Reflections
on characters and themes in “Sicario”
Directed
by Denis Villeneuve
Written
by Taylor Sheridan
Starring
Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro
FBI agent Kate Macer, an
expert in kidnapping cases, is invited to join a mysterious task force whose
objective is to trace leaders of drug cartels in Mexico and to cause maximum
disruption to their operations. However, all is not as straightforward as Kate
hoped and this leads to a journey of moral exploration and discovery, and conflict
with her newfound colleagues.
Fundamentally, “Sicario”
presents us with a juxtaposition of law-abiding principle and idealism,
disillusioned and determined realism, and ruthless or amoral acts of
retribution, showing how one can descend from one to another.
Kate does everything by
the book and is proud of her honesty and dedication to duty. That said, she is
willing to accept that her efforts have made barely a dent in the nefarious
activities of the Mexican cartels and other drug gangs. Matt Graver, a CIA
officer specialising in covert activities, recognises all too well the legal
limits, restrictions and confines of confronting these highly organised and
ruthless drug gangs and he is willing to push legal boundaries to their limits
and beyond in his determination to halt or at least curtail their activities.
That said, there are limits that he, as a representative of his government,
cannot go beyond and that is where Alejandro Gillick comes in. Alejandro has
suffered great personal loss and pain and is more than willing to apply the
gangs’ own rules of engagement and standards to them. He takes brutal and
merciless action as a private citizen, though with the willing, if necessarily limited,
co-operation of Matt and his forces.
Kate is impressed by
Matt’s knowledge, determination and purpose, and is persuaded to join him in a
venture that is laden with murky secrecy but which promises to be more
effective in a few hours than all her efforts to obstruct the flow of drugs
into her country over several years. She is thus drawn into a dark and amoral
world in which it seems the end justifies the means.
Vaguely reminiscent of the
principle behind “The Dirty Dozen”, our film charts the decline of idealistic
and principled law enforcers in favour of devoted and perhaps desperate professionals
willing to do whatever it takes to damage the cartels’ operations.
We are shown evidence of
the cartels’ brutal and ruthless methods used to establish and maintain their
position of criminal dominance and Kate, representing the relatively innocent
and morally upright audience, is rightfully horrified and disturbed. She may be
morally outraged by the actions of her new colleagues but she sees the
magnitude and moral dilemma of the problem, and is willing to recognise the
progress Matt and his colleagues have made and the effectiveness of their admittedly
dubious methods.
Kate is left in no doubt
as to the vicious and pitiless methods the gangs will employ to gain the
advantage when her trust is shattered by a treacherous would-be lover and when
she discovers the reasons for Alejandro’s contempt for and utterly merciless
attitude toward his enemy. His wife and daughter were brutally slain as a
result of his efforts to legally prosecute the gangs. So, Alejandro was
undoubtedly once as idealistic as Kate but his tragic experience in losing his
family taught him that principle has little or no value when dealing with
people who do not share your values, and who are willing to show no mercy in
seeking to assert their will.
As the film progresses, Alejandro
becomes the central figure and his actions provide a demonstration of the level
of ethically dubious determination and even inhumanity which may be necessary
to dent the drug gangs’ activities. It is, quite simply, a matter of tit for
tat. Alejandro is willing and able to stoop to their depths to stop them
because he has lost everything, including his compassion and moral inhibitions,
due to their actions and methods.
Ironically, the gangs’
success is dependent on the humanity of their victims as they react with horror
and fear to the gangs’ intimidation and savage actions. In order to combat the
gangs’ progress, Alejandro has committed to allaying any vestiges of humanity.
The gangs and any willing to support them must be treated in the same way the
gangs are willing to treat others and, as Kate discovers, Alejandro is willing
to apply his brutal determination and disregard for humanity and compassion to
anyone who may hinder his plans for the gangs’ elimination. For him, there is
no room for legal or moral squeamishness and, though he is driven by a desire
to do “good” and eliminate what he sees as a force of evil, his conduct raises
questions about his own soul…
This neo-noir par
excellence seems to suggest that man-made rules are great so long as everyone
agrees to abide by them but extreme contempt for society’s rules may require
extreme solutions – amorality may be called upon to defeat amorality, though a façade
of legality and respectability is required to avert general anarchy.
Toward the end of the
film, Kate has an opportunity to stop Alejandro but she cannot bring herself to
do so. Whether this is due to the strength of her principles or a realisation
that her principles serve little purpose in the face of abject amorality is not
clear, but she is left to reflect on her outlook on life…
The film ends with a
haunting image of a mother watching her son play football with the sound of
gunfire in the background – the veneer of social “normality” and fun with the distant
reality of the ever-present threat of amoral violence.
This film works because
by and large we in the audience will have retained our idealism and as such we
are shocked by events and perspectives in the film. We may be represented by
Kate and we, as well as Kate, have our eyes opened to relentlessly escalating
and violent issues, and their potential solutions that are equally unremitting
and ferocious. This erosion or undermining of the veneer of respectability and
propriety in society is explored in different ways in two of Taylor Sheridan’s
other works, “Hell or High Water” and “Wind River”.
I have to say I was
somewhat disappointed by the sequel, perhaps because the brutality was not
offset or balanced by the idealistic approach we had in Kate. It became a
matter of just how brutal things can become and there was little or no shock
value or conflict as principle and idealism have been eradicated and replaced
by similar but opposing factions of violence and amorality.
My thanks for taking the time to read this article. I
hope you found it of some value.
Stuart Fernie (stuartfernie@yahoo.co.uk)
No comments:
Post a Comment