The Frustration
of Frailty
by James Snapko

Frailty, the first film directed by actor Bill Paxton, is assured in its presentation of the action that drives the story - the twists and turns in the plot take control because it's a film that is preoccupied with the "what." The dilemma is that Frailty never allows us to ponder the "why."

It is an intriguing story. A man named Meiks (played by Paxton) has visions of God and believes his mission on earth is to eradicate demons. His visions lead him to the weapons God has chosen for him to use (an axe and a lead pipe), and the list of names and addresses that will lead him to the homes of the demons. Of course, there are problems with God's system and Mr. Meiks' handling of it. The first big problem is that he elicits his sons' help in the matter. They are 12 and 8 years of age. Another problem is that the demons look like humans. And in one of the more effectively written scenes, Mr. Meiks' straightforward explanation to his sons concerning his mission is both oddly tender and deeply disturbing. Meiks uses a super-hero analogy to rationalize his mission; the younger boy buys into it, the elder doesn't. The rest of the film details the series of murders committed by Meiks, and the trauma the eldest son endured as a result of his father's delusions.

It would have been easy to simply play the father as a crazy person. But Paxton wisely avoids the obvious and is able to evoke sympathy in his characterization of Meiks. For a while the film has momentum on its side. Unfortunately it's short lived, and in hindsight the best moments in this film take place in the first act.

Frailty is a murder mystery told as a series of flashbacks, a lot like an old film noir from the 40s or 50s. Immediately, the film is set up as an investigation of what went wrong long ago (although it isn't that long ago, since it takes place in 1979). But beyond the investigation convention, the presence of a few cops, and the use of the past, it has little else to do with film noir. Frailty actually owes most of its stylistic components, such as the lighting and the style of editing, to horror films. (It relies too much on the "smash cut" - that is, a crescendo of audio and sudden cut, used together to startle the audience.) Sure, it has plenty of elements that have been successful before, but since Paxton fails to deliver on the big themes and the psychological aspects of the characters, we are left asking "So what?"

My biggest gripe is how Frailty dodges the source of the main character's problems. I kept asking questions like, Why is this guy having visions? What caused this to happen? But we are left with nothing to help us understand. I know his actions are shown as senseless, but when the character is constantly citing God as the impetus behind his behavior, there had better be some kind of psychological insight into where this irrationality is coming from.

For a useful contrast look at Taxi Driver (1976). Martin Scorsese's masterful direction in that film allows us access, through the images, into the mind of a madman. There are also other narrative elements, such as the main character's economic status, the fact that he's a veteran, his views of women and African Americans, that provide a context for us to better understand him. There is none of that in this film.

Without understanding Meiks' character or motivation, Frailty seems to merely use religion as an easy answer to his pathology. God wants him to kill, and he states this over and over to his sons. We can see how this affects his children, but over the course of the entire film, that plot element feels exhausted. In scene after scene, Meiks attempts to coerce his kids into believing in his message,and it becomes tiresome and tedious. Screenwriter Brent Hanley dwells excessively on this "spirituality as a negative force" idea. I kept waiting for the big "point" to show up, but instead of trying to uncover something about the persuasive power of religion and spirituality and the deleterious effects if may have on children, the film introduces a series of plot twists that come across as very contrived.

Paxton doesn't seem interested in illuminating anything that has to do with the character's actions, which begs the question: Why should we care about a film that's main interest is to trick the audience? Compounding the problem is that the trickery is implausible. If we are to take this picture seriously, it fails on all levels. Because of the meaningless contrivances undermining an intriguing set-up, Frailty is ultimately a very frustrating film.

©2002 James Snapko
CineScene