Monday, April 14, 2014

Character Analysis: Aaron Stampler

Character Analysis: Aaron Stampler

By: Brian Cotnoir

CHARACTER: Aaron Luke Stampler from “Primal Fear” (1996)

Aaron Luke Stampler from "Primal Fear"
Aaron Stampler was a young simple boy with a severe stutter that was born in the small town of Cold Creek, Kentucky.  When he was 18-years-old he left home and ended up as a beggar on the streets of Chicago.  It was there Aaron was spotted by Archbishop Rushman, a prominent figure in the City, and was invited to stay at the Savior House.  Even though Aaron was past the maximum allowed age of the Savior House, the Archbishop allowed Aaron to stay and even had him singing in the boys’ chorus.  One day the Archbishop was brutally murdered in his private residence and Aaron is found fleeing the scene covered in the Archbishop’s blood.  The press dubs Aaron as “The Butcher Boy of St. [Michael’s] and it seems like an open and shut case of cold-blooded murder, but Aaron denies that he was the person who killed the Archbishop; he claims he was there when the Archbishop was being murdered, but that someone else did it, and that he “lost the time”.     
Meet Roy
                                
Transforming into Roy
    Aaron reveals to his attorney, Martin Vail, and a psychiatrist that he is prone to blackouts.  It is when Aaron “loses the time” that he wakes up not knowing where he is or how he got there.  It is during one of his video recorded therapy sessions that Aaron becomes very stressed and appears to become a different person.  The psychiatrist believes that Aaron may have Dissociative Identity Disorder (or multiple personalities) a diagnosis that his attorney initially scoffs off, but when Aaron attacks Mr. Vail in the holding cell, he sees Aaron’s true colors.  It here that we are introduced to Roy; a separate personality of Aaron that is his polar opposite.  Where Aaron is quiet, kindhearted, naïve, and has a pitiful stutter, Roy is loud, vulgar, and violent (with no stutter).  Roy informs Mr. Vail that it was he who killed the Archbishop because Aaron was too afraid to do it himself.  Roy also helps inform Mr. Vail that the Archbishop was sexually abusing Aaron.  Now, the motive has been established, but can Aaron really be held accountable for something done by a “separate personality”? The rules for pleading guilty by Insanity derive from “M’Naughten’s Rule”:

To establish defense on ground of insanity, it must be proved that at the time committing the act the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know what the nature and quality of the act he was doing.  Or if he did know, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong” (Encyclopedia of Serial Killers Vol. 2 P. 125).

     Aaron’s psychiatrist suggest that his separate personality was brought on by years of abuse: physical abuse at the hands of his father and sexual abuse brought on by Archbishop Rushman.  When Aaron is placed in a stressful situation, is when he switches from Aaron to Roy.  This would totally vouch the validity for not guilty by reason of insanity.   

THE ACTOR:

Actor Edward Norton
The role of Aaron was played by actor Edward Norton.  “Primal Fear” was the first film Norton ever appeared in and he absolutely thrived in this role; he won a Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Supporting Role and even received an Oscar Nomination for Best Supporting Actor.  That’s quite an achievement for your first film role.  What’s even more interesting is how Norton landed the role of Aaron Stampler.  When Norton read for the role of Stampler in his audition he spoke with a severe stutter on purpose.  In the novel in which the film was inspired by Aaron had no stutter.  When the woman running the audition told him that would be enough, he purposely grabbed her and began to act aggressive like Roy.  She was legitimately scared by Norton, and believed her life was in danger.  That is one hell of a way to earn a movie role.

CHARACTER IS SIMILAR TO OR INSPIRED BY:

     Aaron was originally a character from William Diehl’s novel “Primal Fear”.  His character is pretty typical for a trial film: he’s the “innocent boy that everyone says is a guilty”.  He’s like a more adult version of the kid on trial for murder in “12 Angry Men”.

FATE OF THE CHARACTER:

Oooh That Smirk!
While in court, Martin Vail puts Aaron on the stand in hopes that he can get Roy to appear. He fails to get Aaron to become Roy, but Janet Venable—the Prosecutor in the trial—manages to get Roy to come out and he attacks her.  Aaron is found not guilty by reason of insanity and sentenced to be sent to a Mental Hospital.  It is after a brief meeting with Mr. Vail, in the holding cell that Aaron reveals that he was faking having a multiple personality the whole time.  Aaron reveals that he murdered the Archbishop and his ex-girlfriend, and that he made up Aaron’s soft-spoken, stuttering personality to fool everyone.     The man who convinced everyone that they were taking advantage of him (his father, the Archbishop, and Mr. Vail), was actually taking advantage of everyone else.  He was not actually a mentally ill person; he was a sociopath with a desire to kill

Aaron, you deceitful little scamp you

11 comments:

  1. Never before had I felt so violated from a movie twist. Such an amazing performance! I-I-I ju-just didn't see it coming!

    ReplyDelete
  2. "He is not actually mentally ill."
    This is an incorrect assumption. Aaron's manipulative nature and serious lack of empathy, among various other traits he exhibits, perfectly fits the diagnostic criteria, according to the DSM-V, for Antisocial Personality Disorder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? Well, I wouldn't know much about that: I've never really read or looked at the DSM-IV's. But I appreciate your feedback and contributions to this to this post. Many Thanks \m/

      Delete
    2. Very true. ASPD at its finest.

      Delete
    3. Sociopaths aren't mentally ill, no. They just have a disordered way of thinking, hence it being a personality disorder. They do know the difference between right and wrong.

      Delete
    4. but did he have a conduct disorder? he had an abnormal childhood, but he didn't get to know enough about his childhood to see if he actually had a conduct disorder (crucial for the APD diagnosis). I wish they went into more detail of his childhood, it would have been such a great way to lead up to his admittance of faking DID

      Delete
  3. I have a problem with a few things. So Roy was pretending to be Aaron from the minute he met the priest on the street and there was never any multiple personalities. Why would Roy do this? Why did Roy kill the priest? Didn’t he enjoy the sex and perversion? What was his motive for killing the bishop if he was actually Roy all along. Wouldn’t Roy have benefited more from blackmailing the Bishop? In order for us to believe this plot we must assume psycho Roy was pretending to be meak and mild Aaron. We must believe psycho Roy allowed himself to be taken in by a priest and was ok with being an altar boy and signing in a choir. Then we have to believe that psycho Roy suddenly had the urge to kill both Linda and the bishop.

    ReplyDelete
  4. There never was an Aaron. Stampler created the sweet innocent version of himself purely for the purpose of winning over the jury. Although most likely Aaron Stampler did put on a more innocent act around Rushman in order to illicit sympathy from his benefactor. Stampler killed the priest for kicking him and his girlfriend out of Saviour House on account of the fact they were living and sleeping together, an act the bishop deemed immoral. This is stated in the book, although it's not super clear in the film. He did enjoy the sex, all the Altar Boys and Linda did. This is also stated in the book. The motive for killing Rushman was to get back at him for kicking Stampler out onto the street. You make a good point about how blackmail would have been more to Stampler's benefit than murder. Stampler chose murder because he is a psychopath who enjoys killing people for revenge. Rushman wasn't even the first person he'd killed. This becomes clear in the second and third books in the series.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I can't agree more. He did killed his own brother and his ex-girlfriend. He even assisted the doctor perform autopsy while eating a candy bar.

    Reign in Hell and Show of Evil were also equally
    ly engaging.

    ReplyDelete