Returning to a theme he wrestled with at the beginning of his career, William Friedkin’s Rampage is an intriguing dialectic regarding the moral implications of the death penalty and whether or not such a decision can truly be justified in a court of law. Of course, this idea has been explored in many movies before and since, but Friedkin utilizes his signature style of intense authenticity to invoke a real sense of dread regarding the murders and complexity regarding the proposed solution. Like in his other masterworks, Friedkin turns up the suspense in the opening scene and sustains it for nearly the entire picture. The main difference here is how, unlike The Exorcist, Rampage does not focus on the graphic brutality of the circumstances. Rather, the palpable feeling of terror and instability after the fact becomes what Friedkin is really after. The focus is on the killer’s psyche, his impact on victims’ families and society’s attempt to find a way to lessen the severity and quantity of such horrific acts.

Based on the case of Richard Chase, known for cannibalizing his victims and drinking their blood, Rampage follows Charles Reece (Alex McArthur), an intense looking but otherwise normal citizen, who suddenly and without apparent reason murders several people in their homes around Christmastime. As this element heats up, Friedkin quickly switches gears to focus on assistant district attorney Anthony Fraser (Michael Biehn), a devout liberal Catholic who, despite having lost a child, still fervently believes the death penalty is not only morally unacceptable but also practically untenable. Fraser’s character arc reflects that of writer/director Friedkin, whose own view of the death penalty changed throughout his career as young documentarian to seasoned filmmaker. In 1962, Friedkin made the small-budget documentary The People vs. Paul Crump with the explicit purpose of saving a man from the gas chamber. His decision to revisit the subject seems unusual, but the times had changed radically. While racism and lack of fact-based evidence may have played a role in Crump being placed on death row, the situation of Reece (Chase) is drastically different. He is depicted as being known and respected in his community, a man who passes for ordinary in most people’s eyes but suffers from internal demons that slowly but surely push him to lash out violently. In short, the motive to murder has become much more internalized by the 1980s. The concept of the ‘serial killer’ is all over the news and murder occurs more frequently in a close-up, personal manner. Like so many others of his kind, Charles Reece is a young man, living with his mother, withdrawn from larger society but still able to engage properly until his perverse desires overwhelm his thin moral veneer.

McArthur effectively plays Reece as a competent, straightforward young man who appears normal to anyone on the street, only to switch to maniacal paranoia in a split second. This keeps us off-balance as to what his next action will be, but also emphasizes Reece’s distorted understanding of reality. He speaks in riddles, smiles disturbingly while being questioned by authorities, and talks of needing the blood of his victims to protect him from having his own blood stolen. Clearly, he is not mentally sound and has not been for a while, and the movie explores arguments for and against having a man such as this tried as sane or insane, leading to either death or a mental institution.

Rampage is a slight Friedkin movie, but a Friedkin movie, nevertheless. His ability to zero in on a particular sensibility for the entire picture is truly admirable. He never lets up on the tension as to whether or not Reece should be convicted and put to death or institutionalized for study. Indeed, the latter half of Rampage focuses almost exclusively on this courtroom debate. As Fraser and the public defender argue their respective cases, the audience is left to decide how we feel both individually and as a member of the broader society in which people like Reece also inhabit. Much of the tension in these scenes comes from the back-and-forth between compelling arguments. Indeed, Friedkin constructs these scenes in such a way that we are forced to see the pros and cons of each side. People as disturbed and psychopathic as Reece clearly deserve to die, but is that in their (and society’s) best interest? Would it not be better to keep them under surveillance in order to learn from their disorders in an attempt to try and prevent repeat occurrences?

In a unique set of circumstances, Friedkin was given the ability to change the message of his own movie. Initially made for a late 1987 release, the production company went bankrupt and forced Rampage to sit on the shelf for five years until it was picked up in 1992 for a limited release. By this point, Friedkin’s views on the death penalty had evolved to the degree that he changed the movie’s ending. The 1992 cut gives a more ambiguous reading of the situation and also clearly puts the movie’s footing on the pro-death penalty side of the debate. This does not mean Friedkin straw-mans the anti-death penalty argument. In fact, both sides are given adequate time to develop their arguments and the movie gives about equal time to each lawyer. Though Friedkin makes his stance explicit in the final sequence, the movie still leaves much of the decision-making up to the viewer, as we contemplate the reasons for and against putting a man like Charles Reece to death. It certainly is the more straightforward approach, but does it allow us to learn anything from the murders? In the end it may be nothing more than an eternal debate over which no clear moral or sociological decision can be made.