Talk:Primal Fear (film)

About Mr. Shaughnessy

What's the professional position of John Shaughnessy (played by John Mahoney)? I'm confused because it has never been directly mentioned in the movie. I googled and found some answer says he's State Attorney and some says he's Chicago Mayor. But he shouldn't be the State Attorney because Martin Vail (Richard Gere) said in the court that Shaughnessy used to be State's Attorney but not "currently". Besides, the current State Attorney in the movie is supposed to be Bud Yancy (Terry O'Quinn). The Mayor seems a reasonable answer but needs to be confirmed. So would somebody find some source to confirm it if this unimportant question doesn't bore you. --Mato Rei 14:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

He's the all-knowing Kingpin. All Hallow's Wraith 08:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sound Track

Why isn't there a default section, when in regards to movies, for sound tracks? This movie had some excellent, although quiet, music. Some of it reminded me of the Vangelis in Blade Runner. Was it Terrence Blanchard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brewmaj (talk • contribs) 03:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Male-male sex claims by psychologist?

The bottom of the article includes a citation to a write-up by a psychologist that claims father-son incest was evident in the movie. However, not only is such a thing not actually existent in the movie, but the write-up linked never actually cites any example. It only says the following: "Childhood abuse by the young man's father is hinted at as a cause for the fugue states but is not specifically described in the movie." If there's no specific description of the kind of abuse, on what basis is it sexual? The violent personality seems to be a more evident implication of physical, not sexual, abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.239.10 (talk) 14:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Aaron Stampler

An attempt was made to create a character page for Aaron StamplerAaron Stampler. While his character appears in the book trilogy, his page consisted mostly of the plot from the film. Should anyone attempt a future article again, I suggest working a sandbox version first. — Wyliepedia 23:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

edward norton

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/edward-norton-best-movies-roles-fight-club-primal-fear-american-history-x-hulk-birdman-212241065.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majinsnake (talk • contribs) 03:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Deewangee

Shouldn't there be a mention of Deewangee in this article? --2001:4DD0:2192:0:7DC9:6591:6205:EC5E (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

The end, Roy vs. Aaron

To be honest, I'm not really convinced, that Aaron/Roy did fake the multiple personality the whole time. When he ran away for example, after the murder, the filmed faces clearly was "Aaron", also the fact he was hiding under a railway when getting caught. My opinion about it: when Aaron/Roy get's informed about the end of the trial by Vail in the end, some kind of "healing" starts. That meaning: Aaron suddenly can remember an aspect of the "Roy-Scene" in court. His "Roy"-share then becomes more confident, taking over the situation. Of course, it's not perfectly nice to have "the real murder" coming in, however this can also hint towards Aaron now is able to let his anger and frustration (formerly suppressed) come to live. Why not? In my opinion, this interpretation would be a bit more "valuable" if I'm allowed to say, compared to just thinking he faked all the time. Just imagine if there would have been Roy all the time: there would definitely not have been these tapes, as Roy would have never allowed this to happen. Roy now (in the end) says, there never has been an Aaron, but we could also take this as in a figurative sense. He wished so? the same as Aaron wished there was no murder? However fact is: we clearly know (tape) there was Aaron. Therefore, in the same way, Aaron tends to forget about the Roy episodes, Roy could also forget about Aaron episodes (suppressing it). Therefore, as said, I'd consider it a good sign, if there is contact and exchange of information between them, for example as when Aaron in the end remembers about Janet's neck. As said, I would consider that as a sign of healing. However, there is also the danger, that Roy takes over completely :-) all is possible here. I guess that's part of the disease he's suffering from! Long story short: I just think we can not clearly say, that "faking Aaron" is really the (whole) truth here, even though Roy says it. maybe he did so in a fit of overconfidence, as they – Roy and Aaron – are overwhelmed with now beeing (more or less) free. The film (book) is definitely a very interesting comment about these phenomena! Also in regards of culpability. Therefore, I think it's more kind of a happy end then one could think at first! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.211.189.142 (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Removal of interpretation

I removed the interpretation in the plot. The movie does not say anything about a healing of the schizophrenia. The movie focusses on the two faces of every role. Aaron and Roy, the innocent and the murderer, is the most obvious and strangest of the two faces. Shaughnessy, the DA who publicly upholds the law, threads people equal and is considered to be incorruptible actually is corrupt to the bone, protects his peers and looks down on the common people and also has his hands in killing Piñero. Piñero is a gangster but also has a pro bono hospital and would not make false witness about the latino representative Martinez being a crook. The Arch Bishop of course was of course preaching morals and secretly forced young people to have sex for his perversion.

Venable seems to have integrity.

And Vail? He claims to be on the survace an arrogant and cocky lawyer, who defends without morality for any money. And in reality, he feels guilty of manipulating evidence when he was prosecutor thus getting an innocent man the death penalty. And at the end he feels basically defeated.

This is why the quote from the scarlett letter is so important for the whole movie:

No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true.

--Ar-ras (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

--> the film in the end clearly shows a situation where the two personalities mix. that is in fact a strong sign of beginning healing. it is a trick of the movie, to make the audience think "oh, roy just faked it". instead, the word "allegedly" (a key term in the movie ;-)) would be appropriate here! the same way we can not trust Aaron for speaking the "whole truth", we can also not do so with Roys last statement. why should we do so? in fact: there is a strong reason why we should not: he has textbook multiple personality disorder. and the fact that some lived experiences from the one half suddenly are remembered by the other half (especially by Aaron, the shy one), that is indeed a sign of beginning healing. so, lesson for the audience: the film took 2 hours to show the workings of a multiple personality disorder. and yet (some) people are still tempted to "believe" one of those two "halfs" right away ;-) I guess that is some interesting comment of the movie, like: "yep, and you still think the world is so easy" :D and yes, it sounds so "real" what Roy is saying. But what if he just now remembers "more" of what happened to the shy Aaron? The reason he split off in the first place, was clearly feelings like shame and humiliation. To stay strong and functional... right?

PS: but I do understand, that Wiki is more a page to gather "officially" published opinions and facts. and that here is just my own ;-) just thought it could be useful... hehe 88.64.207.229 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)