Maria Bordt: Response to Natural Born Killers
Response for Natural Born Killers
Mickey and Mallory Knox are probably some of the sickest individuals you will ever encounter in a movie. They kill human beings for no reason at all, other than to gain some sort of pleasure in watching them die. They met when Mickey delivered some meat to Mallory’s abusive father, and then whisked her away on some sort of star-crossed adventure. After that, they kill her family together. All of these things may not seem like they fit the mold for a love story, but there we have it. Their tumultuous affair gets played out for the entire world to see on the big screen. Sounds terrible, right? So why do we enjoy these characters so much? Even Roger Ebert had positive reviews for the movie. What is it about them that makes their story so appealing for us to consume? It seems director Oliver Stone made these two characters likable on purpose. But why try to garnish sympathy for characters that, in real life, would be completely detestable?
First of all, we must realize that the commentary this film is trying to make is not on the “killers” themselves, but on the human race as a whole, and its love affair with TV. We are the ones who have chosen to glorify their actions by putting them on television in the first place. Right now, there are entire channels on TV dedicated to reporting on news only about crime. Stone definitely comments on the power that television has over us as consumers with the montage of all the camera crews talking to the kids who say that while mass murder is wrong, they’d love to be Mickey and Mallory.
Culturally, we are obsessed with people who commit crimes, and this is due in part to our media-immersed society that shoves them down our throats. At one point during his interview with Wayne Gale, Mickey notes that the media is “like the weather”, but created by man. We allow ourselves to get worked up into a frenzy about anything we are force-fed, be it sharks, killer bees or serial killers. We are on constant alert to dangers that mostly aren’t really there. In some cases we actually forget to look inside ourselves and our homes to see the dangers, thus explaining how Mickey and Mallory were both products of their environments and the media that seemed to be all that nourished them, as it was pretty much all they had to glimpse into the “normal” world. Normal being the operative word here, we “normal” folks know that the TV world is anything but.
Then there is the love story between Mickey and Mallory. Regardless of the circumstances, people love watching people in love, no matter how sick and twisted they are. It is the fact that they are a pair that makes Mickey and Mallory so appealing; they could not have enchanted us on our own. We want to see them persevere, simply for their own sakes. It seems as though they can’t possibly survive without one another, and besides, doesn’t it just tug on your heartstrings when they are reunited at the end? They are the embodiment of every sad ideal people in America have for themselves: I can get what I want and not have to do any real work, and if I find someone to love, I will be complete. We all have these desires, but we never choose to act on them for fear of the repercussions. Mickey and Mallory do not have those morals, those fears on what they are going to do in life. This is not to say that we all have the desire to kill, but we do all have the desire to be lawless, to not have a job we need to show up at every day, to be in love to the point of breaking. These are all ideals that Mickey and Mallory represent, and in essence, the same things that make us and the kids in the movie want to “be” them. But killing isn’t cool. Really.
posted by Thivai Abhor @ 1:12 PM
2 comments
links to this post
2 Comments:
I don't remember much about this film, not to berate, debase, debunk, or knock it; but, I saw it about six years ago. A film I have seen recently, one that resounds a bit more lucidly, is Woody Allen's "Husbands and Wives" (1992) (really one of my favorite films, at least of Woody Allen's, ranking right up there with "Love and Death" (1975) and "Shadows and Fog" (1992); I caught the end of "Interiors"(1978), but I don't think that was enough to appreciate it). "Husbands and Wives" is almost filmed like a nature program, throughout which characters are interviewed by the film's make-up artist or hair dresser (I forget which) and the answers are recorded through stationary cameras. During one of the interviews of Jack (Sydney Pollack's character) about Gabe (Mr. Allen's character) Sydney mentions something about Gabe being swept up in this "doomed romance" fantasy that was popular in the 1950s, which launches Gabe into lofty fantasies of fatal attractions to femme fatales, or according to Gabe, "kamikaze women". It's funny, though, the kind of influence film had on him. But you only visit the theater on the weekends; the television lives under your own roof; for many, at the foot of their beds. We coexist with it: it breathes the air we breathe; it occupies the space we occupy. The first thing I do when I get home is hug my television set. I caress it. I whisper sweet nothings into its vents. I cuddle its screen with my cheek, and let the static remains of viewings well viewed thirl and dirl my sensibilities. Before I go to bed, I read it a story, and kiss it good night. I love my television, and my television only shows good, lovely things.
As a kid, I was cozened into its embrace. My mother was busy. My father was busy. There were responsibilities abound, but the TV was willing to watch for an hour or two while business was taken care of. I learned to love it.
My mother loves it, too; she watches the weather channel. She adores the "On the Eights" reports where the show they same temperatures every ten minutes.
At 10:48, it's 38 degrees.
At 10:58, it's 38 degrees.
At 11:58, it's 38 degrees.
She never showed an interest in the weather before she watched the channel. Now she adores it.
My brother is very bathetic gent. He adores emotional to the umpteenth degree. He feels, he acts, and the he feels so more: My brother use to watch Soap Operas.
Before I saw Federico Fellini's "La Dolce Vita"(1960), I researched it; I read reviews about the film. I do this often, with many films I plan to view. I read the screenplay for "Taxi Driver"(1976) before I ever saw it. I did the same for "Reservoir Dogs"(1992), which really killed the big Mr. Orange plot twist. Researching films before viewing seems to ruin them; It kind of "preconsciously" (in this case, before viewing, but "before-viewingly" is just cumbrous and ugly; I sound like Shelley Duvall in "Popeye"(1980)) engraves your opinion, or at least alters it in some sense, presents some out-line under which your own opinion now (in viewing) must exist. But to breach a point, when researching "La Dolce Vita", I noted the riddling inquiry, "Does life imitate art, or does art imitate life?" This is far too inductive. In "Husbands and Wives", Gabe (Woody Allen) avers (though it’s essentially imputed to Juliette Lewis's character, Rain) that "Life doesn't imitate art, it imitates bad television."
I use to watch the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the comic parody's bastardized "cartoon/commercial" (what I've read parents would call it in its hey-day: a thirty-minute long commercial; you never hear them say it about the Jesus H. Christ dish-towel infomercials, though). I was a Ninja Turtle for Halloween. I watch home videos, my favorite term is swords.
Jacob, what's your weapon? Swords.
Jacob, what's your favorite color? Swords.
Jacob, what's your name? Swords.
Of course, I'm no longer a ninja now. I had to give it up for the sake of legalized gambling (they were juggling the two ordinances: Legalize Gambling or Legalize Ninjitsu; of course that damn Leaf-Burning Prohibition came about and they threw both of those in the furnace). But, that's perhaps because animation's a blinker that shatters its viewers "romanticized", absorbed repose with "this isn't really; adore our fourth wall", though if I remember correctly, animation is used in certain televised depictions of Mickey and Mallory, and the whole film has a very superficial look to it. Just look at the rattlesnake anecdote, or even that early black-and-white scene with the rockin' bullet and operatic blade.
Do we really believe everything this box feeds us, though? Have we become romantically engaged with it that even animation might be conceived as real? I don't have a clue. I was raised before this vicarious box, and I'll probably die before it; all of those grains of salt build up.
I think you made some interesting observations about Stone's film. First, I found it interesting and accurate that you pointed out that the public is really in love with television. Without the media, we would never be able to love or even hate with such astounding capacity. Specifically, the types of programs that profile such criminals gives us the chance to become fascinated with the lives of the killers. This obsession with such programs may reflect on how bored we are within our own lives and causes us to adore anything or anyone that stands out from the “norm”. Why? Because the lives we see portrayed on t.v. Are anything but boring, mundane, and routine. However, we fail to realize that even criminals are portrayed in a way that is chosen by the director, to receive ratings. Stone really reflects upon this using such montages you mentioned earlier throughout the film.
In addition to this, you pointed out how Stone strategically emphasized Mickey and Mallory's relationship in this film. It is used as another way to evoke empathy and/or adoration for the pair apart from the awful crimes they commit. I even found myself hoping they would reunite and live happily ever after- in total disregard to the atrocities they achieved! I think you are correct in saying that they would not have been nearly as powerful apart from each other. They are portrayed (by Stone and other media of course) as a couple deeply in love, together until they end, regardless of what happens. They stand by each other true and true, and even to the end refuse to be separated. The viewer finds this sort of love appealing (like you said), therefore immediately empathizing with this villainous team. They have the love we all hope to someday take part in, and they are deeply committed to each other in thought and action. Never mind that they kill in cold blood, taking people's lives just for fun!
Amy Rutledge
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home