Staurt was born disabled, abused by his brothers, and abandoned by his family. Since then, he has used violence as his way of life and embarked on a life that endangers society and himself.
I was wondering, if Staurt was doomed for the first half of his life, is there a chance he could have done better?
I think there are still some, although such an idea may be too idealistic.
Although he himself said that he did not complain about the injustice of fate or the destruction of others, when he yelled at the police, he was obviously complaining that the society and the gov did not help him enough.
He has ALS, but it's not that he can't move. Instead, he uses violent means to put himself in prison more than 40 times.
Are others really not helping him enough? not necessarily. He had an expensive pacemaker on him, but he didn't think about being grateful.
He has committed many crimes and was imprisoned, which can only show that he has not repented, but has peace of mind.
To what extent is Staurt's own account of himself glorified? Without the perspective of the victim, how can it be possible to make an objective judgment?
Staurt has a little bit of light on him, but overall he's a lousy guy.
What is the source of this social problem? What flaws in culture and in institutions contributed to Staurt's tragedy? How can it be improved or corrected? Thoughts and answers are not given in the film.
View more about Stuart: A Life Backwards reviews
