Let me begin by saying that The Purge, starring Ethan Hawke and Lena "House of Lannister" Hedley is not a movie for everyone. My mother, for example, would hate this movie from the outset. So my comments are really for those who might like this movie, if this is the type of movie one is inclined to like. Who is that, exactly? I'm not sure writer and director James DeMonaco knows exactly.
On the one hand, it's part home invasion thriller. So, you know, all of the typical testosterone-filled 18-35-year-old males who go in for those movies might be the intended audience. On the other hand, it's kind of an intelligent dystopian future political commentary, the kind that might be based on a book you had to read your junior year of high school if you had a progressive English teacher who also assigned Animal Farm and Brave New World. Except this isn't based on a book. So the intended audience might be the intellectual type who call movies "films" and think the NSA poses a serious threat to civil rights.
I guess the problem is that the type of film that appeals to both of these groups isn't likely to be the same film and The Purge probably falls a little short with both groups. (See what I did there? I called it a "film.") In fact, I might be just the perfect intended audience member for this movie, because I like both home invasion thrillers and dystopian political commentary, but it kind of doesn't work for me either.
Briefly: the story is set in 2022 and there has been some sort of political upheaval leading to a "nation reborn." Once a year for a twelve-hour period, all law is suspended, and many citizens go on a "hunt" - wreaking havoc and murdering others with impunity. The net result is that crime at other times is exceptionally low and the economy is thriving. Our supposed protagonist, James Sandin (Hawke), has benefitted considerably from the purge by selling very expensive home security systems to wealthy families. The movie begins just an hour before the 7:00 P.M. start of the bloodletting, with Sandin arriving home to his wife (Hedley), a teenage daughter who has a boyfriend the parents don't approve of, and a misfit younger son who is luckily precocious with robots and hiding. Two potential sources of story conflict begin when a. the boyfriend sneaks into the home just prior to the security system being armed and b. the junior Sandin, possessed of scruples of unknown origin, disarms the security system to let in a homeless man who is being hunted by a mob of entitled ivy-league collegians, dressed in school blazers, khakis, and creepy masks. Learning that their prey has found refuge chez Sandlin, they come knocking.
As a premise, I think it's pretty brilliant. Yet it comes apart in execution.
<Spoilers ahead>
I'm guessing it's in the interest of time, but DeMonaco gives short shrift to world building. We're looking at a U.S. just nine years in the future and no real explanation is given about the events that led to the "nation reborn." It strains credulity to watch the Sandins' neighbors proceed to deliver cookies, chant government mantras, and mutilate teenagers in Stepfordesque complicity. DeMonaco seems to believe that the wealthy would happily populate the world he has created with nary a thought to the psychic repercussions of murder. Strangely, the Sandins seem to be the only ones in the neighborhood who are troubled by the practice at all, in spite of the fact that their wealth is built on the purge. I have no doubt that wealth may create the amoral zombies that we see in the movie, I just think it might take more than a decade. Perhaps if the setting were 2042 instead of 2022 . . . I don't know.
What the film does best, in my opinion, is work Edwin Hodge's character, the target of the hunt. Hodge plays the role close the reality that we see on a daily basis in this country. We truly feel his fear as he is hunted, first in the street and later in the house. Even as we watch him attack the family, our sympathies are with him: what else could someone backed into such a desperate corner, literally and figuratively, possibly do?
At those moments, the film's central thesis comes through clearest: poverty is violence. In a world where even our personal security is dependent upon wealth, the poor are victims of the larger culture. Poverty is an assault on one's personhood, an idea given an exclamation point by DeMonaco's refusal to give Hodge's character a name. At the movie's denouement, Mrs. Sandin is left at her dining table saying goodbye to the neighbors who have terrorized her, calling them by their names. She doesn't invite the homeless man to stay, or even inquire as to his name, even though he has saved her life and the lives of her children. He is instead left to return to the streets where the purge is just a particularly nightmarish episode in a life of daily terrors.
(Aside: Bravo to DeMonaco for making the homeless man almost the only black face we see in the movie. Although the film is tackling poverty, the subtext of racial inequality is given a human face through Hodge.)
On this level, the movie should work, addressing poverty, along with the country's obsession with guns, our desensitization to violence, and the sometimes sinister roles of media and government. Yet it doesn't work, not really.
The main fault of the film is that it spends fairly substantial screen time engaging in just the sort of violent voyeurism that DeMonaco seemed to set in his sights. We get sprays of automatic weapon fire into various torsos, axes buried into backs and skulls, and the leader of the hunting party glibly blowing off the head of a cohort. The audience is left reacting precisely as they would in any other home invasion thriller, not only hoping the Sandins make it through the night but cheering wildly when the bad guys get their bloody comeuppance. In the theater where I watched, the audience of mostly white twenty-somethings only really seemed to come alive when someone was being butchered. This was made easier by the fact that the hunters themselves were dehumanized, not only through their inexplicably unconscionable acts, but also because most of them remained masked throughout the movie. In short, DeMonaco seems to be offering a critique of the way the poor are dehumanized and then provides an alternative: dehumanize the rich instead.
Now, I'm rarely a critic of movie violence. While I am given occasional pause considering its effects on the very young, I believe that Bowdlerized stories lead us to imagine that violence is not real. The problem with The Purge is that its use of violence is to the detriment of the central point of the film. Just as the audience is beginning to consider the brutal reality of poverty, they are given an out through escapist fantasy.
I really wanted to like this movie, but it was ultimately unsatisfying. Maybe if there is a remake in a few years, they'll get it right. In the meantime, I hope we see more art that wrestles with this uncomfortable issue in American life.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
A Humble Proposition
The last few weeks have me thinking a lot about guns. In the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal here that I have been a gun owner in my life and am historically very leery of efforts to disarm the citizenry. Jefferson famously said that where the governments fears the people, there is liberty; but where the people fear the government, there is tyranny. This is one of his primary arguments for the second amendment to the Constitution. It was also, of course, why Jefferson argued against a standing army. It is interesting to me note that the disbanding of our standing army plays so little in discussion of second amendment rights. It may also be worth noting that Jefferson rarely armed his slaves, though I'm not entirely sure what motivated his decision there.
Yet, despite my desire for an armed citizenry and a disarmed military, I think that the time has perhaps come for me to rethink my position somewhat. I will confess here that my judgment may have become somewhat clouded by the recent events in Newtown, Conn. I have a certain sentimentality for images of frightened children sobbing uncontrollably after their classmates have been shot multiple times with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. But I recognize the media's attempt to manipulate my emotions through shocking images such as these.
It is hardly fair, after all, to attack weapons such as the AR-15 (the rifle the U.S. military refers to as an M16). The AR-15 is actually banned as a hunting weapon in some states because the ammunition is not strong enough. Wiser state legislatures recognize that it would be extremely inhumane to allow a less-effective weapon to be used against a 250 lb. adult deer. Fortunately for the children at Sandyhook Elementary, the weapon was sufficiently effective in its use against first graders, as the average 40 lb. six-year-old can be felled with significantly less ammunition than his cervine counterparts.
It seems to me that a rational compromise can be reached on this front. If we allow the state to restrict which weapons may be used against game animals, it certainly seems reasonable that they could restrict which ones may be uses against other human beings. I realize that the language would have to be crafted rather carefully, however, taking into account the age, size, and general health of the would-be target. For example, the state could require that those targeting adult males in the prime of life use a 50-caliber weapon, making a clean kill more certain. If your target were kindergarten students, however, a simple 22 might suffice (though the larger caliber weapons would obviously do the job, too). In that particular instance, however, it might be essential to craft code to insist on at least semi-automatic weapons with large magazines, since young children are small and naturally quick and all the more so if startled by the unexpected arrival of a stranger with an assault weapon at school.
The National Rifle Association has been quick to point out that more guns may have prevented the recent tragedy. When I learned that the shooter, Adam Lanza, had taken his mother's legally-purchased hand guns and semi-automatic rifle, leaving her with only two traditional hunting rifles to defend herself against her murderous son, it really got me wondering. What if she had owned two legally-purchased Bushmaster AR-15 rifles? She might just have had a fighting chance herself, and prevented the needless deaths of 20 elementary school children. (I would add here that it is probably advisable to actually own a third rifle as a back-up, as the AR-15 is known for it's tendency to jam when not kept clean. And let's face it: who has time to clean all of those weapons on a daily basis?)
In the wake of the shooting, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for an armed officer in every school in America. While the closet libertarian in me may question the wisdom of putting an armed police officer in every school and vaguely wonder if this may be the precursor to the sort of police state our aforementioned third president may have been warning us against, I think LaPierre has a point. He correctly pointed out that we have armed guards at courthouses and airports and this effectively prevents tragedies in those venues. And please spare me the liberal diatribe about the New Jersey gunman who seized an officer's weapon in a police station filled with armed officers, just two weeks after the Newtown incident. The fact of the matter is that in that particular case, the gunman was killed while only wounding three officers. Were it a school and an unarmed criminal had seized an officer's weapon, it is unlikely that he could take out more than five or six children before being shot himself.
This does bring me to another salient point, however. Many in the public sphere, such as Texas Governor Rick Perry, rightly recognize that this does not go far enough. These critics have called for arming teachers. I could not agree more. Like many on the far right, I do not trust the education of our nation's youth to such a lazy and incompetent group as public school teachers, but let me be the first to say that I do trust them with the safe handling and discharge of large-caliber rifles and handguns in America's classrooms.
Yet I cannot help but wonder, "Is this enough?" Clearly, the answer is "no." In the average American classroom there is only one teacher. A savvy gunman would obviously target the teacher first, preventing her from quickly accessing her safely stowed weapon and defending the children in her charge. No, the answer is much more radical, yet ridiculously obvious: we need to arm every single student in American schools.
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that arming every school-age child creates myriad problems, including the likelihood that some outcast loser (like an Adam Lanza or Dylan Klebold) would use the state-provided weapon to attack other students because he was picked last in kickball. But consider it for a moment: if you knew that the class weirdo had a 44 magnum in his backpack, would you even think of giving him a wedgie?
Is it an expensive proposition? Certainly, but isn't the safety of America's children worth it?
So how are we going to pay for it? Well, I wondered that, too, until I read Mr. LaPierre's comments more carefully.
What is the root cause of this violence we see in America? Clearly, it is neither legal gun ownership nor the availability of weapons with 30+ round magazines. No, it something much more sinister. Hear the words of the NRA spokesman:
There exists in this country a callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games . . . blood-soaked slasher films . . . and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
Digital media creators, actors, writers, directors, singers, and musicians. These are the true culprits in American society.
Guns don't kill people, art kills people.
To pay for the presence of a school police force, the arming of both teachers and students in every school, and the design of a comprehensive marksmanship curriculum, I suggest the complete elimination of school arts programs. These programs are costly and encourage students to "express themselves." It is, no doubt, this sort of self-reflection that leads many of these monsters to unleash their inner demons on society at large. Further, the content espoused by these so-called "academic subjects" include violent music, such as murderous British folk ballads and drug-induced homicidal fantasies, like Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique; the sexualized violence of the dance stage, as evident in Le Sacre du printemps; and canvas grotesqueries, for instance, those by Hieronymus Bosch. Theatre, of course, seems almost designed to inculcate violence in our young people, with the Bard's Scottish play practically a requirement of the high school literary curriculum.
With the complete elimination of school arts programs, those industries will soon dry up and leave our shores for more barbaric countries like Finland or the U.K. We will have no more music, film, or literature poisoning young minds. Our children will grow up knowing only fresh air and the joy of mastering assault weaponry.
I realize there may be resistance to this plan at first, but I can honestly think of no reasonable alternative. I urge the president, Congress, and the U.S. Department of Education to implement this plan quickly, before it is too late.
Yet, despite my desire for an armed citizenry and a disarmed military, I think that the time has perhaps come for me to rethink my position somewhat. I will confess here that my judgment may have become somewhat clouded by the recent events in Newtown, Conn. I have a certain sentimentality for images of frightened children sobbing uncontrollably after their classmates have been shot multiple times with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle. But I recognize the media's attempt to manipulate my emotions through shocking images such as these.
It is hardly fair, after all, to attack weapons such as the AR-15 (the rifle the U.S. military refers to as an M16). The AR-15 is actually banned as a hunting weapon in some states because the ammunition is not strong enough. Wiser state legislatures recognize that it would be extremely inhumane to allow a less-effective weapon to be used against a 250 lb. adult deer. Fortunately for the children at Sandyhook Elementary, the weapon was sufficiently effective in its use against first graders, as the average 40 lb. six-year-old can be felled with significantly less ammunition than his cervine counterparts.
It seems to me that a rational compromise can be reached on this front. If we allow the state to restrict which weapons may be used against game animals, it certainly seems reasonable that they could restrict which ones may be uses against other human beings. I realize that the language would have to be crafted rather carefully, however, taking into account the age, size, and general health of the would-be target. For example, the state could require that those targeting adult males in the prime of life use a 50-caliber weapon, making a clean kill more certain. If your target were kindergarten students, however, a simple 22 might suffice (though the larger caliber weapons would obviously do the job, too). In that particular instance, however, it might be essential to craft code to insist on at least semi-automatic weapons with large magazines, since young children are small and naturally quick and all the more so if startled by the unexpected arrival of a stranger with an assault weapon at school.
The National Rifle Association has been quick to point out that more guns may have prevented the recent tragedy. When I learned that the shooter, Adam Lanza, had taken his mother's legally-purchased hand guns and semi-automatic rifle, leaving her with only two traditional hunting rifles to defend herself against her murderous son, it really got me wondering. What if she had owned two legally-purchased Bushmaster AR-15 rifles? She might just have had a fighting chance herself, and prevented the needless deaths of 20 elementary school children. (I would add here that it is probably advisable to actually own a third rifle as a back-up, as the AR-15 is known for it's tendency to jam when not kept clean. And let's face it: who has time to clean all of those weapons on a daily basis?)
In the wake of the shooting, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre called for an armed officer in every school in America. While the closet libertarian in me may question the wisdom of putting an armed police officer in every school and vaguely wonder if this may be the precursor to the sort of police state our aforementioned third president may have been warning us against, I think LaPierre has a point. He correctly pointed out that we have armed guards at courthouses and airports and this effectively prevents tragedies in those venues. And please spare me the liberal diatribe about the New Jersey gunman who seized an officer's weapon in a police station filled with armed officers, just two weeks after the Newtown incident. The fact of the matter is that in that particular case, the gunman was killed while only wounding three officers. Were it a school and an unarmed criminal had seized an officer's weapon, it is unlikely that he could take out more than five or six children before being shot himself.
This does bring me to another salient point, however. Many in the public sphere, such as Texas Governor Rick Perry, rightly recognize that this does not go far enough. These critics have called for arming teachers. I could not agree more. Like many on the far right, I do not trust the education of our nation's youth to such a lazy and incompetent group as public school teachers, but let me be the first to say that I do trust them with the safe handling and discharge of large-caliber rifles and handguns in America's classrooms.
Yet I cannot help but wonder, "Is this enough?" Clearly, the answer is "no." In the average American classroom there is only one teacher. A savvy gunman would obviously target the teacher first, preventing her from quickly accessing her safely stowed weapon and defending the children in her charge. No, the answer is much more radical, yet ridiculously obvious: we need to arm every single student in American schools.
I know what you are thinking. You are thinking that arming every school-age child creates myriad problems, including the likelihood that some outcast loser (like an Adam Lanza or Dylan Klebold) would use the state-provided weapon to attack other students because he was picked last in kickball. But consider it for a moment: if you knew that the class weirdo had a 44 magnum in his backpack, would you even think of giving him a wedgie?
Is it an expensive proposition? Certainly, but isn't the safety of America's children worth it?
So how are we going to pay for it? Well, I wondered that, too, until I read Mr. LaPierre's comments more carefully.
What is the root cause of this violence we see in America? Clearly, it is neither legal gun ownership nor the availability of weapons with 30+ round magazines. No, it something much more sinister. Hear the words of the NRA spokesman:
There exists in this country a callous, corrupt, and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. Through vicious, violent video games . . . blood-soaked slasher films . . . and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And they have the nerve to call it "entertainment."
Digital media creators, actors, writers, directors, singers, and musicians. These are the true culprits in American society.
Guns don't kill people, art kills people.
To pay for the presence of a school police force, the arming of both teachers and students in every school, and the design of a comprehensive marksmanship curriculum, I suggest the complete elimination of school arts programs. These programs are costly and encourage students to "express themselves." It is, no doubt, this sort of self-reflection that leads many of these monsters to unleash their inner demons on society at large. Further, the content espoused by these so-called "academic subjects" include violent music, such as murderous British folk ballads and drug-induced homicidal fantasies, like Berlioz's Symphonie Fantastique; the sexualized violence of the dance stage, as evident in Le Sacre du printemps; and canvas grotesqueries, for instance, those by Hieronymus Bosch. Theatre, of course, seems almost designed to inculcate violence in our young people, with the Bard's Scottish play practically a requirement of the high school literary curriculum.
With the complete elimination of school arts programs, those industries will soon dry up and leave our shores for more barbaric countries like Finland or the U.K. We will have no more music, film, or literature poisoning young minds. Our children will grow up knowing only fresh air and the joy of mastering assault weaponry.
I realize there may be resistance to this plan at first, but I can honestly think of no reasonable alternative. I urge the president, Congress, and the U.S. Department of Education to implement this plan quickly, before it is too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)