In the realm of cinema, where art and ideology often intertwine, the latest offering from Uwe Boll, 'Citizen Vigilante', emerges as a peculiar and thought-provoking piece. This film, set in a nameless European city, presents a vigilante named Michael Sanders, played by Armie Hammer, who, in his own words, has taken it upon himself to 'right the wrongs' of a broken criminal justice system. The movie's premise, while intriguing, is laden with petulance and a culture of self-righteous indignation that permeates modern society.
Sanders, a landlord by profession, is portrayed as a one-man army, effortlessly defeating an entire police force and effortlessly navigating the complexities of his real estate business. This fusion of the vigilante and the landlord is a unique twist, one that challenges the traditional hero's journey. However, the author of this piece finds the landlording aspect particularly grating, suggesting that even the creators of Batman understood the importance of keeping the source of the hero's wealth vague.
The film's opening sequence, a grim portrayal of a woman being stabbed by a knife-wielding migrant, sets the tone for a story that is meant to be scary and upsetting. Yet, it falls short due to its shoddy execution, lacking tension and pacing. The author questions the movie's intention, wondering if it's a fantasy or a reflection of a deeper societal issue. The answer, it seems, lies in the film's thin political ideology and its contribution to a growing trend of cheap right-wing art.
The author delves into the idea that conservatism, far from being synonymous with poor art, has a rich history of producing notable films, particularly in the action and crime genres. Examples like 'Bad Boys 2', 'Cobra', 'Rambo', and 'Taken' are cited as conservative masterpieces. The argument extends to the works of David Mamet and Tyler Perry, challenging the notion that conservatism stifles artistic expression. However, the author emphasizes that 'Citizen Vigilante' fails to live up to these standards, lacking coherent ideology and artistic merit.
The cultural context of the film is explored, with the author suggesting that the rise of Trump and the normalization of antisocial behavior online have given birth to a culture of petulance. This culture, evident in online behavior, stand-up comedy, and news media, is characterized by men 'going nana-nana booboo at nobody in particular'. The author questions the implications of this petulance, wondering if it's a form of trolling or ragebait, and speculates that the future of political cinema might lie in leftist movements, hoping for better-crafted films to emerge from this wave.
