Word About Biehn

Primarily known for his action flicks, Michael hasn't made a lot of message films, but he has made a few. Rampage is one. Directed and co-written by William Friedkin, it explores the question of whether capital punishment can ever be justified. And it offers us the opportunity to see Michael in the kind of mainstream role we generally don't associate with him.

Rampage begins with a bloody and brutal murder. However, it is not a mystery. We know who the killer is from the very beginning, though it isn't until after he strikes a second time that the authorities are able to identify and capture him. Michael plays Tony Fraser, the DA assigned to the case, who because of the horrific nature of the crime is ordered to seek the death penalty for the killer, Charles Reece. Tony is not an advocate of capital punishment. However, in this case he believes it may be justified and sets out to persuade a jury to that point of view. But to succeed, he must overcome the insanity plea of the defense and the understandable reluctance of the jury to believe any sane person capable of such grotesque behavior.

Director Friedkin endeavors to drive home the gravity of the death penalty dilemma by personalizing it for his main character. Tony has only recently been devastated by the death of his own young child and by his decision to authorize her removal from life support. As he now prepares the prosecution's case, the film uses his thoughts about his little girl to draw parallels between his personal experience and his quandary about capital punishment for Charles Reece. As Tony imagines his daughter threatened by Reece, we recognize that, insane though he may be, Reece is a threat to society. By contrast, as Tony remembers his own painful choice to let Molly die, we understand what an awful thing it is to decide whether another human being, no matter who he may be, should live or die.

Rampage doesn't quite gel to make the powerful statement Friedkin presumably intended. In the end, Tony remains lost in uncertainty, the central question unresolved for him. Now, this may well be true of real life, but storytelling suffers without a turning point. Friedkin, apparently ambivalent about capital punishment himself, transmits that ambivalence to the screen. Had he taken a stand one way or the other, Rampage would have had direction, enabling it to build to a strong climactic moment and ultimate understanding for the hero. That didn't happen, and, though it still manages to raise consciousness about its subject, the film is weakened as a result.

Michael does a nice job as Tony Fraser, a decent man forced to face an indecent situation at the same time he is trying to cope with painful memories of personal tragedy. In a number of scenes, Michael works without words to communicate through facial expression alone, as he reacts to witnessing the aftermath of slaughter or as he remembers his little girl. He reveals a man who feels deeply and by doing so moves us to care about him. In addition to such unspoken moments, Rampage also provides Michael with something he too seldom has the opportunity to work with: substantive dialogue. Most noteworthy here is his closing argument to the jury, which he delivers with conviction.

One wonders what might have happened in Michael's career if Rampage had come out in a timely manner. His effective portrayal of a white-collar professional might have demonstrated to filmmakers his ability to play other than military and action heroes and kept him from being typed in roles of that kind. But that's sheer speculation. Rampage was delayed in its release-by four years-Michael returned to the action genre, and, as they say, the rest is history.

Kay