Sicario (2015) - M5.8/E8

This was a very thought provoking movie.  One that can bring up some tense conversations from people on different sides of the political spectrum.   In essence, the government crosses some moral lines in order to maximize the saving of lives.  Is it ever OK to make such compromises?

While drawn from the train of science fiction and fantasy, two examples come to mind. In the book Ender's Game, the need to brutally and finally punish your enemies so that they can't seek out revenge on you is repeatedly brought up.  The following are some of the deepest lines of the novel and is an exchange that occurs between Ender and Valentine in chapter 13 of the book:

Ender: "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them -"
Valentine: "You beat them." For a moment she was not afraid of his understanding.
Ender: "No, you don't understand. I destroy them. I make it impossible for them to ever hurt me again. I grind them and grind them until they don't exist."

Ender kills multiple boys and almost causes the genocide of an alien race.  The guilt he has to bear is insufferable. Is it OK to go so far too ensure the safety of oneself or one's family? One's country? Are the psychological, spiritual consequences worth it?

In Batman, we constantly see Batman's dilemma with confronting the Joker. If he's really such a violent criminal, shouldn't it be OK if Batman kills him?  Isn't he being irresponsible and contributing the deaths of so many by simply turning him over to the authorities?  The constant response is that if he did kill the Joker, how would he be any different from any criminals he has vowed to bring justice on?  Any different from the man who took his parents away from him?  The difference between willing to take someone's life for pleasure or to end it to ensure the lives of countless innocents that would otherwise die? There is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and it may be different for different individuals (a seemingly scapegoat statement). Otherwise, the world would be out of balance.

Was it for the benefit of the world that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed? Did it end up saving more lives in the end to end it so dramatically and brutally? Would doing so again send a similar message to similar, present-day antagonistic groups?  I don't know. I wish it were as easy as saying it's never worth it.  In the Bible, God commanded the demolishing of cities for the good of his people. Yet, on a smaller, family scale, beyond stern and occasional corporal punishment (hopefully infrequent and under control) for an out of control child, sometimes a parent has to wait out the craziness in love and patience. Granted not everyone should be treated as one's child, but it's worth thinking about, if anything, to keep us humane.

[Spoilers may follow...]

It's too easy to cross a line in the heat of emotion and give up your humanity.  In the end, the revenge killing of the man's family was wrong, but the overall operation would supposedly save so many lives.  Undoubtedly someone else would step in and re-initiate or continue the crimes committed by the drug lord.  But as also mentioned, this will continue (in part) as long as Americans use and crave illegal drugs.

Watched on VidAngel filtering out only f-words and blasphemy and it was still followable.  There are some graphic scenes of violence that could be filtered out without disturbing the storyline too much.

Do Movie Critics Matter?

An article on FirstThings.com does a good job of explaining the importance of movie critics in our culture today.   An excerpt from the article supports what we're trying to do on this website:

"It is the film critic’s constant struggle to get filmgoers and filmmakers to understand that politics and morality are still part of the artistic equation, even at the movies.

Without using morality, politics, and cultural continuity as measures of value, there is no way to appreciate the state of the culture or to maintain intelligence. Without criticism, we will have achieved naivete."

They also mention the damage that amature critics and the "Internet's free-for-all" can cause to "the concept of film criticism"

"By offering an alternative deluge of fans’ notes, angry sniping, half-baked impressions, and clubhouse amateurism, the Internet’s free-for-all has helped to further derange the concept of film criticism performed by writers who have studied cinema as well as related forms of history, science, and philosophy. This also differs from the venerable concept of the “gentleman amateur” whose gracious enthusiasms for art forms he himself didn’t practice expressed a valuable civility and sophistication, a means of social uplift. Internet criticism has, instead, unleashed a torrent of deceptive knowledge—a form of idiot savantry—usually based in the unquantifiable “love of movies” (thus corrupting the French academic’s notion of cinephilia)."

Hopefully by our continuing study of religious principles, ancient philosophers, current and cultural events, history, etc., the reviews on this site can become more meaningful to our society.

Frost/Nixon

Synopsis

This film covered the preparation and the airing of the historical 4-day interview David Frost conducted with former president Richard Nixon.  Some wanted the interview to be the trial Nixon never received (due to Ford's pardon); others simply wanted the experience of interviewing one of the most controversial men in history.

Entertainment Value

I'm not sure how accurate the interviews in the film were with the actual ones, but no matter what, Ron Howard did an excellent job putting this story.  For consisting of mostly just dialog between the titular characters, it was as tense as any other action/suspense film I've seen, reminiscent of the style of film 12 Angry Men was.

Moral Value

It's intriguing to see Frost's motives for interviewing Nixon dramatically shift just before the last leg of the series.  Frost accepted some of his researchers because of their intent on proving Nixon guilty in order to give Americans the resolution they needed for the preceding years of scandal.  Frost didn't quite share that passion and was fighting a losing battle until he too decided to take things seriously and conduct the last interview in a way that would start the healing process for disillusioned Americans.  This is a great example of how anything done halfheartedly cannot bring you real happiness, no matter how optimistic you are.  Once a person has done everything to ensure the success of a goal, no matter the outcome, that person is successful.

Being how this is a depiction of a very important event in our history, I think it is of great value to everyone to see this film.  The film could very easily have been brought to a PG-13 rating, but I fear that Hollywood pushed for the R-Rating solely to target it's audience to a more mature crowd.  I can see that this film probably would not be enjoyed by too many under age 17, so why market the film towards them by giving it a PG-13 rating?

We did watch this edited, and as far as I know only a handful of swearing was cut out (turn up your nudity filter if you don't care to see the back of a naked man running into the ocean at the end).