Sicario is a film that reveals the realities and the hidden deception of corruption and violence of the war on drugs and the tension between the U.S-Mexico border. One of the key message that Sicario conveys is the inevitability of choosing between the lesser of two evils. The rampant violence in Juarez and drug trafficking by the Sonora Cartel spills over to the U.S border and the response of the U.S. government is using CIA operative tactics to dismantle the cartel by any means necessary. Excuse my bias opinion but, I believe what the CIA/U.S task force did in the movie was somewhat justified and necessary but of course, the result came at a price. Although I cannot deny that the tactics and manipulation used by Matt Graver (Josh Brolin) was terrible and horrendous, the end justified the means for Graver and the leader of the Sonora Cartel was killed. The line between good and evil are obviously faded in the film and all i could think of was that sometimes one has to fight fire with fire (cliche but true).

The three principal characters Macer, Graver and Alejandro all had different motives and traits that seemed to conflict one another (especially between Macer’s sense of duty/code of law and Graver’s manipulative means and Alejandro’s desire for revenge and brutality).  Agent Macer was obviously a tool used by Graver to gain access and jurisdiction in order to carry out his mission, regardless of Macer being used and told to “sponge everything in”, her sense of duty and her strong will to finish what has started ends in the results in Macer ‘sponging’ in the corruption of the system. Alejandro is obviously a “bad guy” who is out for revenge against another “bad guy” this, obviously, fits the narrative of fighting fire with fire. I would say Alejandro is a tool for Graver much like Macer but is corrupt and has little regard for morals and laws. Graver is an interesting character, his gung-ho attitude combined with his laid-back charm sort of made me think Graver is completely desensitized by the violence and his little regard for following the rules (which probably makes him the perfect CIA agent). One thing that really caught my attention was the scene where he subdues Macer after her discovery of Alejandro’s true motive and background, Graver says this: “Medellin refers to a time when one group controlled every aspect of the drug trade, providing a measure of order that we could control. And until somebody finds a way to convince 20% of the population to stop snorting and smoking that shit, order’s the best we can hope for. And what you saw up there, was Alejandro working toward returning that order.” This statement opens the true motive behind the operation in dismantling the Sonora Cartel by the CIA: the U.S. government knows that the overall goal to eliminate drug trafficking is impossible and the only thing they can do is minimize the drug market and damage controlling the violence. I believe this message is greatly reflected into today’s problems of illegal drugs, in which no matter how hard the law tries to stop the drug trade, only the supply and demand of the market can truly make a difference. This also reflects on the America’s campaign of War on Drugs and the consequential aftershock that brought upon society.

Sicario portrays the conflict among the U.S-Mexico border involving drugs and this long battle has left many innocent lives lost as well as dehumanizing those who once tried to fight for what is right. The border between the two nations is tangible and clear but the border between good and evil is near non-existent. Rather then seeing the conflict as a battle of good vs. evil, the conflict is a never-ending attrition of slaughter and collateral loss of innocence.

Walker is a film based on some true historical context as well as retelling the rise and fall of one of America’s first military fillibuster; William Walker. Before writing this blog I was curious about the history behind William Walker and from what I read it seemed the real Walker was a very well-educated man studying medicine and law in various institutions and then working as a newspaper editor and journalist. Walker was also advent duelist but it seemed he had no prior military education or experience in war. It regards to Walker’s belief in ‘Manifest destiny’ Walker already had goals and visions of establishing slave states and colonies in Latin America. Unlike the movie which suggests Walker was some virtue-driven hero who is out for adventure and saving the world. Also it seemed Walker acted on his own will to conquer Nicaragua rather then being asked by Cornelius Vanderbilt (as the movie suggests). Comparing to the real William Walker (who looked more of a gentleman/businessman type) to the action-hero Walker played by Ed Harris (known for playing strong serious masculine archetypes), its obvious the film ignores half the truth of historical accuracy and rather portrays Walker as a heroic character who falls from grace. The progression and the story of the film seems to focus more on Walker’s actions and connecting this with modern political events rather than exploring more on historical context and accuracy.

The anachronisms in the film such as the Newsweek magazines, cars, coke, and the helicopters all seem to try to convey and connect the events of Walker’s filibusting campaign to the American involvement of Nicaragua during the Contra Wars. It can’t be any more obvious the film is criticizing American interventionism and the concept of Manifest Destiny as a destructive idea. What was more interesting about this film was that it was filmed exactly in Nicaragua during the Contra Wars so the topic and the theme of the film was really in depth and I could guess that this brought a lot of shock and awe to the audiences. I think the direction and the idea of making a movie based on old history connecting to the current events of Nicaragua at that time was brilliant and well-thought of.

Overall the film conveys a strong political message in a creative and surrealistic manner. The mix of historical storyline with anachronisms and tying in modern events is what really made this film unique and enjoyable.

I personally dislike Woody Allen and I find most of his works to be tasteless and bizarre but I have to admit Bananas was not bad and the jokes were quite clever. The way this movie was filmed and made seemed like it was a “bad movie” as what we discussed in the previously class but the characteristics and the way the film was made sort of broke the boundaries of what a “bad” film is.  Although lacking in a coherent storyline, good cinematography and exceptional  acting, the film shined on with its jokes and the clever parodies that made it so entertaining.

The whole film is a satirical view of American foreign policies, general public ignorance, and corruption of Latin American coup d’etats during the 70s. The beginning of the film which the coup of the fictional country San Marcos is broadcasted as if it was a sports event with Howard Cosell commentating the situation gives the bizarre and abstract comedic taste of what the movie is about. The journey of Fielding Mellish and his quest to San Marcos in hopes of winning the love of Nancy ends up with Fielding in all sorts of hilarious and unrealistic situations. I think the character of Fielding Mellish is a personification and a reflection of the stereotypical American loser who is a failure in life and is blinded by sexual lust and soul-searching. In a way I can see the purpose of the film could have been to target towards young audiences who were in a similar situation as the character and somewhat gave them hope and laughter.

In regards to the theme of American involvement in Latin America and the coups, I wasn’t sure if the film was trying to raise the issue and criticize something or just making a satirical parody out it. In the scene where the rebels manage to take back San Marcos and overthrow the military dictatorship it shows the rebel leader himself goes insane and corrupt like the previous leader which shows that the power and corruption in San Marcos (or other Latin American nations) is a cycle that cannot be broken. The scene where Fielding is also on trial for crimes and the testimony of various people could also be a satire of the American society as a whole. I admit I am not completely sure what message was, whether it was a satire on the ignorance of society or if the whole thing was just made-up comedy based on current world events at that time.

I enjoyed the film, mindless and senseless as it was, it gave me a good laugh and surprised me on how talented Woody Allen is.