Don't Say a Word

In 2001, Sean Bean starred in a movie called "Don't Say a Word," starring alongside Brittany Murphy and Michael Douglas. In it, Bean played the "villain," who holds Michael Douglas' family hostage in exchange for Douglas getting a set of numbers of Brittany Murphy, who is a patient in a mental hospital. See the trailer below:



At first glance, this seems pretty easy. I mean, how can a guy holding a family hostage possibly be a good guy? Well, loyal reader, there is far more than meets the eye.

WARNING: If you haven't seen this movie, major spoilers ahead.

Let's go back to the beginning of the movie.

The Heist

In the beginning of the movie, we see Sean Bean and his team working together to complete a heist of a valuable red jewel. It's sort of like The Italian Job or Oceans Eleven. This is a team of simple thieves, bonded together by their heist. They successfully complete their heist, get in their getaway cars and are on their way. Sean Bean presumably has the red jewel in his hands as he drives away with one of his fellow teammates. Success! Now they can share in the profits, each member having contributed. This jewel is presumably worth quite a lot of money, probably more than enough for each team member to live out their lives in comfort.


The Betrayal

Sean Bean looks in his bag, and what does he find? The jewel has been replaced with a fake! Who has the real jewel? One of his teammates, who has betrayed the group and fled. This greedy guy wasn't satisfied with just having a couple million dollars. He wanted the whole thing, and was ready to screw over his teammates and friends to get it.

For comparison, this is a lot like The Italian Job. This dude is like Edward Norton, who betrays the group so that he can have the whole pie. Sean Bean sure seems a lot like Mark Wahlberg now, the simple leader of the group who was too trusting of his supposed "friend."

Below, we have a scene from Don't Say a Word immediately after the betrayal takes place. This video is labeled "A Look to Kill." Really? Sure looks, to me at least, more like a man who has been betrayed. Remember that face we've seen Sean Bean give in almost every movie. Once again, Bean has been betrayed. That's not a look to kill. That's a look of betrayal, a look of sadness to see a friend do this to him.



Getting Back the Jewel

So you're in Sean Bean's shoes. You've spent years with your friends planning this heist, only to have your "friend" betray you and take off with your hard earnings. What are you going to do now? Sean Bean does the same thing any of us would do in that situation. He goes out to find his jewel and get it back. Think Mark Wahlberg in The Italian Job.

Now, it turns out that the greedy jewel thief has a child. This really shouldn't factor in. Either way, greedy jewel thief guy took something that doesn't belong to him.

Sean Bean and his friends find this jewel thief and confront him in the subway, demanding their jewel back. There wasn't any intent by Bean and his friends to kill the guy (which if they did, it probably would have been okay). Instead they (relatively) politely, tell the greedy thief to give them back the jewel and tell them where he hid it. Instead he refuses and thats when Sean Bean and his friends get into a fight with him and accidently push him into an oncoming subway train.

If you watch that scene again, it was clearly an accident. Bean was no murderer. He was just a simple thief. Indeed, killing the guy would have been counter-intuitive. This guy knew the location of where he had hidden the jewel. By killing him, the secret was lost forever. This provides evidence that Sean Bean killed the guy by accident.

Furthermore, even if he had purposely killed that greedy thief, I'd argue that he was perfectly justified to do so. Think about The Italian Job. At the end of the movie, after plotting their revenge, Mark Wahlberg finally gets his gold bricks back. Then what does he do to Edward Norton? He kills him off-screen. I don't think anyone walked out of that movie thinking Mark Wahlberg was the villain.

The Hostage Taking

Some time eventually passes (I think like 10 years), and Sean Bean has been in jail during this time. He finally gets out, and again, he wants to get his jewel back, which is rightfully his. The only person who knows the "combination" to get the jewel back is some crazy girl who is the daughter of the greedy jewel thief.

He needs the help of this doctor to help him get the numbers out of this girl. So he does some simple hostage taking. He didn't intend to harm anyone, even if he threatened he would. In fact, he treated that kid he took hostage with nothing but respect. All the doctor had to do was get the numbers from the girl and that would be the end of everything.

And all that greedy crazy girl had to do was give up the numbers so that Sean Bean could get back what was rightfully his. Instead, she acts like a child by taunting the doctor and Sean Bean, saying how "she'll never tell."

Sean Bean's Death

So I can't fully remember all the details, but ultimately, we get to the point in the movie where Sean Bean is going into this grave in order to retrieve the jewel that belongs to him and that was stolen from him by a double crossing, greedy thief.

Then Sean Bean gets buried alive. We walked out of that movie cheering. That villain, Sean Bean, sure got what was coming to him. I mean, look at him victimizing this poor family and that poor crazy girl.

Sean Bean the Villain?

But wait, lets think again. Here is Sean Bean, the leader of a gang of thieves. They work hard together to steal this precious ruby. Then Sean Bean gets betrayed by his friend, who then refuses to give up the gem. Then Sean Bean plans his scheme to get back his gem, which is rightfully his. Instead, he fails to get the gem and is killed. The daughter of the thief lives happily ever after.

Think if The Italian Job played out similarly. Mark Wahlberg is the leader of a gang of thieves. They work together to steal those gold bricks, but Walhberg is betrayed by Edward Norton. Mark Wahlberg makes his plans to get back his gold bricks, which are rightfully his. Instead, Edward Norton outsmarts him and kills him. Edward Norton lives happily ever after.

So, does Sean Bean really seem like the villain here? It seems to me like he's the victim.

Go back to the trailer for Don't Say a Word.

"You want what they want, don't you?" says Brittany Murphy.

Is she implying that the jewel is rightfully hers!? Her father stole the jewel by double crossing his partner! Sean Bean was victimized here, NOT Brittany Murphy. And yet we all came out of the movie thinking Sean Bean had done the wrong. In reality, the wrong had been done to him.

Sean Bean Death Reel

See Sean Bean die 21 times. I haven't seen all of these movies, but no doubt he was misunderstood in each one and didn't deserve to die. WARNING: This video does contain some graphic scenes.



For example, take a look at the Alec Trevelyan death scene from Goldeneye near the end of this video. James Bond callously drops Trevelyan to his death.

"For England, James?" Bean asks.

"No, for me." Responds Bond, who then drops Trevelyan.

How can Bond justify killing Bean when (1) Bond is the one who initially betrayed Bean by failing to set the timer for the 6 minutes as Bean (Trevelyan) requested, and (2) Bean (Trevelyan) always gave Bond an opportunity to use his skills to escape death.

You might argue that Bond was able to escape death so many times because of simple incompetence. I'd disagree. Here's why. Off the top of my head, I can think of multiple times where Sean Bean could have simply killed Bond, but instead put him in situations where he could easily escape. There's the helicopter scene in the statue park, and the train scene where Bean graciously leaves three minutes on the bomb timer so Bond can have a chance to escape. Then we have all the times where Bean simply held Bond hostage, rather than just shoot him in the face.

To me, this strikes me as a guy who simply couldn't kill his friend. Bean may have wanted to, but the goodness in his heart simply wouldn't let him. THAT is why he devised all these easily escapable situations.

Bond, should have done the same for his old friend. A true hero would have saved his friend (or former friend), rather than drop him to his death.

I will start adding entries again

Hello all,

I started this blog last year(2010) because I was bored at work and found a website called "Don't Trust Sean Bean," which portrayed him in all the wrong ways. I made it my mission then to give Sean Bean's characters the respect he deserves. Then things got in the way, I started school, and forgot about the blog.

Now that summer has started again, I find myself with a little more free time and am going to start updating the blog again. I haven't seen Game of Thrones, but I will start watching it this summer. You can expect some analysis on some more of his big movies (including Lord of the Rings, one of his most misunderstood roles). If you are new to the blog, please read about him in National Treasure. I think I've convinced just about every person that he is NOT the bad guy in that movie.

Anyway, in sum, I have not abandoned this blog and I promise to get some more blog posts out there. Thanks for your support.

James Bond...always to the mission, never to his friend

Alec Trevelyan was everything that you'd want in a bond villain; cocky, vain, loved to hear himself talk, and prone to making baffling mistakes. In the storied history of the Bond franchise, Trevelyan surely ranks near the top. But what makes Trevelyan truly stand out is just how deep his character was.

To the average layman, the story is simple. Trevelyan betrays his country and Bond for his own personal and financial gain. But to say that would be a simplification at best, and a complete fallacy at worst. Trevelyan is, perhaps, one of Sean Bean's most misunderstood characters, a man who's motives and beliefs run deeper than what we can see easily on the surface.

We begin with the opening scene of the movie. Trevelyan and Bond infiltrate the facility (I can't remember the names of the actual places, so I'll call them by their video game level names). The mission is to blow up some gas tanks or something, and before getting to that point, Trevelyan makes it clear that Bond must set the timers to 6 minutes.

Remember, these two are best friends, they trust each other with their lives, and, in theory, should be willing to give up their life for the other, even if it is in vain. Mind you, at this point, Trevelyan already has his scheme made up, and while he is "betraying" Bond, Bond doesn't know that and, of course, would never have known that if he would have been willing to die for his friend.

But of course, Bond only cares about the mission and saving his own behind. He sets the timer for 3 minutes, and in the process, blows up Trevelyan's face. Bond should not have done that. Trevelyan made it clear that he had to set it for six minutes, and if Bond was a friend, and not some lap dog for MI6, he would've listened and not have disobeyed and betrayed his friend.

That's right, I say Bond betrayed Trevelyan. "You were supposed to die for me," Trevelyan says in one scene. He's not saying it like the way other Bond villains say it. Usually, what they are saying is that Bond was supposed to die. But Trevelyan is different. He's talking about how Bond was supposed to die for him. Bond was supposed to be a sacrifice, and Bond was supposed to be willing to sacrifice himself because that's what friends do.

We must also address Trevelyan's main motive for his actions, which was revenge against MI6 for the British betrayal of his parents. Trevelyan's parents had defected to Britain following the end of the Second World War. The British, however, refused to take his parents in, leaving them in Russia. While his parents survived the execution squads, his father, ashamed at having survived, killed himself and Trevelyan's mother. That'd be bad enough if it all ended there, but then MI6 adopted Trevelyan, and raised him to be a double 0, and brainwashed him into not remembering his true origins. It's the ultimate slap in the face for Trevelyan. It's no surprise that he'd want revenge against the people that caused his parents death and raised him to work for those very same people.

Remember, Sean Bean is the master of the justifying speech. When he speaks, people tend to listen, and if you take the time to truly feel what he's saying, you'll start to agree with him, and even feel sorry for him.



Listen to his speech above and try to really feel his pain. He's a man who's been betrayed by a country, and betrayed by a friend. He's a man who just wanted to make things right. You can feel his pain at knowing that he never truly had a friend in Bond.

"I did think of asking you to join my little scheme," Trevelyan says, "but somehow I knew, 007's loyalty was always to the mission, never to his friend."

Perhaps the most telling part about Trevelyan is his failure to kill Bond. Now, some attribute it to incompetence. But I see it differently. I see his failure to kill Bond as a sign of man still trying to keep a friendship alive. It's not that he couldn't kill Bond, its that he couldn't get himself to kill Bond. There were multiple times in the movie when Trevelyan could have simply shot Bond in the face. But he didn't do that. He placed Bond in easily escapable timed traps, simply because the friend in him couldn't bear to kill his friend, even though Bond had betrayed him.

And how does Bond repay his friendship? He drops Trevelyan off of a satellite tower. After everything Trevelyan had done, after all the times Trevelyan couldn't bear to kill his friend, Bond's cold heart simply ignored their years of friendship, and dropped him, just like that.

James Bond. Always to the mission. Never to his friend. Remember that when you watch this film again. Then tell me how Trevelyan is so bad. All I see is a man yearning for friendship. A man who wants to make things right. And a man that was betrayed and left broken by his best friend. That's all I see.

Sean Bean Named One of Hollywoods 10 Most Evil Actors? I object!

This might be a little old, but in case you haven't seen it, someone made a list of Hollywood's "10 Most Evil Actors," that is, actors who just look evil and always play the villain. See it here. 10 Most Evil Actors in Hollywood. No surprise with some of these names.

Jason Isaacs, for example, is just pure evil. His British General in "The Patriot," is still one of the most villainous performances of all time. That guy did everything. He killed two of Mel Gibson's kids, burned down a church full of people, and would have killed Mel Gibson too if he had just swung his sword diagonally so that Mel Gibson couldn't dodge it, instead of doing the stupid movie move of swinging a weapon in a way that is easily dodged. In terms of villains, that guy is just straight EVIL! But, I digress...

Sean Bean made the list as well, which probably isn't a surprise to the untrained eye. But to the trained, watchful eye, it's easy to see just how "not evil" he is. "Bean squints, scowls and glares his way into villainous roles with such flair that the tiniest narrowing of his eyes can scare an audience," the article notes.

And while he does squint and scowl and glare his way into roles, its not because he's a villain. He's squinting and scowling and glaring because of how confused he is, confused at the way he's being treated by other characters in the movie. Sean Bean does everything with the best intentions. He is the master of the justifying speech, and if you listen to his speeches, you might just agree with him as well.

Listen to him in Goldeneye or in National Treasure, and try to understand where he is coming from. Watch the beginning of "Don't Say a Word" and tell me you aren't hurt when you see the look on his face after he is betrayed. (Don't even get me started on how he was treated in that movie!). Listen to Boromir and what he has to say. He's not evil, he's just being misunderstood.

I've got more to come, but thought this was an interesting list, and one that I most vehemently object to, and hopefully, in the near future, you will too.

National Treasure: How Nicholas Cage Betrayed Sean Bean

When we last left off, Sean Bean had just finished watching his good friend, Nick Cage, make off with the Declaration of Independence. If you recall, earlier in the film, Nick Cage had refused to steal the Declaration with Bean, and even went as far as to say "Ian [Sean Bean's Character], I'm not going to let YOU steal the Declaration of Independence." (apparently, that means that he will let himself steal the Declaration)

If you can also recall, these two were great friends, or at least business partners. When the entire historical community had turned against Nicholas Cage and his family, Sean Bean was right there, financing Cage's cooky dream.

But when the moment came, and big action needed to be taken, what happened to Bean? He was betrayed, as often happens, by his own friend. It'd be fine if it all ended there. But for Cage to then create his own plan to steal the Declaration without Bean is a literal stab to the back. Poor Sean Bean. All he wanted was to share in the glory with Cage, and Cage had to go out of his way to betray Bean and steal the Declaration for himself. It's a shame.


Do you see that look on Bean's face? That's the look of a man who has been betrayed. It's a look of genuine hurt.


So, getting back on track. We continue with the movie. With the Declaration stolen, naturally, the FBI will be on the case. They have video evidence showing Nick Cage steal the Declaration. So why are we labeling Bean the villain here? At this point in the movie, Bean hasn't even done anything illegal. (well, maybe trying to kill Nicholas Cage, but, I would argue, he didn't want to kill Cage in the first place, and really, he was protecting himself from Nick Cage betraying him)

And Cage is even captured by the FBI, with the FBI guy telling him that he has two options: 1) Go to jail for a really long time, or 2) Give back the Declaration, and go to jail for a really long time. As the FBI guy so succinctly puts it, "someone's has to go to jail." It's at this point that Cage pulls his biggest betrayal every by putting the frame on Sean Bean.

You see, at the end of the movie, Sean Bean goes to jail. Why? NICK CAGE STOLE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE! He should be the one going to jail, not Sean Bean! And what makes this even more tragic is the fact that Sean Bean - always the class act - breaks Nick Cage out of FBI custody.

And even after being broken out of custody by Bean, Cage is still pulling his little tricks throughout the movie. Bean, true to his word, breaks Cage out, meets him at the correct spot, and, as per the deal they made, gives Cage back all his little trinkets as long as he tells him everything he knows. Bean follows the deal right to the letter. But Cage is always looking for the upper hand and betrays Sean Bean some more, leaving out important details and seemingly forgetting that he made a promise to Bean to tell him everything he knew.

Bean does everything for his old friend, and without Bean and his help, Cage would never have gotten the treasure. But at the end, Cage frames Bean for a crime he never committed (stealing the declaration of independence), and doesn't even give Bean credit for helping him find the treasure. And yet, we - the audience - came out of that movie thinking Cage was the hero. All I see here is a devious Nick Cage, a man who betrayed the trust of his friend, used his friend for money, and then kept the treasure and the glory for himself while pinning a crime that he should have gone to jail for on an innocent man. It isn't right.


Look at Bean in this picture again. He looks like he's about to cry. And I don't blame him. His good friend betrayed him, stole the treasure for himself, and left him out to dry. Remember this face. You'll see it again in other movies, I guarantee that.

An Analysis of the Key Beginning Scene in National Treasure

So I've been going through the movie some more and watching and rewatching that opening scene, and I still can't figure out any way to see how the rest of the movie can shape Nicholas Cage as the hero of the movie. Let's re-examine the dialogue in this scene.



Fast forward to 7 minutes in and lets listen to them speak to each other. Here's what they say:

Bean: "We could borrow it."

Cage: "Steal it? I don't think so."

...

Bean: "Look Ben, I understand your bitterness, I really do. You spent your entire life searching for this treasure only to have the respected historical community treat you and your family with mockery and contempt. You should be able to rub this treasure in their arrogant faces and I want you to have the chance to do that."

[Bean then goes on to say how he'll make the arrangements and get them the document.]

Cage: "No..."

Bean: "I really need your help here." (remember, these two are partners!)

Cage: "I'm not going to let you steal the Declaration of Independence!"


So when you watch this scene again, does Bean really seem like the one doing the betraying? There's two things I see here. First, Bean wants to, not only get the treasure for his own good, but also for Cage's good. He wants Cage to be able to be redeemed for all the years he spent hunting for this treasure. Second, when Bean says, "I really need your help here," Cage responds with "I'm not going to let you steal the Declaration of Independence." I would be shocked if I were Bean. Two friends, working together to get the treasure, and now one of them says that he won't let the other get the treasure. So is Bean really the bad guy here? What do you think?

And don't forget, just moments later, Nicholas Cage concocts his own plan to STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE! Why didn't he just work with Bean in the first place!?