As sirens begin roaring, the girls are stopped by Thai police, who discover heroin in the carry-on bag. The rest of the film covers the girls' time in a Thai women's prison and the people they encounter along the way.  They form unlikely friendships, both with fellow inmates and a compassionate guard.  They have occasional run-ins with the "bully" of the prison, but even she is shown to not be as heartless as she seems.  The main struggle of the film is that of their lawyer, known as “Yankee Hank,” as he tries to put the pieces of the puzzle together to show the girls' inocence. All while dealing with the greatest villian of the film: a corrupt justice system.

I have watched this film several times, and still, every time I do, I notice different things that can make me believe one way or the other about the innocence of the girls.

**SPOILER ALERT**

Though the film ends with Alice confessing to smuggling the drugs in, it is unclear, even in the final moments of the film, what the truth actually is. As she is leaving the prison, Darlene confronts Alice about lying to the court so Darlene could be released.  Alice replies:

“If I say it was the truth, you'll hate me. And if I say I lied, then when you go home, all the time you're there with your family, you won't be able to just be happy. So let's just say that it was the right thing to do.”

Was it the right thing to do?

There a several scenes throughout the film that point to Alice's guilt.

1. Alice is the last one to see Nick Parks and talk to him about the impending trip to Hong Kong.
2. Alice is the last one left alone with the bag carrying the heroin and even asks the bellhop to wait for a minute when he comes to take the girls' bags.
3. When the girls are first brought in to be interrogated, Alice falls asleep while waiting, which seems odd for someone just arrested for a crime they did not commit.  I know that if I were arrested in an unfamiliar country for something I didn't do, I'd be far too terrified to even think about sleeping.  Though, despite not being shown very well, I think the reason for her sleeping was that she had been left in the same room for hours.

Yet, despite all of these scenes, I believe Alice is innocent.

“Yankee Hank” discovers that the man calling himself “Nick Parks” is a known smuggler with connections to the Thai Minister of Justice. Also, the airport customs office was tipped off while the flight was boarding by someone with a (surprise surprise!) Australian accent.

Many viewers debate about how the drugs wound up in the carry-on bag, offering different ideas. The most promising I have heard is that the bag carrying the heroin was switched with another by the bellhop as he loaded the bags into the trunk of the taxi. (The camera shot conveniently does not show the ground or the bellhop from behind.)

Whether or not the girls were actively involved with the smuggling could be debated for hours, and I'd love to hear your thoughts if you have seen this film. Do you think Alice was completely innocent? What about Darlene?

Perhaps the more important debate has to do with Alice's choice at the end of the film, assuming she is innocent.

Relating to an earlier scene in the film, Alice states during her confession:

“Here in Thailand you believe that what one friend does the other one knows about. Maybe that is true friendship, but I am an American, and I was not that good of a friend to her.”

Photo credit: Fox 2000 Pictures

What makes a “good friend”? By confessing, Alice has to serve the remainder of both her and Darlene's sentences. The full sentences, not subtracting the time already served by both, add up to a total of 96 years.

Call me selfish, but as much as we all love to say that we would do anything for those we love most, 90+ years in prison seems like a pretty big favor. As much as I love my friends, I can't honestly say I would do this for them if I were in Alice's shoes.

What do you think? Was the judgment fair? Would you be willing to spend the rest of your life in prison for a friend? If you were guilty? If you were innocent?

Up next in our Girl Power series:  Teen Witch (1989).

To return to the beginning of the series, click here.

One of a Kind. Like Someone's Face: My Own Private Idaho (1991)

As many of you know, the Oscars were this past weekend, and like me, I'm sure you noticed the prevalence of one thing. Rain Phoenix.

Okay. So maybe I was the only one.  Nevertheless, each time the camera would focus in on Rain, I couldn't help thinking of her brother. No, not the one who pretended to have a drug problem in his infamous mockumentary, the one who sadly did succumb to one. The late River.

River's greatest artistic achievement was his role in the first film covered on this little blog adventure of mine, Gus Van Sant's My Own Private Idaho.

Released in 1991, My Own Private Idaho was a film that was definitely ahead of its time. By combining a modern day retelling of Shakespeare's Henry IV with the story of a homeless narcoleptic young man in search of his mother, Van Sant succeeded in proving that regardless of time period, the essential element of a good story is its characters.

Photo credit: One From RM

The character played by River Phoenix, Mike, broke a number of taboos held in Hollywood at the time.

The product of an incestuous relationship between mother and son, Mike is a young gay prostitute during the AIDS epidemic of the late 1980s-early 1990s. Yet, unlike what the mainstream media was characterizing boys and men like Mike as at the time, the film does not portray him as deviant or even unique. He is simply a boy looking for love.

Mike believes he has found that love in Keanu Reeves' Scott, the son of the mayor of Portland and the modern-day version of Henry IV. Scott immerses himself in Mike's world of street kids as a direct act of defiance against his prim and proper father.

Mike and Scott are a study in character contrast.  Van Sant emphasizes this difference blatantly through the use of Shakespearean-inspired dialogue whenever the film is focusing on Scott’s storyline.  Whenever we move back to Mike’s world, we are once again back to the everyday diction one would hear on the street.  By changing up the vocabulary, we are reminded of where Mike and Scott each come from, their backgrounds and what is ultimately expected of their future.

The character of Mike is exceptionally sympathetic, due in part to Phoenix’s authentic portrayal.  We see Mike as he falls into several of his narcoleptic fits.  His quiet, meek demeanor shows an endearing vulnerability that makes the viewer want to just take him home and give him a better life.  Like a lost puppy sitting on the curb in the pouring rain. 

Scott, on the other hand, is much more theatrical, and appropriately so, considering the inspiration for his character.  Scott goes out of his way to dress in overly “trashy” ways and make unnecessary scenes, all with the ultimate goal of displeasing and embarrassing his father.

The core difference between these two best friends is perhaps best summed up by a short moment in the film when they are confronted by a police officer.

Mike, being a kid of the streets his whole life, immediately runs, though he has not done anything wrong. Scott, not comprehending what the big deal is, watches confusedly as his friend dashes away, conversing with the cop as normally as he would anyone else.

This scene is immediately followed by what is considered by many, myself included, to be the most memorable moment in the film.  Stranded, the two boys are sitting around a campfire in the night when Mike at last confesses his feelings for Scott.

The confession is done in such a subtle and genuine way that the viewer can feel the emotions Mike is experiencing.  The fear.  The anxiety.  The longing.  Regardless of gender or sexual orientation, anyone can understand those feelings.  The pain of unrequited love.

Again demonstrating the pioneering quality of this film, though Scott does not return his friend's feelings, he accepts them and their friendship remains intact.

But sadly, the dream must end, the two boys' pasts rising from sleep to make themselves known once again.

Scott meets and supposedly falls in love with a young Italian woman, taking her back to the States with him, leaving Mike stranded in Italy. The two boys do not see each other again until after Scott has married the young woman and completely transformed himself into the man his father had always wanted him to be, becoming part of the world he had claimed to detest so much.

It is not until this far into the film, almost at the end, when the complexity of Scott's character is fully realized.

He becomes what his father had always wanted.  Does that mean that he was acting the entire time he was with Mike?  What about his relationship with Mike?  Did he never care about him at all or in fact plan to eventually leave him the whole time?

This theory would hold true if it were not for the subtle moments during Scott’s final scenes in the film.  When he is met with reminders of his past, confronted by the people he once knew, the ambivalence is clear on his face.  He yearns for the life he had with Mike, and yet he will not leave his new position.

The complexity of this moment just goes to show that this is not a fairy tale. There are no happy endings. Scott remains a member of high society while Mike continues living among the streets.  As the film ends, you feel as if you have come to know these characters on a strangely personal level.  It's like you've entered their world and come with them on this journey, seeing their innermost thoughts.  The fun, the love, the fear, the confusion.  The feeling of being young but still plagued by a sense of hopelessness.  This is encapsulated in the final frame.   The film closes with a shot of Mike, passed out from a narcoleptic episode, being picked up on the side of the road by a passing stranger.