Pat Brothwell on the scary reality of What Richard Did.
I’m usually pretty dismissive whenever anyone says to me, “you need to show this film in your class. Every high school students needs to see this movie.” Films are so subjective. What you think might be good for a student might not be something they value and frankly as a teacher, I don’t believe that it’s 100% my job to pass on lessons in morality; we could argue about that later if you want. I also think kids are smarter then we give them credit for and are turned off by a film hammering home the message that X or Y behavior is unethical and should be stopped.
But I’m constantly being proven wrong and just saw a film a few days ago that made me say to myself, ”I really think the kids I teach, the guys in particular, would benefit from viewing this film.”
It’s called What Richard Did, a 2012 Irish film loosely based on the book Bad Day in Blackrock (which I’m currently in the middle of reading). The movie revolves around an affluent Dublin teenager named Richard Karlson. On a summer night between his senior year of high school and first year of college (University in Irish-speak), he gets into a drunken brawl with an acquaintance outside a house party, resulting in the other young man’s death. It’s important to note that this death is accidental. It occurs midway through the film. The beginning establishes the character of Richard, his life and the relationships with those around him, while the latter half explores how those relationships are effected by what he’s done and how he copes with his heinous actions.
It’s a slow film for sure, with little dialogue at times, but I think it’s a topic that benefits from this slow, more methodical approach rather than the typical sensationalized pomp and circumstance that often accompanies portrayals of youth violence. There’s no over-the-top fights, dramatic soliloquies or spectacular meltdowns; this is not an after school special. To steal a phrase from British film critic Peter Bradshaw, it’s “slow burning and disturbing.”
The brogues are thick here and there were several times I had to rewind to decipher what the characters were saying and the ending is somewhat ambiguous, which personally, I’m not smart enough to handle (spoon feed me exactly what happens) but those are but minor complaints when you take into account the kinds of discussion a film like this could foster.
Despite its international setting, what struck me was how relatable the characters and culture felt. They didn’t look like an American Eagle ad. They dressed how students I teach dress. They weren’t always the most eloquent, not always the wittiest and their dialogue wasn’t peppered with pop-culture laden soundbites. Their conversation and the things they talked about have certain juvenile authenticity. They drive nice cars, but they weren’t too nice. They live in nice houses but which looked lived in and they drank at parties and in alleys in the same casual way teenagers do in real life. Despite the party-centric violence the film explores, this lifestyle is neither glamorized nor vilified. It’s simply a facet of the world, which, despite how much we protest, is very much realistic for many students.
What also struck me about the film was neither Richard, nor Connor, the boy he kills are portrayed as the hero or the villain. Richard was seen being a leader and responsibly handling friends who had too much to drink. He was seen being affable, moody and impulsive and possessive. Connor is seen being the life of the party, a sloppy drunk and a concerned friend. All in all, while there are flaws, both start off as mostly decent guys. They’re guys you went to school with and guys you’re friends with who just happen to find themselves in a deadly predicament.
What’s jarring about the fight that kills Connor is that it’s not overly violent. No one is stabbed or curb stomped. It’s not bloody and it’s over almost before it begins. In terms of fights, it’s practically pedestrian. Connor confronts Richard and they trade blows. Richard’s friends rough him up, he falls to the ground, when Richard, with one ill-timed angry kick to his head, delivers a fatal blow. It happens so fast that a casual observer might not even think it’s a plot point.
I’m not a fighter myself. I’m non-confrontational by nature and I hate the idea of it but I have plenty of friends who have gotten into fights and as someone who enjoys knocking back a drink or four, I have been privy to plenty more. I’ve never witnessed a fight that actually scared me, but here’s the part of the film that did. The majority of the fights I’ve witnessed and that guys I’m friends with, guys who are not bad or violent guys, have gotten into, were so much more substantial and violent then the fight on film. If I think about it, I probably have been in fights with my brother that would give this one a run for its money. We really underestimate the damage one can do to another.
Guys fighting is an accepted part of our culture. They’re rationalized as guys being guys, boys being boys, ways to settle a score, something that we need to just get out of our system or over a member of the opposite sex. Some of these fights even become the type of funny story you might trot out at parties or reunions, I know my group of friends has a few in their arsenal. What What Richard Did demonstrates is how severe the repercussions of something that is “not a big deal” could be. It shows a nice, normal teenager who had a little too much to drink not only kills a peer but leaves dozens of lives shattered.
The urge to fight and want to fight is not a foreign scenario, and is one we typically associate with black eyes and wounded pride, What Richard Did, does is show how an incident we routinely dismiss as not being a big deal could have very big implications.
What Richard Did was not released in the US, but you can rent or purchase it from either Amazon or iTunes.