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