The following paragraphs contain SPOILERS in regards to not only
Redbelt, but also previous Mamet features (i.e., Heist and Spartan).
Discretion is advised.


SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS


Author's Note: Do not mistake these paragraphs for an actual essay.
To be sure, the following consists of words written quickly within a
relatively short period of time. I apologize in advance for any and
all errors in terms of the content of my rather flighty analysis.


"I'm ending the charade." -- Mike Terry in Redbelt


With the release of Redbelt, Mamet's core theme of identity has
finally come full circle. From Lindsay Crouse's character in House of
Games to Joe Mantegna's character in Homicide, Mamet's protagonists
have always wrestled with their identities. Who are their true
selves? Are their current ideals and allegiances just and proper? To
be sure, Mamet has now completed his "honor code" trilogy, which
consists of three films that feature one word titles (Heist, Spartan,
and Redbelt -- leave it to wordsmith Mamet to make the two word term
"red belt" into one word). This trilogy features three protagonists
who are trying to live their lives by a particular set of morals and
ethics. Specifically, the principles of the protagonists in question
are put to the test by various machinations in the narrative, and the
protagonists must choose to either remain true to their ideals or
acquiesce to the demands of the ever-changing modern world around
them. In Heist (2001), Joe is an old school thief whose tactics and
methods are put to the test by a new breed of (immoral) criminal
(i.e., Sam Rockwell’s character et al). In Spartan (2004), Scott is a
Special Ops officer whose ethics are put to the test by government
officials who mean to use his skills for political gain. Lastly, in
Redbelt, Mike is a martial arts instructor whose allegiance to the way
of the warrior is put to the test by those who mean to use his skills
and knowledge for financial gain.


With Redbelt, Mamet finally allows one of his protagonists to
break through his self-crafted glass ceiling of fakery and deception.
This is in sharp contrast to many of his works, which occasionally
end on a note of uncertainty. For example, the last shot of The
Spanish Prisoner makes one wonder whether the con was actually put to
rest or whether it will continue long after the screen has faded to
black. While the protagonists of the first two entries in the above
trilogy do in fact challenge Mamet's charade, they fail to stop the
charade once and for all by the end of the film.* In Heist, the
charade continues in a pickup truck moving in the opposite direction
of Joe's vehicle. In Spartan, the charade continues on a slew of
television sets in front of Scott. Moreover, these two protagonists
are punished for challenging the charade in question by continuing to
adhere to their codes of honor. Both protagonists are weaker and
lonelier for having challenged the dubiousness of their surroundings.
Specifically, Joe loses his significant other and Scott loses his
homeland (both lose one or more confidants to death). While Mamet
empathizes with them on this point (esp. Scott in Spartan), he
nevertheless keeps them well below the glass ceiling of his cinematic
chicanery.


Interestingly enough, Mike is the first Mamet protagonist to be
rewarded for adhering to his code of honor.** Many Mamet regulars who
act in Redbelt are baffled by Mike's insistence on gumming up the
works of Mamet's chicanery: "What kind of stupid motherfucker pawns a
watch he got from Chet Frank." Indeed, they are dumbfounded as to why
Mike refuses to go along with the ebb and flow of Mamet's deceptions.
Nevertheless, Mike wishes to break through Mamet's facades and,
needless to say, Mamet makes him work hard for his reward. With
Redbelt, Mamet is able to live through his protagonist, who's purity
surely only exists in the movies (Mamet's own Redbelt deal with Sony
Pictures Classics requires that he make Joan of Bark: The Dog that
Saved France as his next feature). During the climax, Mamet cuts away
to key characters in the film, many of whom are portrayed by Mamet
regulars who have partaken the cons of his previous films (from Ricky
Jay to Rebecca Pidgeon, there are at least 8 Mamet regulars that
appear in the film. Moreover, the film is dedicated to Mamet regular
and close friend Christopher Kaldor, who recently passed away). It is
as if these Mamet regulars are witnessing history -- the first Mamet
protagonist to completely cut through the foliage of fakery once and for all.


In the end, the character of Mike shatters Mamet’s charade in
Redbelt, and he uses the bard's own words against him in order to do
so by constantly uttering the following mantra: "There is no situation
you cannot escape from. You know the escape." Actually, Mike's
mantra would perhaps read better as follows: "There is no situation
you cannot escape from [with your dignity still intact]. You know the
escape." Indeed. Way to go, Mike.


Cheers,
hulka


*Sure, the protagonists of the first two entries do indeed accomplish
the objective given to them by the narrative. In Heist, Joe gets the
gold; in Spartan, Scott rescues the girl. Still, the completion of
these narrative objectives does not negate the fact that both
characters continue to live in a world in which Mamet's deceptions are
still in play at the end of the film.


**Sure, one could argue that Mike's rewards at the end of the picture
are in fact dubious. Indeed, he loses two confidants along way, and
his constant reiteration that belts are nothing more than a mechanism
by which to keep one's pants up may downplay his triumph during the
film's finale. Still, the ending is one of triumph for what his
rewards symbolize. In other words, the rewards in question are a
tangible embodiment of his accomplishment of mind, body, and spirit in
terms of his adherence to his honor code of morals and ethics.
Moreover, his rewards are two-fold for a reason: The first belt is an
acknowledgement by one's peers, the second belt is an acknowledgement
by one's mentor. The former is for show, the latter is much more
meaningful.


P.S. This author’s suspicions of the poster imagery were indeed
confirmed upon viewing the film. Specifically, Mamet's poster for the
film (assuming he did in fact have input) is truly great. Any poster
that gives away the ending of a film must surely want to the viewer to
pay attention to other things aside from outcome of the climax. As
the old adage goes, the play is the thing.


P.P.S. It is great to see Mamet give viewers his version of an old
school fight picture. From his version of the police procedural
(Homicide) to his variation of the missing girl movie (Spartan), Mamet
continues to take picture types and add his array of spices to the
mix. Well played, sir.

I loved the scene that The Bus mentioned, where Laura slaps Mike after an unknown conversation. At that point, it makes you wonder. Did she slap him because he gave up on all that money (remember, she was trying to help him get money from the guys who stole his training method, and probably felt responsible when they brought up the incident with the window). Or did she slap him because she saw that he was not able to find the right escape? Obviously, we can assume it's the latter, because he goes back in and proclaims "I'm ending the charade".

In regard to the legal thing, my interpretation is that Mike decided to drop the case. I agree that there's no outcome that was suggested, but my own guess is that Mike felt it was more honorable to allow the fight promoters to use his idea (thus, maybe influencing others to use it for the same reasons he did), as opposed to trying to fight in court, where the defendants would bring up the window, Joe's suicide, etc. It would have been too much for Joe's wife to handle.

About the lawyer. At the beginning, she was obviously jittery. Even after she came back and had the window fixed in the middle of the day, she was jittery and we saw her take a couple pills at the table. But, afterwards, when talking about the legal issues with the fight promoters, she was well-composed. My understanding was that, with Mike's help, she really did get over her 'problem'. Or at least, she was actively dealing with it in a healthy way.

The only thing that didn't make sense to me was that Mike's wife was sitting with Chet Frank at the fight. But, as mentioned, she told the lawyers about the window. I'm sure she had a conversation with Jerry where he said, "you owe $30,000 to a loan shark. Give up the evidence about the incident with the lawyer, and we'll buy your fabric." Seeing that as her only escape, she took it.

that what he has been dedicating his life to has been a bit of a sham

Didn't think the suicide fit and didn't buy the "He brought respect back to the sport.", getting the belt, nor the passing down of the redbelt to him nor him fighting his way back to the ring (the security guards and what have you). Parts felt plausible, other parts just felt too out there. Final fight wasn't particularly great, but I was actually expecting that.