Posted on 10/19/2015 7:46:03 AM PDT by Jack Black
In Roman ruled Judea, Jewish zealots used daggers hidden in cloaks to kill their oppressors and were thus dubbed in Latin…”Sicarious”…or dagger men. Though most of the killing in Denis Villeneuve’s latest master class in vexatious suspense is done with machine guns, there’s a climax building scene where cinematographer god Roger Deakins photographs the character Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro) descending into the purple-hued darkness of a drug tunnel as he unsheathes a dagger that will make your skin scrawl.
Alejandro is man of mysterious motives and origins who with the aid of another “DOD consultant” – an eager and smiley Josh Brolin – is determined to ruffle some feathers of a cartel based in Juarez that’s been wreaking havoc as far north as Phoenix, where kidnap retrieval field agent Kate (a tense Emily Blunt) has been recently recruited for these clandestine missions after uncovering a cartel body-dump on her home turf. Meanwhile on the other side of the border, mild-mannered and weary cop Silvio (Maximiliano Hernandez) tries to balance playing football with his adoring son with the unfortunate mechanics of working for the cartel from hell.
Though directed with a psychoanalyst eye by the notoriously cold Villeneuve, his interpretation of Taylor Sheridan’s taut screenplay surprisingly humanizes both sides of the drug war – with a keen awareness of the innocent bystanders as witnessed in the film’s chilling but mundane closing moments in Juarez (whose details will not be revealed here). Those well versed in Villeneuve’s increasingly impressive oeuvre (especially those who suffered through the torturous though still artful Incendies) won’t be surprised when Alejandro’s motives are revealed, nor in his calculated and merciless actions. But this meta-knowledge of the artist behind the entertainment doesn’t stop Sicario from being a white-knuckle reality-based creep-out think-piece, made all the more important as it fictionalizes current perils. And Alejandro sums it up well to Kate when he tells her, “this is a land of wolves now” – a land he helped create and populate.
With Deakin’s cinematography setting new standards for menacing sunsets, aerial shots that make Mexico’s landscape look like an alien world riddled with danger, and night-vision raids…while Johann Johannsson’s pulse-pounding score sticks in your throat…Villeneuve is once again (as has become his calling card) able to ratchet up the suspense and let his actors strut their stuff. The film is bleak, yes, but also not to be missed for these fantastically orchestrated set-pieces where every element comes together in an artful irresolution meant to mirror the real world where the brutal drug war wages on with no end in sight.
I wonder if that's where Judas Iscariot got his moniker. He was a zealot as well.
Which makes sense since I've always believed that the solution to the drug war (one that doesn't involve losing, as is currently the case) is to focus on demand rather than supply. The current drug war focuses on supply ...meaning locking up the drug dealers and other peddlers, and every now and then, when lucky, someone who actually matters. Although, usually, they only get the street corner thug with a couple of rocks or the pimply faced meth cooker. A waste of time since the overhang of demand to supply simply means that person is almost instantly replaced.
Focusing on supply has been a waste of time. The drugs coming in keep getting (1) purer, (2) cheaper and (3) plentier. Using simple metrics, the war on drugs has failed.
Now, focusing on demand would change the game. If you take supply out, the presence of demand dictates that new supply will come on line. However, if you take demand out (eg giving users that are caught the same sentences given to sellers), then without demand the supply has nowhere to go. The influence of demand on supply is greater than the influence of supply to demand.
However, that will never happen. It makes too much sense, and is also too close to what people would see as fascist (people see no problem locking up the drug dealer or the prostitute for years on end, but start locking up the 18 year old user or the 45 year old married John and suddenly people are up in arms).
So, since that is not an option, then the advocacy made in the film makes sense. Pick a monster you can control, use it to kill the other monsters, and that way you only have one beast to try and somewhat control, rather than a hydra that is rabid and amorphous.
Too bad Emily Blunt shot her mouth off, now I won’t waste my time or money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.