Film room: 'Man on Fire'

Before 'The Equalizer,' Denzel Washington starred in a 2004 movie that gloriously showcases the one essential, non-negotiable criteria for any revenge flick. Namely: revenge.

Grudgery” is my newsletter about the human desire for retribution, the suffering that can lead to and the relief that comes when we learn to let go.

You don’t need a separate subscription as “The Dang Apostrophe” links to all my writing projects. However, if you really want to add another subscription, feel free to sign up at Grudgery.com. It’s free.

I’m a bit of a snob when it comes to revenge flicks. Not because I have refined taste in movies as I most certainly do not.

I might notice good cinematography. I might not. I’m not a stickler for realism, either, or even particularly good dialogue. I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is funny, and I don’t particularly care if that’s intentional.

In other words: If you film some elaborate action sequences and stitch them together with a halfway competent plot, I’m unlikely to offer much of an objection.

However, if you try and tell me that “Taken” is a revenge film? That is a hill that I will in fact die on.

“Taken” is not a revenge film, and the reason it is not a revenge film is because it is not about revenge. It is about a man with a special set of skills going to extraordinary legnths to retrieve his daughter. The fact that this man with a special set of skills kills copious amounts of criminals along the way is simply a means to an end as opposed to an actual revenge, in which the killing of copious amounts of criminals is the end in and of itself.

Now the actual number of criminals killed is not what defines a revenge flick. Nor is the creativity employed in dispatching them. There are great revenge flicks in which absolutely no one dies.

The one essential, non-negotiable characteristic of the revenge flick, however, is that it include a character who makes a clear decision to seek retribution. They want payback for harm they believe has been inflicted on them or someone they care about.

This can be carried out in a spur-of-the-moment killing spree or it can be the result of years of meticulous planning. In can be violent or it can be so sneaky that the people who are on the receiving end of this retribution don’t fully realize what is happening.

The one thing it absolutely must include, however, is that moment when a character decides that someone is going to pay for what has been done.

I’ll show you you what I mean: “Man on Fire” is a 2004 movie starring Denzel Washington, (a young) Dakota Fanning, singer Marc Anthony and (briefly) Mickey Rourke.

Now let’s apply my revenge-flick test to this movie:

  • Does it include a character who makes a clear-cut decision to inflict harm on a specific individual or group as payback for the harm and suffering they have previously suffered?

Yes. Quite memorably in fact.

Washington stars as John Creasy, who is a bodyguard for Pita, a young girl whose family is living in Mexico City. The girl is kidnapped, Creasy is shot, and after he gets out of the hospital, he is very clear about his intentions.

“What are you going to do?” the girl’s mother asks him.

“What I do best,” Creasy says. “I’m going to kill ‘em. Anyone that was involved, anybody that profited from it, anybody that opens their eyes at me.”

“You kill ‘em all,” repeats the mother.

Her tone is tough to decipher. It’s not a question, but it’s not an order, either. It’s more like she’s echoing, perhaps endorsing, his resolve.

Now, most often in a revenge flick, this will be followed by a cinematic montage in which the character who is now committed to retribution does one of three things:

  • Inspects weapons;

  • Compiles weapons;

  • Conducts an inventory of implements which may be used as weapons.

Creasy does all three after telling Pita’s mother of his intentions.

OK. So now that we know we’re dealing with a revenge flick, let’s do a little bit of sorting to determine the exact species of revenge flick we have.

Are there unexpected or extreme methods of retribution?

Yes. Creasy employs duct tape in his first interrogation, using it to hold a perpetrator’s palms on the steering wheel of his car with each of his eight fingers jutting out almost like broken spokes. Creasy advises him sever a finger if he feels the perpetrator is not forthcoming and honest during the interrogation. Creasy then shows him a cigarette lighter which he says he will use to staunch the bleeding by cauterizing the wound.

Creasy ultimately cuts off two fingers and a slice of ear before providing the man with a cigarette, which he lights before shooting the man in the head. The car is then sent sailing off a cliff with the man’s body inside.

Creasy goes on to use a rocket launcher to blow up a car containing four corrupt cops. He then kidnaps a police officer who is something of a kingpin within the criminal element of the department. Creasy uses a plastic suppository to insert a small amount of plastic explosive in the man’s rectum. He programs his watch to send a page in 5 minutes that will cause the explosive to detonate, which is exactly what happens.

These types of scenes are typical of what I call a “Retribution Blitz” in which a character seeks retribution in overwhelming, unrelenting fashion.

Is there a moment in which the character who is seeking revenge must decide how far he or she is willing to go to accomplish this end?

Yes. When Creasy begins his campaign, he thinks Pita is dead, and he gives himself completely and totally over to revenge.

This is demonstrated quite compelling as Creasy prepares to use a shoulder-mounted rocket-launcher, and an older man speaks to him in Spanish, telling Creasy that the church teaches to forgive.

“Forgiveness is between them and God. It’s my job to arrange the meeting,” Creasy says.

Up until the movie’s climax, the closest Creasy comes to showing mercy is after he discovers that Pita’s father—played by Marc Anthony—was aware of the plan to kidnap her. Creasy gives him a gun, allowing him to shoot himself.

However, when Creasy finally captures the significant other of the man atop the kidnapping ring, he founds out that Pita is still alive. He then agrees to trade himself in exchange for her, a transaction made more palatable by the fact Creasy is already fatally wounded. He dies while being driven away after the exchange.

Creasy’s ultimate kill tally: 13.

Signature quote

“A man can be an artist. In anything, food whatever. It depends on how good he is at it. Creasy’s art is death. He’s about to paint his masterpiece.”

Rayburn, a former military associate of Creasy, played by Christopher Walken

Reply

or to participate.