Gritty, grisly, and uncommonly ambitious in certain creative areas, director James DeMonaco’s “The Purge: Anarchy” represents a slight improvement over its predecessor in terms of story and riveting chaos, but, as it was the same problem with the first film, so does this sequel fail to be as smart or as resonant as it tries to be. The title may imply heightened scope and stakes, but only the premise is out of order here in this swiftly delivered, surprise-free sequel to 2013′s economical sleeper hit. Moving out of the home and into the streets, writer-helmer DeMonaco’s noisy follow-up shifts genre gears slightly, largely abandoning domestic-invasion horror for an urban-thriller template that notionally expands on the first film’s inane class satire. Unlike the previous installment, “The Purge: Anarchy” comprises of an anthology which follows three very different but eventually interwoven scenarios: a man armed to the teeth with assault rifles and an armored Dodge Charger is hunting for bloody revenge and willfully goes out during the one night a year when all crime is legal to do so; a waitress and her daughter are trying to stay safe in their low-rent apartment, hoping to peacefully bypass the chaos outside, until some hardcore purgers decide to invade their home and attempt to take them prisoner; lastly, a young romantic couple find themselves stranded in the city after their car breaks down just seconds before the purge commences and the warning bells are eerily going off. When the three groups eventually come together, they must fight to survive the night. Where this film’s strengths and weaknesses are concerned, both are almost rather too intelligible to determine. In terms of strengths, “The Purge: Anarchy” does succeed in being thrillingly action-savvy. The tension that is carefully built up between each gun-blazing moment is competently well-executed, the dark and menacing atmosphere of the story and its setting are both convincing and unnerving, the dialogue is easy to follow, and the characters seem relatable on just a few fathomable levels. Many find the story’s premise – which includes what was first introduced in the previous film – to be egregiously ludicrous: a time in the future of these United States, one night a year, where for twelve hours, all crime is legal. Murder, rape, torture, etc. All of it is allowed for one time and one time only. It is known as the Purge, and its resulting consequences allow for crime to be otherwise at an all-time low, for the economy to remain stable, and for the upper-class to remain in control of it all. Now, sure, perhaps the idea of crime being legalized at any time under any circumstances and its positive ramifications seems improbable. Yet, consider merely the possibility, not the probability, of its existence; consider the Purge itself, as a metaphor, as an artistically theoretical device. Would you engage it? THAT is what the film achieves well, posing the question – if you could let the beast out, would you? However, despite its good qualities concerning exploitation and suspense, where “Purge: Anarchy” fails miserably is in its problematic but though-provoking socio-political commentary. On the whole, and in correlation with the prior film, “Anarchy” quite brutally pontificates a thoroughly nihilistic conception of humanity and its dysfunctional existence in the world. Within the philosophical realm, nihilism is a secular doctrine which argues two unique “realities”: that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value, and, where morality is concerned, morality itself does not inherently exist, instead any established moral values are merely abstractly contrived. In this summer’s “Purge: Anarchy”, we are presented with exactly that – a destructively humanistic vision which erroneously indoctrinates us to believe that somehow, because neither life nor mankind has any purpose greater than to kill or be killed, all men are therefore wrathful wretches, that somehow humanity is intrinsically malicious and life without conceivable meaning. In such depravity, the subliminal message of this film’s narrative essentially endorses exactly what Moriarty once described to Sherlock Holmes in 2011’s “A Game of Shadows”: the insatiable desire for conflict that apparently resides deep beneath the unconscious of every human being. So, with that in mind, whether it’s in our control or not, somehow we are all of us just one bloodthirsty killer after another. Something else that seems to resonate relentlessly with “The Purge: Anarchy” is a consistent sense of strong libertine politics – i.e. that which proclaims human behavior as being necessarily devoid of most moral restraints, which by a libertine are seen as unnecessary or undesirable, especially in their ignorance of what is morally sanctified by the larger society; in other words, the film presents an almost modernistic retelling of the French Revolution and its dilemma concerning the struggle between the rich and the poor. Such philosophy is brought to the story through the character of Carmelo, an anti-Purge advocate whose African-American gang represents an obvious caricature of the socialist insurgents known as the Black Panthers; at the end of the film, when the main characters are caught powerless in a corner, these “revolutionary brothers and sisters” conveniently come to the rescue and save them. And of course, Carmelo and his gang are at war with the rich because of what the Purge does and signifies to the lower class. However, in the end, that somehow doesn’t stop these “warriors for righteousness” from hypocritically using the same violence sanctioned by the rich to destroy the rich. Both of the “Purge” films present a modern articulation of the class struggle: the rich fat cats who sit on their high horses look down upon the lowly peasants whom they oppress. Now whereas the film does take on a French-revolution-mentality, this is in fact a paradox: concerning that specific episode, at least the peasants have been the subject of continual historical defense. In “The Purge: Anarchy”, neither the rich nor the poor are defensible. The rich kill the same as the poor kill. But at the same time, the film is making an obvious statement: ‘if we need to favor someone, we should favor the proletariat.’ Now here is where the film’s social commentary deepens. While using a libertine mindset to justify violence inflicted against the upper-class, “The Purge: Anarchy” presents a very negative portrayal of human nature. In the film, the main characters start out as largely non-violent and therefore innocent. The mother and daughter are just bystanders who meant to avoid all the carnage, and at the same time the couple who get stranded in the city intended to go home and wait the night out. In both situations, these people never meant to purge themselves, only to avoid being purged. Of course, once fate decides for the four to participate for their survival, we are shown how otherwise civil people are provoked into becoming killing machines; in other words, whereas these people were moral and gentle at first, they later become just as bloodthirsty – albeit for reasons which differ in contrary to the aspirations of the psychos and freaks who let loose – as the people they’re fighting against. The film is suggesting that these people – i.e. mankind universally – who are supposed to be good aren’t actually good, they’re simply deliberately, yet subconsciously, provoking violence which suggests the emergence of their “true selves”: animals, not people. Why? Because human beings are somehow intrinsically violent and “naturally” demand blood for their unfulfilled maniacal fantasies. In the end – politically, philosophically, ethically, and morally – we are left only with what the film’s title promotes: anarchy. How can the attitude behind “The Purge: Anarchy” be summed up? Basically, it’s this: all human beings are wicked, and no matter how much we might try to fight this “fact” about ourselves, about our nature, in the end we’ll always fall back on it. In the end, we’re just mindless beasts, every last one of us, and we’ll eat eachother. In the end, the good guys are no better than the bad guys because they’ve brought themselves down to the same level, and in that sense the audience isn’t left with anyone to sympathize with. Everyone is a killer. See “Purge: Anarchy” for its action and that alone; don’t allow yourself to be taken in by what it thinks it knows about you. https://youtube/watch?v=jyZi85cl9N4
Posted on: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 07:46:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015