Cinecast Episode 412 – To Put it Bluntly…

We’ve got a rare treat in store for you with episode 412: it’s under an hour. Well, as close to under an hour as we can get 30 minutes devoted to Drug Cartels & the CIA, 30 minutes devoted to domestic horror. First up, Emily Blunt learns lessons on the horrors of the international drug war first hand. We might not want to hear (or believe in) those lessons, but they are dished out with brutal precision in Denis Villaneuve’s Sicario. Next up is slow-burn horror of a slightly unconventional nature in Goodnight Mommy. The Austrian film is shot gorgeously from one scene to the next, but a dull realization sets in as the movie slogs along and a flirt with torture porn makes for some exasperating viewing to what is otherwise a pretty austere art-film. But hey, if we’re squirming in our seats, maybe that’s a good thing? Hopefully you won’t be doing much squirming (in any way) throughout this show.

As always, please join the conversation by leaving your own thoughts in the comment section below and again, thanks for listening!

 

 
 

 


 

TIME TRACKS:

Sicario spoilers ends @37:44
Goodnight Mommy spoilers ends @1:04:10

 

MAIN REVIEWS:

Sicario
Goodnight Mommy

 

OTHER THINGS:

Get Your Cast to Mars (bonus episode coming October 1)
Tale of Two Sisters on Scaredy Matt podcast

 

RSS AND CONTACT INFO:

show content

 

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
Rolf
Guest

Do NOT be proud of the short running time, Andrew. We (I at least) appreciate your epic shows. Go watch more movies 😀

La Menthe
Guest

Great discussion. Nice to see you guys shoot this film down as the disinformative hogwash that it is. Nothing is more dangerous than a quality film that produces dangerous ideas (as Nolan’s blockbusters are a testament on). But that is what art is about, after all: a social critique of society through the eyes of the creators. It’s too bad in this case, as the direction is very good, and I enjoyed watching the film all the way through.

I was disturbed by how the movie made the point that prosecutions didn’t help stop the drug trade as a justification for increased use of violence, including torture and outright executions. Like how Brolin’s character mentioned the fact that “you need to find a way to stop 20% of the population using this drug”. It doesn’t even touch upon any of the relevant questions (like the question of legalization, as Kurt mentioned).

Kurt mentioned how a country like the US with so many checks and balances can be like this, but the fact of the matter is that democratic control is the very reason why a situation like this exists. With democracy comes what in high political and businiss circle is called “crisis of democracy”: that is, how do you control the population? You have to carry out measures to insure that they remain passive and apathetic and obedient, and don’t interfere with privilege or power.

How does the “War on Drugs” fit into this? Well, one of the traditional and obvious ways of controlling people in every society, whether it’s a military dictatorship or a democracy, is to frighten them. If people are frightened, they’ll be willing cede authority to their superiors (basically let them run their lives for protection).

So the fear of drugs and the fear of crime is very much stimulated by state and business propaganda. Crime in the United States is not off the spectrum for industrialized societies. On the other hand, fear of crime (incarceration) is far beyond other societies, and mostly stimulated by various propaganda. The Drug War is an effort to stimulate fear of dangerous people from who we have to protect ourselves. It is also, a direct form of control of what are called “dangerous classes,” those superfluous people who don’t really have a function contributing to profit-making and wealth. Poor people; in this case, overwhelmingly the black and hispanic population. So you have population control by putting them behind bars.

One way of seeing this is by looking at the trend lines for drugs, for example. Take marijuana. Marijuana use was peaking in the late ’70’s, but there was not much criminalization. You didn’t go to jail for having marijuana then because the people using it were nice white folks, the children of the rich. You don’t throw them into jail any more than you throw corporate executives into jail — even though corporate crime is more costly and dangerous to a society than street crime. But then in the ’80’s the use of various “unhealthy” substances started to decline among more educated sectors: marijuana and tobacco smoking, alcohol, red meat, coffee, this whole category of stuff. On the other hand, usage remained steady among poorer sectors of the population. In the United States, poor and black correlation — they’re not identical, but there’s a correlation — and in poor, black and hispanic sectors of the population the use of such substances remained steady. You get caught with 5 grams of cocaine, a drug generally used by the lower classes, the sentence is 5 years in jail. You get caught with 500 grams of cocaine powder, a drug more common among higher middle classes, the sentence is much softer with probation.

So there are many factors making the Drug War a war against the poor, largely poor people of color. And those are the people they have to get rid of. During the period these economic policies were being instituted, the incarceration rate was shooting up, but crime wasn’t, it was steady or declining.

Also, this is a terrific work force. We hear fuss about prison labor in China, but prison labor is standard in the US. It’s very cheap, it doesn’t organize, the workers don’t ask for rights, you don’t have to worry about health benefits because the public is paying for everything. It’s what’s called a ‘flexible’ workforce, the kind of thing economists like: you have the workers when you want them, and you throw them out when you don’t want them. At the very time people were complaining about prison labor in China, California and Oregon are exporting prison-made textiles to China. They even have a line called “Prison Blues.” And it goes all the way up to advanced technology like data processing. In the state of Washington, Boeing workers are protesting the exports of jobs to China, but they’re probably unaware that their jobs are being exported to nearby prisons, where machinists are doing work for Boeing under circumstances that the management is delighted over, for obvious reasons.

Those are the things TV series like Narcos or films like Sicario don’t tell you.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

Big LIKE on this comment.

mike rot
Guest

Yeah except the so-called politics of the movie are the opposite, Emily Blunt is the protagonist, she is our hero, she is fighting against this war of escalation. Villeneuve is depicting the war not as rah-rah but to show how ugly and brutal it is, and the whole point of the intercut Mexican state policemen, hits home the real on-the-ground stakes of all this. Sicario’s politics are no more pro-escalation than The Firm’s politics are pro-mafia rule. What is right has a gun pressed against its neck, that’s the politics, and that’s realistic. Also as far as this being as far-fetched as Red Dawn, Kurt what are you talking about? It’s a fictional scenario, sure, but the CIA is always doing this sort of thing, all over the world. My one complaint about the movie is that it doesn’t get enough time to breathe, this is a way more complicated story than the runtime permits, and thank god they are making a sequel.

I looooooved this movie.

Kurt
Guest

I also loved this movie. I agree with you that Emily Blunt is the main character and is there to make the escalating-approach look as ugly as possible, but somehow, shifting narrative over to Benicio del Toro, gives a kind of revenge-is-right element to the film. I’m not sure if things are as clear cut, and much like Red Dawn, I feel that people watching often latch onto the wrong elements, giving the politics a pass, even when they are ugly.

mike rot
Guest

*********spoilers*********
I can see how the Trumps of the world could flip the message but that’s really missing the point. The last shot of the movie is not bad guy gone and everyone happy, it’s this shit never ends and decent people can’t even play a game of soccer without the looming threat of violence around them. Also the last scene with Del Toro he is still going on about the pain of missing his daughter to hammer home the idea that revenge did not heal the wound.

Kurt
Guest

I see all these points. I agree with them. But it also makes much of the covert war on drugs thrilling and ‘at least we are doing something’, which I believe cuts through stronger than the actual message the film is aiming for.

(This is also a problem with many War Films…war is inherently exciting to watch.)

La Menthe
Guest

You have misunderstood completely. A character being a protagonist of a film does not automatically mean that his/her behaviour is what we are supposed to sympathize with. It’s getting late at night, and I really got to sleep, so I’ll be shorter that I normally would like to.

The ending of the film explains it everything. Blunt, having witnessed a large number of crimes that del Toro and the others committed, had earlier stated that she would go to the media about it. As a reaction to that, Benicio del Toro (a representation of “the necessary evil” that the American forces use; notice it is always he, no American, that liquidates, tortures, assassinates) goes to Blunt’s apartment, points a gun to her head and forces here to falsify her witness. At this point even I went “wait…is Villeneuve turning 180 degrees around and acknowledging Brolin’s men as a bunch of lawless thugs?” But Villeneuve purposefully let del Toro’s character leave the gun in the sink; so that Blunt could arm her self and point the gun at del Toro. And what happens after this? She puts the gun down. She shows acknowledgement: acknowledgement that the horrifying thing that she was forced into by del Toro, was right. As if it to say “yes, this is cruel, but there is a rationality behind it” — justifying the crimes (justifying the escalation of violence, which includes assassination, torture and many other horrible elements). She had the power to reverse what had just happened, and instead decided to let del Toro move on with the lie.

This is also why I disagree with Andrew’s hailing of the protagonist being a woman. To me it is pretty clear why a woman is the protagonist: Blunt is supposed to represent a naive and politcally correct moralist, who in the eyes of Villeneuve is not able to take the “tough decisions” of the men — represented through Brolin and del Toro. Villeneuve chose a woman as the protagonist purposefully; she is weak, vulnerable and is steadfast on doing stuff her own way (always independent of the group), but always comes out of it with by failing. And finally, in the end, when she is forced in yet another situation by the alpha male del Toro, she accepts that “that’s the way it is”; she gives up on her constant restraint. Like a rabid dog being groomed into obedience of its leader.

If you disagree, I’d be happy to go through other scenes and moments of the film to prove my point further. The sex scene is an exceptional example to analyse, and I’d be more than willing to discuss it.

Kurt Halfyard
Admin

THIS!

mike rot
Guest

“But Villeneuve purposefully let del Toro’s character leave the gun in the sink; so that Blunt could arm her self and point the gun at del Toro. And what happens after this? She puts the gun down. She shows acknowledgement: acknowledgement that the horrifying thing that she was forced into by del Toro, was right. As if it to say “yes, this is cruel, but there is a rationality behind it” — justifying the crimes (justifying the escalation of violence, which includes assassination, torture and many other horrible elements). She had the power to reverse what had just happened, and instead decided to let del Toro move on with the lie.”

Le Menthe, or… she didn’t want to kill a man in cold blood (something established in the very first scene when she does it and is psychologically rattled from doing it – cut to long anguished scene in the shower washing the blood off). And is that weakness? That’s morality, compassion, being the bigger person in the situation, in being a woman in a fucked up men’s world of id run wild. She is established over and over as the by the books character, what’s wrong with that? If I were to read into it I would say the world needs more people of character, men or women, that are going to hold the vigilantism accountable in society, not by shooting them, not by capital punishment brutality, but enforcing a rule of law.

Let’s remember she says straight to Brolin’s face she is going to them rat them out, something that seemed like suicide to do, but she did it anyways, and then when forced to sign she resists for a looooooooong time, and even then to point a gun at a guy after he said, “next time you point a gun at me I will kill you”, and she did that, and she held for another looooooong time before stopping. That was her threshold, she knows what’s right and she stops herself.

The actual end of the movie is not that scene, it’s the soccer match, the gunfire still going, nothing actually accomplished from the brute force approach, not for the War on Drugs, not for Del Toro’s character, who is just as miserable last scene as he was before. So that’s Villeneuve’s ultimate message.

“Villeneuve chose a woman as the protagonist purposefully; she is weak, vulnerable and is steadfast on doing stuff her own way (always independent of the group), but always comes out of it with by failing.”

She fails because the world is fucked, the system is fucked NOT because she is weak and vulnerable, it’s a critique of the system. This is someone with some actual moral decency and this is how the world treats them, and she fails as much as the brute force method fails, everyone fails, there are no victors in this story. Killing that one Druglord solved nothing, that’s what Villeneuve ends on, the gunfire is still happening.

Blunt “manning” up and becoming another vigilante would not make her strong, would not make her “better” than them, the situation, any of it. That’s a real male perspective on “winning”. The critique is on the system, the culture that allows it to continue. She’s a victim of it, and it’s a realistic portrayal in that there’s no immediate satisfaction to be wrought… it would ring so false if she somehow got all these people arrested, and right prevailed, that would be American jingoism. It’s bleak, it’s cynical, one person, one decent person, can’t fix this problem.

mike rot
Guest

I wish I had a sizzle reel of every single time in a movie the male hero is being strangled and near death and at the last second his partner intervenes and kills the assailant. Old suspense trick, hackneyed really by this point, so I could see criticizing it on that basis, but when it’s a woman, suddenly it all must be different… I ascribe to laissez-faire feminism where all things being equal, it’s okay. If she is truly equal, she can fall for the same pitfalls as male heroes, it’s not an exceptional scenario at all (not being much of a Bond fan, but I can imagine Moneypenny has shot many a thug off Bond in likewise situations).

La Menthe
Guest

>»Le Menthe, or… she didn’t want to kill a man in cold blood»

We had already established that. Why would Villeneuve add that scene again, and of all places in a pivotal moment at the end of the film, if it were just to repeat something we already knew from the plot itself?

>>»something established in the very first scene when she does it and is psychologically rattled from doing it – cut to long anguished scene in the shower washing the blood off)»

Yes, it is true that she was rattled from killing the man, something someone like her, who does things by the book and who has some moral conscience, was clearly disgusted by. This is to establish the whole «by the book» -attitude.

Her looking anguished in the shower scene was a culmination of everything else too; remember it happened right after her finding the bodies, the bomb exploded, of which many in her squad were killed by a booby trap and she herself was injured. The blood was from her own wounds, and it was supposed to be illustrative of an entity (American police forces, represented through Blunt) having been wounded badly from a situation. This is the opening scene of the film, and at this date and time all that we have established is that a team of SWATs, led by Blunt, come upon a part of the drug cartel, its awful consequences (the bodies), and then the aftermath of the SWAT themselves getting killed. The scene is there to tell us that these police forces are trying to do their job of fighting drugs, but are incapable of even protecting themselves.
Then later on in the meeting, and many times later, Brolin and other men ranked above Blunt constantly explain to her that what she used to do gives no results. That if something isn’t done, the little catastrophy that happened with her and her team will keep repeating itself; the current policy for combating drugs is not working, they say. The alternative suggestion is the mission Blunt is enrolled into.

>»She is established over and over as the by the books character, what’s wrong with that? «

Nothing is wrong with that. I never said it was. What I’m trying to write here is the ideas and thoughs of the director, and as I mentioned further up, I found this film – politically – disgusting. It applauds violence.

>»If I were to read into it I would say the world needs more people of character, men or women, that are going to hold the vigilantism accountable in society, not by shooting them, not by capital punishment brutality, but enforcing a rule of law.»

Then why was Blunt incapable of even stopping del Toro? Where was the scene where characters like del Toro and Brolin were in any way held accountable for what they did? Throughout the entire film these characters (Brolin, del Toro and the others) are viewed as disgusting and «hawks». We always sympathize with Blunt. And we are supposed to do that: Blunt is the protagonist; she and her actions is the encompassment of all the ideas and values we hold dear. But notice how she always ends up on the wrong, and always end up getting nothing out of her situation. On the other hand, Brolin and del Toro end up being right. Their actions are not glorified (this isn’t a Michael Bay film). Villeneuve is very well aware that the values represented through Brolin and del Toro are controversial. That is why he inserts the typical, propagandistic tool of Hollywood: it wants to be “objective,” presenting moral complexity and ambiguity, psychological doubts, the problematic nature of revenge, etc. Blunt represents this doubt, but at the end of the film, she has the conviction that del Toro was actually right.
It’s the same reason why there are a lot of doubt and criticism around Bruce Wayne spying on people in The Dark Knight; but in the end it’s justified. Directors like Nolan and Villeneuve are not stupid; if you want to beat ideas like these into people’s heads, you don’t outright justify it. You say «look, I know it’s wrong, but we have no other option».

>» he said, “next time you point a gun at me I will kill you”, and she did that, and she held for another looooooong time before stopping. That was her threshold, she knows what’s right and she stops herself.»

You are looking at this from a too simplistic point of view. Blunt could have stopped del Toro (killing him, disabling him or whatever) if she wanted to, but chose to let him go. She had a gun pointed at him, and del Toro even stopped for a moment, only for Blunt to put her gun down.

Blunt pointed the gun because of the falsified paper she had just signed. Her putting her gun down was showing acknowledgement; her allowing that paper do be turned in, and therefore her staying silent about everything that happened. Which is why you saying «she knows what’s right and she stops herself» makes no sense. What was right (in the eyes of Blunt – and mine too for that matter) was ratting them out. That way she could report torture, assasinationsm liquidation and all other crimes that she had been witnessed to throughout the entire film. It was this del Toro, with that paper in his hand, represented. She allows del Toro to walk away, with all of these crimes in his hand; there is nothing «right» in that.

>» The actual end of the movie is not that scene, it’s the soccer match, the gunfire still going, nothing actually accomplished from the brute force approach, not for the War on Drugs»

The scene shows a wife and a child without their husband and father, because he was involved in drugs. It then zooms out to show a soccer field full of mothers, with gunfighting going out in the background; alluding to the «fathers» invovled in the war (on drugs). I only saw it as a criticism of Mexican corruption, and a reflection of the country that will keep staying that way until they do something about it (again, not my opinion, but how I see Villeneuve portraying it).

>»not for Del Toro’s character,»

Del Toro was never supposed to have an arch (no one except Blunt, actually). He is a tool, a manifestation of the «necessary evil».

>» She fails because the world is fucked, the system is fucked NOT because she is weak and vulnerable, it’s a critique of the system.»

I advise you to try to be more understanding when you read my sentences. It is excactly this I have been referring to throughout my analysis: that his film is a criticism of «dovish» («softhearted») attitude to politics, represented through Blunt. I just pointed out that her helped further strenghtening this attitude, and used that as a criticism of the film being sexist.

>» … it would ring so false if she somehow got all these people arrested, and right prevailed, that would be American jingoism.»

No, it wouldn’t. We could even assume that a scene like that would be too apparent, but Villeneuve could easily have ended the film after Blunt saying what she did. The scene at the end between her and del Toro is specifically put there to reaffirm all the ideas that Villeneuve planted throughout the entire film. If what del Toro and Brolin did were wrong, then that scene would never have existed (or at least not ended that way).

>» I wish I had a sizzle reel of every single time in a movie the male hero is being strangled and near death and at the last second his partner intervenes and kills the assailant. Old suspense trick, hackneyed really by this point, so I could see criticizing it on that basis, but when it’s a woman, suddenly it all must be different…»

>»I ascribe to laissez-faire feminism where all things being equal, it’s okay.»
Alright.

Lets start off with the somewhere around 50% of women in mainstream films being woman. Hollywood can’t even do 10%. As soon as director makes a mainstream film where a female is treated with excactly the same fundamental values applied to male heroes, he is criticised for “feminist propaganda” — like George Miller with Mad Max: Fury Road.

>»»If she is truly equal, she can fall for the same pitfalls as male heroes, it’s not an exceptional scenario at all (not being much of a Bond fan, but I can imagine Moneypenny has shot many a thug off Bond in likewise situations).»»

Your example shows how little understanding you actually have of this. You use Moneypenney for your argument, not knowing that Moneypenney is one of the most sexually objectified characters in the Bond series. She is essentially a Bond girl that keeps recurring in the Bond films. Her presence is that of a sexual nature; an attractive assistant who always exchanges sexually implicated words with Bonds, when they are together.

Also, you never gave me a chance to describe/analyze the rape scene. So you base my criticism of that scene, and its different parts, on your assumption alone.

Goon
Guest

I just found Sicario too thoroughly unentertaining to even begin exploring it as disinformative hogwash.

mike rot
Guest

It’s exciting, but like a horror movie, like Andrew mentioned the low drone sound to score like your stomach turning, thrilling but you’re experiencing it in the danger zone on edge, and I would prefer that then something glamorized and orchestral Michael Bay-style. People will get off on violence no matter what, but at least Villeneuve showed some restraint in the first interrogation scene, you just see Del Toro bring in the water, and get up in the guy’s face, all the real torture is implied not shown. Brolin there enjoying the ride, can be misinterpreted as Fuck Yeah America jingoism, but it feels like the embodiment of the American psyche, not the hero in this particular story, but an important piece of the overall puzzle of what’s happening and why. There’s a sense that this is all a game to him. For the Colombian it’s personal, another element, Blunt’s character stays with it because she thinks maybe she can control it, keep it legal, and in the end brute force wins the day but not the war, and it’s bleak but fairly true to life. Corruption and might live another day. perhaps we expect too often that the hero will save the day and the lack of this wish fulfillment bleeds over into a sense of political shadiness on the movie’s part. But think of the alternative, Blunt’s idealism wins the day, the War on Drugs averted. How right and useful is that message? Better to look the problem in the face, Wire-style, show its complexities, its many facets and interest groups, and let it be a horror movie instead.

rot
Guest

“We had already established that. Why would Villeneuve add that scene again, and of all places in a pivotal moment at the end of the film, if it were just to repeat something we already knew from the plot itself?”

Because Blunt, Brolin, and del Toro are ciphers, there’s a reason none of them have character arcs, they represent positions on the problem, they repeat over and over their fixed position and the story unfolds realistically to depict the futility in the face of an unwinnable war by the strategies laid out within the spectrum of acceptable American policy (Matt Price on Mamo mentioned that legalization was not on the table because within the present framework, the present mindset it wasn’t a legitimate option, and I agree with that, that would be a different movie). Villeneuve’s movie shows how none of the acceptable strategies within the American mindset actually work, it’s about futility, and ending with gunfire hammers that point home: Mission Not Accomplished.

rot
Guest

“You are looking at this from a too simplistic point of view. Blunt could have stopped del Toro (killing him, disabling him or whatever) if she wanted to, but chose to let him go. She had a gun pointed at him, and del Toro even stopped for a moment, only for Blunt to put her gun down.

Blunt pointed the gun because of the falsified paper she had just signed. Her putting her gun down was showing acknowledgement; her allowing that paper do be turned in, and therefore her staying silent about everything that happened. Which is why you saying «she knows what’s right and she stops herself» makes no sense. What was right (in the eyes of Blunt – and mine too for that matter) was ratting them out. That way she could report torture, assasinationsm liquidation and all other crimes that she had been witnessed to throughout the entire film. It was this del Toro, with that paper in his hand, represented. She allows del Toro to walk away, with all of these crimes in his hand; there is nothing «right» in that.”

Report to who? Do you not remember the scene with her gray-haired superior that all of this is legal, that it goes right to the top? The CIA involvement is covert only to the American People, the chain of command has no interest in chaining this mad dog. You are mistaking this as some Hollywood movie version of reality, the whole movie is about the actual futility of moral righteousness in the face of a deeply corrupt system. What she acknowldges in that pivotal scene is the actual futility, that’s why it’s there, that’s why it’s tragic. In the real world, the bad guys get to walk away (think of how nobody got jail time for the US subprime crisis).

rot
Guest

“Your example shows how little understanding you actually have of this. You use Moneypenney for your argument, not knowing that Moneypenney is one of the most sexually objectified characters in the Bond series. She is essentially a Bond girl that keeps recurring in the Bond films. Her presence is that of a sexual nature; an attractive assistant who always exchanges sexually implicated words with Bonds, when they are together.”

I was only thinking of Naomie Harris, and it must have been beginning of Skyfall, where Bond is being strangled and she shoots but forgot she actually shot Bond in that case. That’s fine, was using Bond as extreme example of something that happens endlessly as cliche in movies to male heroes, so I feel my point still stands that Blunt being rescued near-death is not exceptional unless you force it to be exceptional. Likewise honeypot scenarios, which men always fall for. But what else about this scene is problematic?

Dovish is only weak by the standards of an immorally corrupt system, and the film only shows that such a system is in place NOT that might makes right, NOT that it is making progress, not on a personal level, the bloodlust of del Toro, not on a political level, the cowboy gamer enthusiasm of Brolin in the war that never ends, war as business. it shows the disparate ways to approach the problem all failing the little people, the soccer game interrupted by gunfire. And you mentioned the lack of fathers there to suggest they were out fighting… Exactly. what does the power vacuum of one warlord do, what does violence do but beget more violence, an endless cycle, that is how Villeneuve ends the movie not a banner with Mission Accomplished.

Nat Almirall
Guest

Having just seen the movie last night, and after reading over the discussion, I’m a bit more on Matt’s side here (I forget if should be ashamed of that or not), but I do think La Menthe brings up some excellent points, particularly regarding Blunt’s decision at the end whether or not to pull the trigger and how that should be interpreted.

I’m still not entirely sure which reading is the “right” one, and it may very well be intended as ambiguous, but my initial impression was that she saw no point — kill deal Toro and there will be violence, don’t kill him and there will be violence; whether he turns in the paper or not isn’t going to make much of a difference to him because his position is already secure. It may threaten Brolin’s job security, but he shouldn’t be tough to replace. And if there’s any solace to be had, it’s in making a difference on a much smaller scale, like Blunt was initially doing. Maybe it had little impact overall, but at least she could actually see that she was helping someone.

Of course that could be entirely and completely and totally wrong, but in any event, I think both arguments have some justification, albeit I’m still not sure how La Menthe’s reading of the final scene, even if one agrees with it, immediately translates to the filmmaker endorsing her decision.

mike rot
Guest

What was Matt’s side? I’m worried I’m agreeing with Gamble.

Rick Vance
Guest

I took the ending as a realization from her that if she was the person to shoot him like that, she would also be the person who had no problems with signing the paper or anything the paper was signing off on.

Kurt have you seen any of the documentaries of Adam Curtis? That exact thing you describe near the start of this episode about the decline of American foreign policy is really brilliantly deconstructed in some of his films.

Here is a short film he made for one of Charlie Brooker’s news programs, as a taste, the BBC’s open music license makes these very interesting too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxV3_bG1EHA

mike rot
Guest

A little more insight into the nuanced masterpiece Sicario, especially like what it has to say about the final scene.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/watch-8-minute-video-essay-investigates-the-morality-of-denis-villeneuves-sicario-20160210?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Kurt Halfyard
Guest

I bought the BluRay last week. I know I’m going to watch this film a number of times, and it doesn’t look like it is coming to Netflix Anytime soon. Wathced the above video, and the film again, and the soundtrack on this thing is astounding on my home cinema 7.1 set-up.

mike rot
Guest

I rewatched and loved it even more. So want to see a sequel where Del Toro and Blunt square off again, this felt like an Empire ending to their story

wpDiscuz