Man on Fire, and its place in revenge cinema

Title: Man on Fire
Director: Tony Scott
Cast: Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, Mickey Rourke
Year: 2004
MPAA: Rated R for language and strong violence
Date of Review: June 13, 2007

There’s something about a violent revenge tale that appeals to that sadistic machismo laying dormant in most men (and many women). More often than not, these vigilante stories make the audience sympathize with the protagonist, and cheer every time he off’s one of the bad guys. We put ourselves in their position and think "gee, if my family was murdered by a drug cartel, I’d probably go kill them all too." But the dangerous thing about this is that it is very rare that a film like this looks at the other side of things, taking the "two wrongs don’t make a right" stance. It’s a fine line between justice and revenge - are directors asking too much of audiences to try and distinguish the difference?

Look at the recent superhero movie craze. I love them. Any movie involving someone in tights who can fly or shoot webs or has claws in their hands, I guarantee you I’ll be first in line to see it. I love comic books and the movies based on them...but I also know that in the "real world", one cannot take the law into their own hands, regardless of their skills, resources or powers. Now look at who 99% of these films are targeting with their advertising. Children. Can a child make out that difference? Will they be able to simply take the film as "cool" and "entertaining", without being deeply influenced by it?

Now lets jump to some more mature films in the revenge/vigilantism genre. Oldboy is, in my opinion, one of the finest pieces of revenge cinema ever created. It has a sympathetic protagonist, some very brutal, adrenaline filled action, and an antagonist who seems worthy of many deaths. Where Oldboy differs, though, is that by the end of the film, it does not condone the actions of our hero Oh Dae-su, and in fact his last action in the film is one of such high questionability that it continues to divide audiences. While I personally think Oh Dae-su deserved revenge, I appreciate that the film tried to make the audience realize that Oh Dae-su was in the wrong too, and that the antagonist had his own reasons for his actions.

There are also those occasional revenge films that fully realize the idea that the protagonist is not a good guy at all, and no better - or perhaps even worse - than the people he is going after. Payback, starring Mel Gibson, is a great example of this. Gibson plays Porter, a lowlife gangster who snags some money from a rival gang, then his best friend puts a bullet in his back, takes his money and his wife, and leaves him for dead. Does Gibson deserve revenge? Sure. Does he need to kill the number of people he does in the movie? Hell no. But the movie knows this, and it rolls with it. In fact, it’s the film’s main source of comic relief - even its tagline reads "Get ready to root for the bad guy." Porter’s not a good guy, and the movie doesn’t pretend to make him one. But he’s surrounded by so much scum and human filth that you can’t help but cheer when he dispatches another goon to the world beyond.

Now we come to the film that inspired this write-up, and it’s one that is just about the complete opposite of Payback. 2004's Man on Fire is a very mean-spirited film. It presents a situation meant to create sympathy - the kidnaping and murder of a child - but it goes off into a territory way beyond what could be called "justice". And that’s it’s biggest problem - it masquerades the vengeful actions of Denzel Washington as being justice - at one point, Christopher Walken even says of him, "He'll deliver more justice in a weekend than ten years of your courts and tribunals." Is sticking a remote detonator and some plastic explosives up an unarmed man’s anus really "justice"? Is cutting a man’s fingers off one-by-one for information, then killing him anyway really "justice"?

I’m reminded of some of the greatest pieces of one of my favorite movies, Batman Begins. Batman is probably one of the best known revenge tales - as a child, Bruce Wayne’s parents are killed right in front of him, and he spends the rest of his life training to avenge their deaths by taking on the criminal underworld as Batman. But in the most recent film version starring Christian Bale as the Bat, it takes a good look at the difference between justice and revenge, vigilantism and heroism. "Justice is balance. Revenge is about making yourself feel better," as the character Rachel Dawes says to Bruce Wayne at one point. This is the lesson that drives him to become Batman rather than a vigilante - to hunt criminals and put them in the hands of the law, instead of choosing to kill them and take on the roles of Judge, Jury and Executioner all himself.

Man on Fire lacks these points. It simply seems to believe that Creasy (Denzel Washington) is right in what he is doing, and that he really is dealing out justice as opposed to seeking out his own personal gratification. Aside from this, however, I quite enjoyed the film. It had some great action set pieces, a definite constant feeling of energy and movement, and Washington’s performance is quite great - as is to be expected from one of the best actors working in Hollywood right now. But this is the type of movie that I think could be quite dangerous for young, impressionable people who maybe do not yet understand the difference between justice and revenge. Its basic internal logic is "one death deserves several more".

So what does all this mean? Is Man on Fire a bad movie? No, not at all. Is it morally repugnant? Well, if you think about it at all, yes, it is. But at the same time, it’s harmless entertainment to those who can handle it and see it simply as entertainment. For all intents and purposes, it delivers a satisfying revenge tale to those who love their revenge movies dark, brutal and uncompromising. It’s no Oldboy, but if you turn off your brain and strap in for the ride, it’s a pretty decent outing into an inherently violent genre.

7 / 10

Speedy

Title: Speedy
Director: Ted Wilde
Cast: Harold Lloyd, Ann Christy, Bert Woodruff
Year: 1928
MPAA: Rated G
Date of Review: June 7, 2007

Speedy is my first experience with Harold Lloyd, and to sum it all up, I liked it. I liked it a lot. I’ve been a fan of silent films for a long time - I’ve always found them very poetic, and many of them captured imagery that has never been recreated. Even today’s children recognize a character like Charlie Chaplin, because he has become an icon of that era. Speedy can’t really be compared to anything I have seen by Chaplin, because their genre is really the only thing they have in common. Chaplin’s films were often very socially conscious, often melancholy comedy/dramas, whereas Speedy - both the film and character it takes its name from - is very light-hearted entertainment.

Chaplin’s signature character was always the Tramp - that mustached man with a top hat, cane, and shoes several sizes too big. He was homeless, constantly looking for work and for friendship, and this was often the basis of the plots to his films. But, while Harold "Speedy" Swift is also unemployed, this does not ever factor in as a huge problem, reflecting Speedy’s own care-free attitude towards the issue - as he says at more than one point in the film, "I can always get another job tomorrow."

This care-free attitude is the thing that both frustrates and draws his family closer to him - his family consisting of his father, Pop, and his girlfriend, Jane. They know that "Speedy" is a smart, capable young man, and they also know how fickle and occasionally careless he can be. He just can’t keep a job. But this time, he claims his job at the soda bar will stick...he even says that he’ll "be running the place soon." But of course, the job doesn’t stick, and instead of looking for a new one he decides to take Jane out for a day of fun at theme parks, food stands, and anything else he could afford.

The main problem comes a little later, when it is revealed that Speedy’s father - who owns and runs the last horse-drawn carriage in the city - may be the target of a violent attack to try and push his carriage out of business and replace it with an electric tram. Speedy is determined to stop these hooligans from hurting his father, and hopefully save his father’s business from a hostile takeover. Therein lies the plot of the film - it’s simple, it’s quick, and it’s mostly there to support the many set-piece based visual gags in the film.

The film’s lack of depth is not a negative comment, though...not by a long shot. It’s simplicity really makes it all that much funnier, because it doesn’t have any needless emotional weight or melodrama to bog everything down. That is not to say that Chaplin’s films were melodramatic, but they were comedies of an entirely different kind, and Chaplin and Lloyd had very different, distinct styles. Chaplin’s "The Tramp" was a loveable oaf who people connected with because of his stories of lost love and longing romance. Lloyd’s character of "Speedy" is more like that guy you know who just can’t seem to keep a job, he lives in a reality all his own, and you can’t help but love his charm and enthusiasm. And these differences between The Tramp and Speedy mirror the differences between their respective films.

But the fact that Speedy has a simpler plot structure than other comedies of the silent era does not mean that it is any less important. Looking at the time it was made and released - 1928 - America was just about to enter into the worst depression it had ever seen, and maybe films like Speedy could be seen as a pre-emptive move to lighten the moods and hearts of those affected by such an economic crisis. Of course neither Lloyd or director Ted Wilde could have ever known about such a crisis, but surely it was entertainers like these that helped get the country through one if its darkest times.

Speedy really is a great movie. It’s fun, it’s quick, it’s supremely entertaining, and anybody can watch it - silent film fan or not - and enjoy it. I’m sure the films of Harold Lloyd would be great to put on for kids to watch and enjoy, because they tend to love that kind of goofy physical humor. Plus, if you’re a baseball fan, you have to check this movie out for quite a lengthy appearance by Babe Ruth.

8 / 10