WARNING: "Barbarian" spoilers below
All of that is factored into what I'm saying already. My argument is not "they didn't give a single coherent explanation for why she might do this," it's that it simply isn't sufficient at that point.
The idea that any real person would give up on law enforcement in such a dangerous situation after a single attempt just seems nutty. And while A.J. was in danger, she literally already made that exact mistake--trying to help the guy herself rather than get help--earlier in the film.
If someone wants to excuse it because It's Just a Movie, that's fine, but it's definitely an example of a movie being a movie and no longer trying to resemble real life. I'm willing to overlook it in total, which is why I said I like the movie and started by defending her character's judgment. Just not in this instance.
The idea that any real person would give up on law enforcement in such a dangerous situation after a single attempt just seems nutty. And while A.J. was in danger, she literally already made that exact mistake--trying to help the guy herself rather than get help--earlier in the film.
If someone wants to excuse it because It's Just a Movie, that's fine, but it's definitely an example of a movie being a movie and no longer trying to resemble real life. I'm willing to overlook it in total, which is why I said I like the movie and started by defending her character's judgment. Just not in this instance.
WARNING: "Barbarian" spoilers below
I don't know, there is a certain saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...
But seriously, it is also foreshadowed by the homeless person in the neighbourhood who does try to warn her about what's in the house but she mistakes him for a crazy attacker (and does call the cops on him) - this only makes it seem more plausible that the police are quick to assume the same thing about her later in the film (especially if she can't provide immediate proof to back up such a claim and they cite their own reasons for why they can't legally investigate the building anyway). Trying to base it in what "real" people would do is going to be a little presumptuous because, well, who gets to define who a real person is, much less what they would or wouldn't do? Maybe in your personal experience the police are reliable and just enough that you would try calling them again even after the first unit to respond to your call is aggressively unhelpful, but does that mean you can unequivocally assume that the same is true of everyone else's experience with the police?
But seriously, it is also foreshadowed by the homeless person in the neighbourhood who does try to warn her about what's in the house but she mistakes him for a crazy attacker (and does call the cops on him) - this only makes it seem more plausible that the police are quick to assume the same thing about her later in the film (especially if she can't provide immediate proof to back up such a claim and they cite their own reasons for why they can't legally investigate the building anyway). Trying to base it in what "real" people would do is going to be a little presumptuous because, well, who gets to define who a real person is, much less what they would or wouldn't do? Maybe in your personal experience the police are reliable and just enough that you would try calling them again even after the first unit to respond to your call is aggressively unhelpful, but does that mean you can unequivocally assume that the same is true of everyone else's experience with the police?
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.