I think that I would have liked Rubberneck more if it was not for the big reveal at the end, and if I had not just watched Red Flag. I don’t mind feeling sympathy for a character who takes horrible actions, but the reveal is such a pat and tidy explanation that not only stigmatizes all those who suffered from such a loss and never did anything so reprehensible, but also is cheap psychology that does NOT explain all the people who took similar action in real life and never suffered such a loss.
If Alex Karpovsky wanted to make a film about a character who does something reprehensible AND give a pat explanation, then Karpovsky should not have said that it was inspired by real life events, especially since he examined a similar infatuation scenario in Red Flag without obviously engaging in such problematic gender stereotyping. Does Karpovsky think that it is sympathetic when a guy does it and it results in something reprehensible because his feelings are hurt, and he feels entitled as a “nice guy,” but when a woman does something similar, but less reprehensible in Red Flag, it is inherently creepy and a sign of a damaged mind? Even if Karpovsky does not, his films, Rubberneck and Red Flag, seem to tell a different story.
Rubberneck deliberately contrasts the passionate vibrancy of personal life with the sterile, mechanical nature of work life. Rubberneck also uses some great Massachusetts locations-shout to the Central Square T stop and Coolidge Corner. Unfortunately Rubberneck’s narrative suffers from serious problems that trivialize a real life burgeoning problem of what “nice” guys do when they don’t get what they want. I have no problem with sympathizing with them, but if Rubberneck is going to try and expla