Podemos calificar a Sicario como un thriller de frontera, al desarrollarse en Ciudad Juárez y ya que durante toda la película se transmite una sensación de incertidumbre sobre los motivos de las acciones o el lugar que cada personaje tiene dentro de la narrativa, especialmente entre el personaje de Alejandro, que sólo hacia el final conocemos que se trata de un sicario contratado por la CIA con libertad para matar siempre y cuando beneficie a los intereses de la agencia, y Kate, la agente del FBI que se ve obligada a trabajar con la CIA y la DEA en la ciudad.

Es relevante señalar en Sicario que trabaja sobre una problemática de la moral, es decir, sobre la distinción social e históricamente construida que establece los lineamientos acerca de lo que está bien y mal. Podemos afirmar que hasta cierto punto cruzar la frontera significa para el personaje de Kate, el inicio de una serie de rupturas morales. Por ejemplo, luego de las muertes que se dan en autopista al inicio de la película en manos de los agentes, que es una especie de graduación de fuego para Kate, mencionará: “somos agentes, no soldados”. Como queriendo establecer así un cierto código moral de acción, un procedimiento que limite la violencia indiscriminada y que separe a los oficiales de la ley, de los criminales. El desarrollo de la película intenta demostrar lo contrario de forma reiterada, los carteles del narcotráfico y las agencias gubernamentales funcionan en Juarez de una forma distinta a la que piensa Kate, cercana a la de una zona de guerra donde la moral ha sido eliminada.

Es aquí donde el personaje de Alejandro contrasta de forma notable con ella, su posición está más allá de lo que pueda ser considerado bueno o malo y su única valoración es la eficacia que sus acciones puedan tener para lograr un objetivo personal, que en su caso es la venganza; desde este punto es totalmente contrario a Kate, para Alejandro no existen códigos a seguir mientras las acciones funcionen. Podríamos pensar incluso que se piensa a sí mismo como un sujeto amoral, ya que Juárez constituiría para él, un lugar de excepcionalidad, donde las leyes de conducta que rigen el bien y el mal están en suspenso, de ahí que matar a inocentes o engañar sean acciones que no tengan para él ningún significado por sí mismas.

La escena final de la película  intenta resumir estos dos puntos de vista distintos en torno a la moral. Con Alejandro obligando a Kate a firmar un documento amenazándola de muerte con una pistola en la cabeza para que se justifique la legalidad del asesinato del líder del cartel, mientras que ella, luego, es incapaz de dispararle cuando lo mira desde el balcón de su habitación, marcharse por el parqueadero del hotel. Dilemas morales en la frontera.

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.

Medellín, como muchos de ustedes deben saber, es la ciudad principal del departamento de Antioquia, en la región noroccidental del territorio colombiano. Cobró fama a nivel mundial en la década de los 80, del siglo pasado, por ser la ciudad desde la cual operaba el Cartel de Medellín, cuyo capo era el archifamoso Pablo Escobar. Este individuo, que empezó como ladrón de automóviles, se convirtió a principios de la década mencionada en uno de los hombres más ricos del mundo, pues controlaba gran parte del tráfico de cocaína que ingresaba en los Estados Unidos. Articuló a su alrededor una organización delictiva que funcionó por varias décadas, bajo la sombra de sus incursiones políticas y de la generosidad que demostraba con las personas de escasos recursos. Llegó a ser el delincuente más buscado del mundo, de acuerdo con los servicios de seguridad estadounidenses. Murió acribillado por la policía colombiana en 1993, mientras intentaba escapar por el tejado de una casa popular de la capital paisa.

Medellín, ahora bien, de acuerdo con la película, es una palabra que sugiere la forma como se entendía la guerra contra el narcotráfico en décadas pasadas. Medellín parece sugerir la imagen de Escobar, capo de capos, cuyos sicarios asesinaron a diversos personajes de la vida pública colombiana, incluyendo varios candidatos presidenciales. Un poder gigantesco en manos de una sola persona. La película, en cambio, intenta recrear algunas de las nuevas maneras que tiene el tráfico de estupefacientes hacia los Estados Unidos. Ciudad Juárez es uno de los muchos puntos “calientes”; Tijuana, Sinaloa, Michoacán, el Urabá Antioqueño colombiano, etc., se despliegan en el sur como “nuevos” epicentros del tráfico de estupefacientes. Ya no hablamos de un gran Cartel, sino de múltiples organizaciones criminales. Y no hablamos tampoco de enemigos que se deben aniquilar, sino de capturas que favorezcan la llamada “colaboración con la justicia” y la “rebaja de penas”.

En la película Sicario vemos cómo se revela la “verdadera” identidad de Alejandro – Medellín. Se trata de múltiples rostros que van apareciendo en la medida en que pasan los minutos. Diversos antifaces que se desvanecen silenciosamente. Al principio es un individuo que despierta serias dudas en Kate, pues no se trata de alguien con la “jurisdicción” necesaria como para participar en la investigación ni en la operación armada. Luego, en la incursión en Ciudad Juárez, Alejandro es uno más de los mercenarios que intervienen en el operativo. También es el investigador principal, pues averigua sobre el túnel construido en la frontera, que motiva el desenlace de la película. En el túnel, a su vez, se comporta como un soldado heroico (del lado estadounidense), para luego pasar a ser, del lado mexicano, el Sicario que cobra venganza. Allí conocemos su faceta como víctima de la guerra entre carteles; su rostro como esposo y padre de familia; advertimos su pasado como delincuente y su presente como informante que colabora con la justicia estadounidense. Alejandro se asocia, al final de la película, con Medellín, la ciudad, y por ende con Escobar y su organización criminal.

La guerra contra las drogas ha cambiado. Medellín es el pasado; Ciudad Juárez parece el presente. Ya no se trata de Pablo Escobar sino de Faustos Alarcones. Y las modalidades de la guerra también cambian: en el túnel, más que una incursión armada parecen las imágenes de un videojuego, en donde las cámaras de visión nocturna nos hablan de una realidad muchos más nítida y transparente, brillante, que la “realidad verdadera”. Una hiperrealidad que lleva a que en ocasiones se preste más atención a los detalles técnicos de las tecnologías militares, que al análisis de los contextos sociopolíticos o de las causas o las consecuencias de la guerra. Para el soldado es más importante, en nuestros días, trabajar en los simuladores o en el mundo virtual de entrenamiento militar, que entender los motivos de la guerra y las implicaciones de una incursión armada.

La guerra contra los carteles del narcotráfico, en este orden de ideas, es un buen tema para Hollywood. Se trata de un espectáculo hiperreal en donde los rostros, y las ciudades, se difuminan bajo múltiples miradas. Con las cámaras de visión nocturna asistimos a la cacería del capo, auspiciada por los servicios secretos americanos. Nosotros hacemos parte del videojuego, y simulamos que al final, también, ganamos.

While watching the film, I was a little disappointed in the character of Kate. I thought she was weak and used as merely a stepping stone for the other agents. In the end, it seems like she was on the surface exactly that. But she is very important for the main argument of the film— that following the rules does not always lead to the best outcome. She is used to complete a mission in a never ending war and will be forgotten just like the Mexican police officer. But what I appreciated was the fact that she was challenged by her counterparts for her values, not her gender. She was not meant to look pretty and was in on the fighting. Kate was a part of the complicated system representing the side that we often see as being ‘good’ or moral. Her final act— not shooting Alejandro demonstrates her commitment to her beliefs and she does not submit to his way of fighting the war.

This film is clearly not just another action film about drugs and shooting. It challenges America’s role in the war on drugs. Matt and Kate represent the two extremes of American policing in Mexico. Matt holds the belief that actions which would usually be unacceptable, immoral, and against the law are ok if you still carry the end goal of the mission in mind. Kate attempts to follow the rules and do what is right. This competition is common among stories involving competing institutions and characters within the government. Each side sees their way as being the best and compete against one another though they have the same enemy

While TV shows and movies about drug trafficking often juxtapose the extremes of drug trade by glorifying the guys on top and the guys on the bottom of the drug trade, this film focused on a different extreme. I saw it more an examination of the extremes of motivation. Alejandro is the most motivated and emotionally fueled character acting solely out of vengeance. Kate, seems to display more frustration towards her counterparts and is the only character who cries. However, I see her as a stoic in her own way. She is motivated by her commitment to do what is right and did not deter from it though her beliefs were constantly challenged.

The color was very important to this film. After watching a few analysis videos of the film, I realized how important beige was for the film. It controls the landscapes, lighting, internal and external walls as well as the colors of the characters clothes. Beige is a color that does not argue anything in particular. It is not often connected to symbols or motifs. Because it seemingly lacks life nor warrants opinion, it fits the film’s argument that the war on drugs is a wicked cycle challenges our notions of justice and good and bad. Where do you look for answers to a difficult situation when the current solutions seems inhumane and morally wrong?

John Parker August 13: Sicario (2015)

This film, aptly titled in Spanish, follows previous War on Drugs films that Michelle Brown talks about in “Mapping discursive closings in the war on drugs.” Through righteous FBI agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt), a rising star in the enterprise, we learn of the War on Drugs as a series of covert operations involving the CIA, local and federal authorities, the army, even foreign governments. Brown asserts that the war has become a combining of “large structural forces of sovereignty, inequality and criminality.” Sovereignty means that the country, namely the United States, is under attack, hence the name of the Harrison Ford film that she mentions, A Clear and Present Danger. Macer must confront a new concept of criminality where the supposed good side is prone to breaking the law when it has to, as does Harrison Ford’s character in A Clear and Present Danger. These two naïve characters must come to terms with a new Michelle Brown corrupt society where the lines between victim and perpetrator are strained.

The character that challenges Macer the most is Alejandro, played by Benicio Del Toro. He is the hit man, the victim, the mercenary, the Soldier (the title of Sicario 2 being released next year). Interestingly, Del Toro plays a Mexican policeman/informant in Traffic, another anti War on Drugs film analyzed by Brown, who calls the border between the United States and Mexico “permeable” and the characters wrought with “moral ambiguity.” The result of corruption at various levels of society results in “cultural demonization.” Everybody is bad. Macer and Harrison Ford’s understanding of their quickly evolving situations are impeded by the social relations that the new society imposes on them. Military metaphors and rhetoric dominate the discussion and restrict any complete understanding about the War on Drugs. “You’re either with us, or against us,” to quote a 2000-era American president. The other main character of Sicario, Matt played by Josh Brolin, is the CIA/military easy-to-understand manipulator who Macer eventually figures out. His use of language is a good example of the military slogans that simplify the modern era of drug cartels that battle one another for territory in Ciudad Juarez and other parts of Mexico and the southern United States.

So what about Sicario’s portrayal of south of the border? In read somewhere that the mayor of Juarez was concerned about the film’s portrayal of his city. Who wouldn’t be? Mutilated bodies hanging from bridges. Gunfire, including small rockets, lighting up the night sky. Carloads of well armed baddies. “This won’t even make the papers here” response to Macer’s questioning of the team’s neutralizing the tattooed badidos near the border. I think I prefer Elvis and his mariachi buddies singing about siestas.

John Parker August 13: Sicario (2015)

This film, aptly titled in Spanish, follows previous War on Drugs films that Michelle Brown talks about in “Mapping discursive closings in the war on drugs.” Through righteous FBI agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt), a rising star in the enterprise, we learn of the War on Drugs as a series of covert operations involving the CIA, local and federal authorities, the army, even foreign governments. Brown asserts that the war has become a combining of “large structural forces of sovereignty, inequality and criminality.” Sovereignty means that the country, namely the United States, is under attack, hence the name of the Harrison Ford film that she mentions, A Clear and Present Danger. Macer must confront a new concept of criminality where the supposed good side is prone to breaking the law when it has to, as does Harrison Ford’s character in A Clear and Present Danger. These two naïve characters must come to terms with a new Michelle Brown corrupt society where the lines between victim and perpetrator are strained.

The character that challenges Macer the most is Alejandro, played by Benicio Del Toro. He is the hit man, the victim, the mercenary, the Soldier (the title of Sicario 2 being released next year). Interestingly, Del Toro plays a Mexican policeman/informant in Traffic, another anti War on Drugs film analyzed by Brown, who calls the border between the United States and Mexico “permeable” and the characters wrought with “moral ambiguity.” The result of corruption at various levels of society results in “cultural demonization.” Everybody is bad. Macer and Harrison Ford’s understanding of their quickly evolving situations are impeded by the social relations that the new society imposes on them. Military metaphors and rhetoric dominate the discussion and restrict any complete understanding about the War on Drugs. “You’re either with us, or against us,” to quote a 2000-era American president. The other main character of Sicario, Matt played by Josh Brolin, is the CIA/military easy-to-understand manipulator who Macer eventually figures out. His use of language is a good example of the military slogans that simplify the modern era of drug cartels that battle one another for territory in Ciudad Juarez and other parts of Mexico and the southern United States.

So what about Sicario’s portrayal of south of the border? In read somewhere that the mayor of Juarez was concerned about the film’s portrayal of his city. Who wouldn’t be? Mutilated bodies hanging from bridges. Gunfire, including small rockets, lighting up the night sky. Carloads of well armed baddies. “This won’t even make the papers here” response to Macer’s questioning of the team’s neutralizing the tattooed badidos near the border. I think I prefer Elvis and his mariachi buddies singing about siestas.

About gender and representation. The head of the operation we saw at the beginning of the movie is a woman, Kate: it was quite tall-tale as the US army is still one of the US profession where it seems like women have less space than men. Her position was a positive start point but after ten minutes, the same woman is questioned about her personal life when she is asked to volunteer in another operation. After having discussed her abilities and skills, they asked her if she’s married and with kids as if her personal life and social status would somehow undermine her competences. During the movie, I got the feeling that, even if she was chosen thanks to her skills, Kate’s voice actually didn’t matter. I also thought that the scene with Kate and Reggie at the cowboy bar was an ironic and mystified representation of the cowboys world. In my opinion, Alejandro was a peculiar character: he begins helping out for the US army’s operation but as the movie progresses he revels to be just a mercenary, who is not afraid to use his power to rule over Kate and to get his personal vendetta against Fausto.

About borders. I thought there were more than one border in this movie to be crossed. The first border we found is the US military camp base: while Kate can easily enter it cause she’s on the list, Reggie is refused. While Kate is told that she is going to El Paso, a Texan city for which she wouldn’t be crossing any border, she is actually going to Juarez, crossing a real geographical border. Also, when they flew to Juarez – and this is the second border, it looked to me that for US citizens crossing the US-Mexico border was easier than crossing the US-Military camp base border. The third border is the tunnel Alejandro is told about: this is the first time we have seen a  underground border; it was peculiar seen how US army needed to find this tunnel and asked Mexicans for help, speaking Spanish.

About setting. Juarez is portrayed as a city where violence is everyday life event that does not surprise Mexican people anymore, while Kate is pretty shocked by the headless (female?) body hanging off the bridge. I remember that Juarez is also the set of another US movie, Bordertown (2006), which is about the female homicides. Kate is also astonished when the blitz slipped away from control and US army killed most of the Mexicans. At the end of the movie, Mexicans are playing football while some gunshots are fired: both the kids playing and the audience (moms and dads) stop paying attention to the match just for a few seconds and then go back to it as nothing has happened.

About power and relationships. There are many relationships in this movie and they are all controlled by power, by someone who dictates the laws, what to do and how to do it. One of the relationships that caught my attention is between the US soldier, the Mexican police and the Mexican civils. The other relationship where I found the power played a crucial role is the one between Kate and Ted after their meeting in the bar: they are at home, about to have sex, when she sees the same elastic she saw while at the bank. As she tries to attack him, he turns the situation upside down, starts and tries to strangle her and then blames her for it, until Alejandro stops him. Alejandro is the kind of man who doesn’t case about rules and just wants to achieve his goals. I found interesting the way how he was asked by Fausto from whom he thinks they learned, implying that US and Mexican are not that different. In the last scene where Alejandro and Kate are in Kate’s room and he wants her to sing the agreement, the light played a critical role: while Kate is always in the light, Alejandro is always in the dark. Also, he holds the power up to the very end: Kate is ready to shoot him but he faces her, knowing that she hasn’t the gut to shoot him.