Redemption and Purgatory in In Bruges
Pop culture is obsessed with the idea of redemption. It’s a tale as old as time, and it has captivated the world for eons. Since the days of early philosophers, people have pondered whether something or someone was ever truly irredeemable, and it is an inquiry that people still constantly reflect on today. Derek Vinyard (American History X), Darth Vader (Star Wars), and Jules Winnfield (Pulp Fiction) display to audiences that redemption is possible no matter the person or the crime. Gollum, (Lord of the Rings), Commodus (Gladiator), and Joffrey (Game of Thrones) show audiences that some corrupted individuals cannot change. Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver), Arthur Fleck (Joker), and Walter White (Breaking Bad) show audiences how a man can devolve into insanity or greed and lose all scope of a once-heralded moral code. These are some of the most acclaimed characters in entertainment, but people love them or love to hate them because of their journey towards potential change.
It is less often, however, that a movie focuses on redemption, but demands that the viewer find the answer validity to a character’s change. Martin McDonough’s 2008 film, In Bruges, accomplishes just that. In Bruges tells the story of two Irish hitmen, Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson), who must hide out in Bruges, Belgium after a hit goes horribly wrong. The entire film positions itself as an analysis of redemption, and it is quite literally a conversation throughout the film. Characters within it have differing viewpoints on the subject of personal growth/change and argue about its validity with one another. However, the film further complicates this evaluation by adding a lens of life after death within the philosophical analysis. Characters are forced to reckon with their horrendous, even evil, actions, and it is through this discourse that viewers get an understanding of each’s individual “moral code”. Throughout In Bruges, the director works diligently to analyze the merit of redemption while subtly hinting that the setting may be an underlying analogy for a pseudo-Purgatory itself.
Although the setting is always a distinguishing factor in films, it is rare for it to feel like a character in itself. The setting of Bruges plays an outstanding role within the diegesis (plot) itself, to a point where it’s as important—if not more—than the primary characters within the story. Bruges is described by Ken as “the most preserved medieval town in all of Belgium”. The setting itself is gorgeous. Pretty, quaint homes line the streets of the canal town. Churches and religious art galleries are prominent throughout the film, and, early in the diegesis, the viewer gets a profound sense of beauty within the Belgian city. Ken wants nothing more than to enjoy his time by sight-seeing and experiencing the vast culture. However, Ray cannot enjoy one simple aspect of the whole city, other than getting piss drunk in its pubs. McDonough sets out to embody the ongoing turmoil that he felt in these European trips: a part of him that wants to see everything that the city has to offer and a part that just wants to experience the pub culture of said city. The dynamic plays to hysterical effect, but it is not until viewers learn the reason that the assassins are in Bruges that Ray’s emotional turmoil and brooding attitude becomes clear.
(SPOILERS AHEAD)
When Ray has a moment to himself at the end of Act One, a flashback finally reveals what happened on the job that sent the Irishmen to Belgium. In a disturbing first job, Ray is tasked with killing a priest, an act that is shocking and unexplained. However, the bullets rip through the priest’s body and end up murdering a small, young boy. The flashback ends with the overhead shot of Ray’s two victims lying on the ground. The viewer is left examining Ray’s actions in the full scope of his devastation. The priest—an occupation that is heralded, rightly so, as holy, sacred, and pure—is riddled with bloody gunshot wounds. The boy—an embodiment of innocence, grace, and opportunity—has a bullet wound through his forehead. It is enough to bring on hatred for any character, yet McDonough waits until we have begun to like, even love, Ray’s charming, albeit depressing, personality to reveal this evil revelation.
The following shot opens Act Two with an intentional juxtaposition of Ray’s two victims to artwork in a Bruges’ gallery. The specific piece is Jan Provoost’s Death and the Miser. The disturbing painting displays a man bargaining with death. The painting depicts a haunting image of a miser seemingly trading an Earthly note—appearing to be an indulgence of sorts—to a skeletal figure of Death for a few coins. The dialogue between these scenes, the adjacency of Ray’s violent action with the disturbing imagery of an old man desperately trying to stave Death by offering material possessions, gives viewers some interiority into Ray’s turmoil. The Miser is either bribing death for more time or a better after-life sentencing. It inherently calls attention to both the after-life and the notion that material possessions do not matter when Death calls your name, but rather your previous actions. The painting calls attention to Ray’s inevitable greeting with Death, and what he will have to reckon with internally.
Ken takes an interest in this painting steps in front of the frame. The painting itself is on two separate canvases, the Miser on the left and Death on the right. In stepping in front of the frame, Ken covers the separation between the miser and Death. He is now the barrier between the two, subtly reminding the audience that Ken himself has been the harbinger of death for several years now. He has brought on the demise of many men, and now—as he grows older and closer to death—he has to consider his livelihood and life’s work when finally facing the grim reaper.
Ray explores the gallery, visibly uncomfortable as he looks on to more paintings of sinners being violently punished for their crimes. Through the incredible acting done by Colin Farrell and great writing in the script, the viewer understands that Ray is contemplating the severe punishments that people have faced for their violent crimes. Finally, Ken and he admire the painting The Last Judgment by Heironymous Bosch. The camera intercuts between the men looking at the painting and close-ups of the painting’s gruesome details. Ray admires the painting, acknowledging that it is the only one he enjoys out of the whole gallery, and asks Ken to explain the meaning behind the art. Ken explains the religious significance behind judgment day, the final day on Earth where mankind is judged for the sins throughout time. As the men look over the hellish depictions of the torture and suffering that sinners must face after they have been judged for their crimes, Ray asks about the space in between heaven and hell, Purgatory.
It is here that the film finally references the metaphorical setting of the film. As Ray so eloquently puts it, “Purgatory’s the in-betweeny one. You weren’t really shit, but you weren’t all that great either. Like Tottenham.” (27:03) Ray concludes his analysis of Purgatory by asking his companion if he believes in the subject matter of the artwork. The viewers finally get some expositional insight into Ray’s concerns. The decision to precede this discussion with Ray’s crime is masterful. Ray is reaching out to Ken over insight on the eternal punishments he may have to face upon his inevitable death.
The scene changes and Ken and Ray are now sitting in front of a church. The shot has a church steeple in the background clearly the two men. This is an ever-present reminder during this conversation of both the crime that of the religious context of the conversation, while also reminding us of the location of Ray’s violent mistake. Ken explains that he understands that he has hurt people in his life, but he continues to try to be a good person—that’s all he can do now. This leads to a small, comedic divergence from the conversation before Ray breaks down, pondering the intense reality that he will have always killed a little boy, and that transgression never, ever go away—he must live with it forever—“unless, maybe I go away,” Ray says.
Director Martin McDonough juxtaposes these three scenes to establish the redemptive arc within the film. From then on, almost all of the tension in the film stems from the moral decision of what must happen to Ray. However, not once does McDonough ever give the audience an answer as to whether Ray is worthy of redemption. Instead, the two men ethically reflect on the violence that they have caused in their lives. Meanwhile, they are currently waiting for orders from their boss, Harry Waters (Ralph Fiennes), the head of the criminal organization that they are a part of. They each are quite literally awaiting judgment from a “higher power” in their criminal lives.
Ray and Ken are still unaware of why they remain in Belgium. One hates the area while the other fully embraces his time in Bruges. Ken’s attitude seems metaphorical in that he fully accepts the violent actions committed throughout his life. He is comfortable in Bruges’ many religious spaces because he has an understanding of his moral beliefs. Ray, on the other hand, cannot “wrap [his] head around” the fact that he murdered a child. He is surrounded by medieval artwork that reminds him of the suffering that religious figures were forced to endure to be forgiven of their punishment. He refuses to want to reflect on the matter and wants to constantly distract himself with people or mind-altering substances to forget his crime. In this, we see that both men have a moderately good moral compass—for hitmen—yet each has done horrific things. They aren’t “really shit”, but they aren’t “all that great either”. The feelings of being “trapped” in Bruges that Ray experiences are one of discomfort with his stationary state. He is forced to reflect on the actions in his life while he and Ken try and move forward with their lives in positive ways. In this way, Bruges acts a purgatory for its characters, as they await instructions from their boss.
Purgatory itself has always been an intriguing, yet controversial aspect of the Christian religion. Jerry L. Wells’ scholarly book Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation details the history of Purgatory as well as the differing views of the “in-betweeny” place between heaven and hell. Stemming from the Catholic branch, the official conceptual development of Purgatory did not occur until much later in the history of Catholicism. Through analysis of the Bible, religious scholars found hints that alluded to a possibility of a place that purifies people before their final judgment in Heaven. Several instances within the Bible allude to a conceptual place where “mortal sinners” (Wells) were purged of their past wrongdoings. In many regards, “purgatory may be thought of as a second chance for salvation.” (Wells)
The concept is heavily debated, even to this day, especially after the Catholic church controversially began selling indulgences as a way to bypass Purgatory and streamline a person’s entrance to heaven, yet another reference that Provoost’s Death and the Miser alludes to. Although religious scholars debate the thought about a person’s ability to be saved after death, Wells posits the opportunity allows room for growth for all individuals. Wells writes, “The doctrine of purgatory from its earliest days has served the purpose of providing theological grounds for extending the hope of salvation to a wider range of persons.” (Wells) This implies that there is promise after life for many people, as long as they demonstrated goodness within their life. There is always an opportunity to change. Wells writes, “The notion that significant things happen between death and resurrection, before the final judgment, provides warrant for hoping that persons may be saved in the end, persons who may otherwise appear hopelessly to be lost.” (Wells) It seems throughout the diegesis of In Bruges that the person who appears hopeless and lost is Ray, and viewers see the theme of his redemption begin to intertwine with this conceptual idea of Purgatory.
It is not long before word from Harry arrives, and this revelation finally exposes why these characters were sent to Bruges in the first place. Yes, part of the reasoning was due to avoiding London law enforcement, but traveling to Bruges to accomplish this is addressed early in the film as “a bit fucking over-elaborate” when “you can hide out in Croyden” (9:43). The real reason is that Harry wanted to give Ray a few meaningful, beautiful days in “a fucking fairy-tale town” before he had the young man killed. Harry tasks Ken with the hit, but acknowledges, “I’m glad we were able to give him something. Something good and happy. Because he wasn’t a bad kid, was he? . . . He was a good bloke, but when it comes down to it, you know, he blew the head off a little fucking kid. And you brought him in, Ken. So if the buck don’t stop with him, where does it stop?” (41:42) Both men acknowledge that there is goodness in Ray. It was a horrible accident that the young boy was killed, but, to Harry, intentionality does not matter. Ray needs to be punished for his actions and receive penance. To Harry, that penance must be in the form of death, and it is established that Ken is responsible for Ray. Ken introduced Ray into this violent life, and he is accountable for his actions. In this capacity, Ken is a guardian to Ray; he is in charge of either protecting or punishing him.
Ken almost goes through with the assassination, but, when he sees Ray try to commit suicide, he saves Ray and forgets his plan. In a moment of great sorrow and deep remorse for Ray, Ken decides that death is not a punishment fitting for Ray. Ray is wracked with guilt, but Ken comforts him and tells him that he has the potential to, “save the next little boy. Just go away somewhere, get out of this business and try to do something good. You’re not going to help anybody dead. You’re not going to bring that boy back. But you might save the next one.” (1:02:34) Ken believes in the possibility for redemption in Ray. He is adamant that there is profound and inherent goodness within Ray’s being and decides to give him a second chance.
Ken takes the gun from Ray, limiting the potentiality for future violence enacted by him on himself or others, and places him on a train, the destination unknown. It seems to be the dawn of a new life for Ray—a salvation of sorts—yet Ray still seems lost and hopeless. There is still no assurance that he will not kill himself in the future or act violently towards others. However, the train does not make it far. Before even reaching the city limits, Ray is arrested for an assault that he committed earlier in the film. He is brought back to the city’s center and placed in jail. This twist seems to be further enforcing the analogy of Bruges as Purgatory. Ray was beginning to change, but had not quite completed his spiritual transformation. In addition, it was a previous transgression—an act of disturbing violence—that brought Ray back to the city, a place he despises. He is not able to leave because he has not fully repented for his actions.
This occurs unbeknownst to Ken and Harry, and, when Ken informs Harry of his decision to let Ray leave, Harry irately travels to Bruges to deal with the problem. Upon his arrival, the two discuss the possibility of Ray’s redemption, albeit in a humorous and vulgar manner. Ken argues that, unlike Harry or himself who will only grow to be worse people, “the boy [Ray] has the capacity to change. The boy has the capacity to do something decent with his life.” (1:15:00) Ken accepts any punishment that Harry decides for him, further enforcing the idea that Ken is a guardian of sorts for Ray. He would rather die, than give up his partner. Ken has accepted taking the penance onto himself rather than letting it fall onto Ray. Eventually, that is what occurs. Ken gives his life to warn Ray that Harry is there, looking to kill him. Ken understands that the transgressions throughout his life have made him deserving of punishment and he embraces that by trying to save someone he loves. He dies, unable to leave Purgatory, and, here, the film posits that death within Bruges means condemnation to Hell.
The film’s most blatant allegory comes in the film’s final moments. After being shot by Harry, Ray accidentally stumbles onto a film set, trying to escape his pursuer. A harrowing dream sequence is being filmed. Ray stumbles on set, dying. McDonough’s script describes the scene as, “the extras are dressed in strange, nightmarish masked costumes, many frighteningly similar to the demons, and those terrorized by them, in Bosch’s ‘Last Judgment’” (91). Ray has arrived at his final judgment, his final moments in Bruges. Of the actors around him, one person stands out among the rest. A prominently featured racist dwarf who dons a goofy schoolboy’s outfit. Due to the final reminder of his horrific crime, Ray deliriously calls out for “the little boy” before being shot several times by Harry. Ray drops to his knees as the costumed onlookers watch from afar.
The dwarf is killed and Harry, thinking that he murdered a child, kills himself. Both Harry and the Dwarf have been established as bad people and, like Ken, both are condemned to Hell. Paramedics shuffle Ray into an ambulance as Rat-People, Nuns, and familiar residents of Bruges examine him, judge him. A church steeple is visible in the background behind them, keeping the religious context of the film at the forefront of the viewer’s minds, as Ray struggles to breath. As he is being carted into the brightly lit ambulance—a reminder of the immaculate light of heaven—Ray promises to take responsibility with the family and endure any punishment they see fit as long as he survives his severe wounds and can escape Bruges. To him, anything is better than an eternity in Bruges.
Although the ending is ambiguous as to Ray’s fate, his Purgatorial journey has ended. He has embraced his transgressions and no longer wants to die. The change in him that Ken hoped for has begun to take shape, and he is ready for the final judgment of God—whether that is death and an eternity in hell or survival and an everlasting life.
In Bruges never answers the philosophical questions it posits throughout its run time. The audience feels a renowned love for both Ray and Ken, yet the film never ignores that they are murderers and are deserving of punishment. Ray’s redemptive arc is complicated, and it is held in a religious context that focuses on suffering to pay for sins. In this regard, the film explains that there is no suffering that Ray can do that will erase his history, but instead he can move forward with his life to try and set the past right. The setting complicates this analysis because the area they are contained in seems to be a religious allegory to Purgatory. The men now must wait in a state of limbo as they reflect on their crimes. By the time the film’s ambiguous ending occurs, the audience is unsure of both the fate of Ray and the validity of his redemption, but the film allows for the viewer to judge him themselves.
Work Cited
Bresnahan, Daniel. “The Hidden Meaning of Art in In Bruges.” The Sartler, blog.sartle.com/post/170622288990/the-hidden-meaning-of-art-in-in-bruges.
Goehring, Edmund J. “In Bruges as Boschean Allegory.” Film International, vol. 16, no. 2[84], June 2018, pp. 76–92. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1386/fiin.16.2.76-1
Laurel SJD. Suffering and the Narrative of Redemption. National Catholic BioethicsQuarterly.2017;17(3):437.http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=126286540&site=eds-live&scope=site. Accessed February 23, 2020
McDonough, Martin, director. In Bruges. In Bruges.
Walls, Jerry L. Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation. Oxford University Press, 2012.