Tremendous performance ... dangerous ending

Rating: Null/10 (19 April 2007)

This film has always bothered me as deeply as any I've seen, and I've seen thousands. I'm a film buff, and have been from the time I was a youngster watching old films with my mother. Many films have impacted my life, much the way they have a lot of people, and that's why it's important that filmmakers (real filmmakers) put deep thought into what they put on the big screen.
I saw AHX when it was first released. I saw it again a number of times since, mainly because I have tried to come to terms with the ending. Had it been a lesser film, I would have just labeled the ending thoughtless racism, as is in a lot of films, and moved on. But this film is so thoughtful in other ways that I have to believe that the filmmakers thought as deeply about the ending - often considered the most important part of a movie - of their film.
I've accepted that the white characters in the film were deep and layered characters, and the black characters, for the most part, were one dimensional stereotypes because the film is from the point of view of Edward Norton's character, and his family are the supporting characters. The black characters are secondary. That is until the end.
When the black kid shoots Daniel in the end, it makes him a much more important character to the story. And, we haven't seen enough of this character to understand his motivation. So, he just becomes some black kid who overreacted and killed a white main character who the audience loved and who was changing for the better. To me, that would go to make some in the white audience despise this kid, and be more sympathetic to Derek's point of view.
The filmmakers can't even argue that they were just giving a look at real life in this situation, as the scene does not at all fit what we know, or knew about violence among youth. (Excuse me for the upcoming generalizations, but race is the topic of the film, and I'm simplifying for time's sake.) We know we've had the school shootings by the outcast white kids, and we've had a number of inner city shootings by underprivileged black kids. The white kids have, in general, gone after the kids who made them feel like outcasts, and the inner city shootings have been part of gangs or the drug trade, where the intended victims are involved in the same. The issue of a black kid shooting a white kid because of some racist spat is just not reality.
So, we have a one dimensional black kid shooting a audience favorite character in an unrealistic scene. This is at the end of an otherwise well made film containing a thought provoking discussion dominated by a very intelligent and convincing skinhead character (played by the dynamic Edward Norton).
We've all heard that this film is praised by racists as well as "non-racists". So, I can't help but to wonder what the intentions of the filmmakers were.
Some might say that you can't dismiss the rest of this well made film because of the end. And I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, it's the poignancy and quality of the rest of the film that gives the ending such power. The ending of a film often brings together the themes and point of view of the film. So again, what were the intentions? I find the ending of this film to be out of place. Otherwise, this film is well made, well acted and so well respected across the board, and that may make it dangerous.