The film is based on events surrounding the 1997 homicide of an urban punk enthusiast and musician, Brian Denek, by a high school football player in Amarillo, Texas. The cultural clash depicted between the athletes and punks shows how both life styles mirror each other, at some level, but how the culture of the athletes is actually based on real violence vs the overarching perceived violence of the punk rock community. Neither side of the conflict is without blame, however, and the film does a good job of depicting this fact, as well as showing the difference between how society reacts to the athletes social culture vs the punk's social culture.
The narrative of the film is draped over the trial resulting from Denek's homicide. Through most of the film, the defense attorney appears to actually be the prosecutor. In fact, the film depicts the entire punk culture as being dangerous to American culture without objection from the prosecutor. At one point, the defense attorney says that Denek's death was the right thing to have happened, that Denek's choices could only result in his homicide.
The court case sparked debate over injustice in the American judicial system. The athlete, despite overwhelming evidence that he committed vehicular homicide, was sentenced to probation, after which he graduated from high school and attended college. The conclusion of the film seems to be that the athlete's guilt is meaningless because he killed a person whose value is not easily understood by mainstream society. This isn't a new subject for a film, but the film approaches the issues using unusual subjects and well thought-out narrative techniques.
The narrative of the film is draped over the trial resulting from Denek's homicide. Through most of the film, the defense attorney appears to actually be the prosecutor. In fact, the film depicts the entire punk culture as being dangerous to American culture without objection from the prosecutor. At one point, the defense attorney says that Denek's death was the right thing to have happened, that Denek's choices could only result in his homicide.
The court case sparked debate over injustice in the American judicial system. The athlete, despite overwhelming evidence that he committed vehicular homicide, was sentenced to probation, after which he graduated from high school and attended college. The conclusion of the film seems to be that the athlete's guilt is meaningless because he killed a person whose value is not easily understood by mainstream society. This isn't a new subject for a film, but the film approaches the issues using unusual subjects and well thought-out narrative techniques.