Vintage

You've also raised some interesting points, Scratch. I admittedly have a hard time viewing a sociopathic ,dangerous guy such as Doug MacRay as an anti-hero, because the fact that Doug used his charm to get Claire, a very shy, moralistic and somewhat gullible woman, to trust him, and then allow him to exploit and manipulate her as a means of assuring that
he doesn't go back to prison means that he's not an anti-hero at all, but an exploitive, conniving individual who will, as Claire herself put it at one point in the movie, tear down women in order to supposedly build them up again, or vice versa; to build women up only to tear them down.

As for Claire's extremely moral and church-going facade, however, sometimes presentations like that can be rather deceiving, or whatever morals a woman has can vanish in the heat of a moment in meeting a guy who's exciting. Claire certainly didn't look, let alone act like the kind of woman that would be attracted to dangerous men, but sometimes people do carry out some some surprising stuff just out of the blue that one would never believe that they would do. I personally thought that there was too much emphasis on the Doug/Claire romance, not enough on the heists, and yet, the Fenway Park scene was too graphic, too overdone and too senseless to be believable.

I also completely agree with your last paragraph, Scratch. I think that Doug and Claire both got off too easily for what they both did; Doug for being an armed felon and wanted fugitive, and Claire for abetting him and receiving stolen goods( the stolen money from Doug).

You raise some intriguing points in the previous posts. Still, I can't help but think there was an anti-hero type of goal in regards to Doug and Claire. Given your points, I am trying to think how the story could have more realistically portrayed Doug and Claire.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to give Claire a more sinister side? I mean they made her out to be Mrs. Morality but perhaps it would have been more believable if she was clearly attracted to dangerous men or maybe they could have showed her smile when the bank manager got his skull cracked. I am brainstorming here... But, I agree, her church going presentation doesn't not match her aiding and abetting Doug. Great discussion thread.

Considering I only saw it once, perhaps a second time around, I will see much more of the stuff you point out. Come to think of it, I think you mentioned the action sequences being too long. I will have to admit, I thought they tried to recreate the movie Heat in that regards.

Maybe a more tragic ending would have been more appropriate for Doug and Claire. That would make it more believable. And, it still would have served the message that in the end a life of crime will get you. It always does. I do agree that to have Doug get all he wanted sort of says that "Hey, robbing banks... Not bad work if you can get it" And, if it doesn't get you!

Frankly, I think that a different ending might've made The Town a somewhat better film than it is.

Toward the end, in a last-ditch effort to catch Doug MacRay, FBI Agt. Frawley instructed Claire to have Doug come to her Charlestown condo to see him, although Doug had been watching Claire from his uncle's apartment across the street. When one FBI Agt. loaded his gun, Claire tipped Doug off with a "Sunny Days code", warning him not to come.

Frankly, I think that Claire should've kept quiet, not tipped Doug off to the Feds' presence in her apartment and allowed Frawley and the Feds to do their assigned job of nabbing Doug, having him tried, and then sentenced to a federal penitentiary for his crimes.

Not only should Doug MacRay been brought to justice, but Claire should've either faced criminal prosecution herself, or at least been put on some sort of probation for having abetted Doug, who was an armed felon and wanted fugitive, and for receiving stolen goods (the stolen money that Doug left Claire before he skipped town for Florida.).

Thank you again for your input, Scratch. I admit that I would like to have really liked The Town, but, as I did point out in my first post, The Town had the potential for being a really good, or even a great movie, and it fell woefully short of that potential for the reasons that I've mentioned in my post. That wouldn't necessarily make the message of
The Town any less troubling, because Chuck Hogan's novel, Prince of Thieves, on which The Town was based, had the heists, Claire's romance, and a different ending. I believe that the message of The Town was that it's okay to claim that the ends justify the means, and that a romance that's based on pure deception and exploitation is acceptable. That being said, however, I believe that, had The Town been put together better, it would've been a better film overall. Mediocre actors/actresses were used, at best, and that's partly why The Town failed to live up to its potential for being a much better film.

I also might add that it took my seeing The Town several times for me to really think about it and arrive at a much different opinion of it than when I first saw it. You may be interested to know, Scratch, that my family, including my brother and sister in law, viewed The Town in "On Demand", at Amazon, and also thought that it was kind of junky, and that Ben Affleck's acting was very poor.

I can't argue with your thinking there. If you dig a bit deeper, as you have done, I think it is difficult not to arrive at just exactly what you articulated above. Well put.

Thanks again for your input, Scratch. I think that the reason that the romance between Doug and Claire was so awkward, was that it really wasn't meant to be, if one gets the drift. Or, if there was to be a romance between Doug and Claire, then it shouldn't have taken up so much of the film. One big reason that Doug and Claire's romance seemed so stiff and trite is because it was an unhealthy sort of romance, based on deception and exploitation.

Granted, a romance can and does sometimes happen in real life, where a woman is the victim of a crime (as Claire was), where the victim does actually fall in love with her abuser/captor, believing that because he has some positive qualities, that he's really a warm, caring person who truly loves her and means her no harm, but, in reality, is exploiting and manipulating her. I believe that this really was the case with the Doug/Claire romance, and It's a little bit of the stockholm syndrome there, which is not a healthy thing, at all.

Great point. There is surely somewhat of a lack of reality in regards to Claire falling for Doug. To me at least, the core idea was still romantic and I think it was somewhat built on a shaky foundation. In reality, a girl with Claire's background would likely not react the way she did and she sort of was one of those characters that have no social or family life. She existed in the script. I mean in today's world with Facebook, etc. - you would think there would have been many in her social network telling her what to do and to give her the support she needed. Still, the sense I got at heart, is that the film was "trying" to build a foundation for a romantic angle. Maybe they didn't quite sell that as good as they should have.

--Scratch

Hi, Scratch. Thank you for you compliments and your support. Here's another message that The Town seems to send out; that people don't have to be held accountable for what they do, and whatever they can get away with is perfectly okay, if people feel that the ends justify the means.

I'm speaking not only for Doug MacRay and his men, but for all of the characters, including and especially Claire, who I feel really should've known better, given her education, income and background.

I can understand why people would sympathize with Doug MacRay, given that he was born into the kind of environment and, more importantly, the kind of family that made it even more likely that he'd end up leading a life of crime, with no real way out. Unfortunately, however, one really can't escape the way in which they were brought up, however.

My lack of sympathy for Doug MacRay came about for at least a couple of reasons:

A) There's really no excuse for crime.

Doug may have come off charming, calm, cool, collected and decent, but he wasn't really. I think that he totally exploited, manipulated and took advantage of Claire during her most vulnerable moments; traumatization by Doug and his men having robbed her bank at gunpoint, blindfolding her and kidnapping afterwards, enough so that Claire ended up quitting her job.

Doug took charge of the situation, because he fully recognized "Jem's" penchant for wanton, uncontrolled violence, and that his "offing" Claire like he (Jem) wanted to do would only land Jem, Doug and the other guys involved in the robbery back into prison. Doug was into protecting himself and his flanks, and he put the romance moves on Claire to oh, so subtlely use his charm and charisma to warn her not to go to the police/Feds, or else!

Inotherwords, Claire was set up to take a fall, and she rose to the bait, and got herself into a mess as a result. She, too ended up under surveillance by the Feds, and had a complete breakdown when her romance with Doug backfired on her.

This is an excellent post. You make many good points I never really considered. I am usually a big fan of most books as being superior to the movie, mostly becuase you can do so much more in a book. Then, when a book is converted to the silver screen, they have to hack it and chop it to make it fit 2 hours our so. In this case, I never read the book.

If the scene where they crippled the guys was not in the book, I agree with you on it is not being necessary. I think we already got the picture Gem was a violent nut ball.

In the end, I was entertained, so I enjoyed it. But you bring up a great point about messages the movie may send. Sometimes I don't see the messages in some movies while in others they are loud and clear. In this case, I was a bit sympathetic to Ben's Affleck's character from the viewpoint that he was a good person born into a bad environment and he did not know how to escape. I guess that it where my sympathies came.

Once again, fantastic post. Keep them coming. Refreshing to hear something insightful about some of today's movies!

I’m pretty much a lonely voice in the wilderness here, as I feel differently about The Town than many, if not most people do. For starters, I read Chuck Hogan’s novel, Prince of Thieves, on which The Town was based, and I liked the book far better than the movie, which seemed like an extended made-for-TV and very cartoon-like film.

The Town had the potential for being one of the all-time greats regarding movies, but fell woefully short of that potential for the following reasons:

A) The scenes in the North End and Fenway Park were grossly overblown, with too much exploding on the screen, and the most unrealistic-looking car chases and car crashes and shoot-outs. Nobody could realistically survive those car crashes and shoot-outs.

The fact that Ben Affleck and his assistant producer(s) wanted to cut the film down from four hours is totally understandable, but too much slip-shod, slap-happy editing was done, cutting too much out of the film and leaving too many unconnected dots, which, had they been connected, might’ve made this film more credible.

C) The Boston accents, particularly on the part of Ben Affleck, were extremely overdone.

D) The characters, overall, were paper-thin, and the chemistry between Affleck and Hall, was paltry, at best, and rather forced.

E) The scene where Doug and Jem break into a housing project apartment where a couple of punks who’d thrown bottles at Claire as she was walking through the housing project to work resided, beat up and permanently crippled both of them, was not in the book, and it was an unnecessary scene, to boot. Roughing the two punks up a little bit would’ve been understandable, maybe, but Doug and Jem went too far when they permanently crippled them both, and then ordered them to “get out of Charlestown.”

F) The ending of the movie, was rather saccharine..and phony, to boot. It would’ve been better if the ending had been different; Doug being caught and sent to prison, where he belonged, and Claire being criminally prosecuted, or put on some sort of probation herself for having abetted Doug and helped him get away.

I also might add that I’m somewhat bothered by the message that The Town seems to send; that it’s OK to rob banks and armored cars, terrorize and endanger the lives and safety of innocent bank employees and customers at gunpoint, to abet these kinds of actions and behaviors, and to make total dupes of law enforcement officials who are trying their best to do what they’ve been assigned to do; bring guys like Doug MacRay and his men to justice.

I also might add that the movie could’ve done with far less of the Doug/Claire romance, and further developed the characters and the bank heists. Too much emphasis was put on the Doug/Claire romance, and not enough on the heists. I liked the beginning of the film and the first heist, but after that, it began to rapidly go downhill for me.

One is supposed to sympathize with and root for Doug because he managed to get away, and for Claire for having abetted Doug and helped him escape justice in this film, but I feel that I really cannot do so. Imo, Claire should’ve been more on her guard and not readily accepted a date from a perfect stranger, especially after being traumatized enough by the robbery and abduction to quit her job as a bank manager.

Claire was also wrong to continue to have contact with Doug and to abet him in his crimes even after learning the truth about him, and after the Feds learned of the Doug/Claire relationship through a recorded phone conversation between them, and for keeping the duffel bag full of stolen money that Doug left for her, instead of turning it into the police, at least anonymously. My opinion of this film was formed after watching it several times–a couple of times in the theatres, and then afew more times, on DVD.

The idea of a professional armed robber who’s also a wanted fugitive falling in love with, and defending a poor, scared, vulnerable female bank manager that he and his men robbed at gunpoint and then took as a hostage, from thugs who threw bottles at her is highly, highly implausible to me. That would never, ever happen in real life. I know the film is fiction, but come on…there’s got to be some reality in there, which seemed to be totally lacking in this film.

Please note: This post is crossposted from afew other blogs, and is my very own writing, and nobody else's.