Killing in the name of...

I realised today that I perhaps had not explicitly explained my current thought process and how the past two image tests, in my car, and in my bathroom, and with specific references to the Holy Trinity in the latter, fit with my previous plan to explore the Mexican standoff movie trope.

My thinking now is that I would like to combine both elements, the narrative device of the standoff with the symbolic significance of the holy trinity. This position was arrived at by the confluence of two separate strands of research. Firstly, when making the most recent project, thinking about and researching the idea of Christian stories underpinning our anglophone cultural narratives put me in that mind of considering the inter-relational dynamics of a cultural human with a paternalistic and patriarchal god.

In Townsends framework of the creative process, producing work gave me the pre-sense to notice or recognise other opportunities that were aligned with these themes. I was one could say, “primed” to find such opportunities.

Therefore when I was reviewing standoff scenes from movies, particularly The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (I’ll abbreviate to GBU henceforth for brevity), and Reservoir Dogs, I recognised, or at least “saw” from my perspective references to the Holy Trinity in both.

In GBU Clint Eastwood’s character (The Good) is referred to as “Blondie” and in the other films which later formed a trilogy with this one, was referred to as “the man with no name”. The Bad character despite being known as Angel Eyes, is a ruthless and sadistic mercenary, while finally The Ugly is Tuco, or “The Rat” as Blondie refers to him is a cunning and resilient bandit wanted by the authorities for a long list of crimes.

I ended up watching both films in full so that I could understand better the standoff scenes in full context. GBU is set towards the end of the American Civil war when the soldiers are disillusioned, tired of fighting and often bereft from the huge loss of life. Theres a chapter in the film where the army of the North are one side of a wide river, and the army of the South on the opposite bank with a bridge between them over which there are daily charges of infantry and cavalry from each side who clash in mutual massacre. The officer in charge on the south laments to Blondie that he wishes he could blow up the bridge to avoid the repeated loss of lives from the soldiers he sends into battle each day, but that sadly his orders from above prevent this.

Blondie who seems to be non-partisan is sympathetic decides to take matters into his own hands and he and Tuco blow up the bridge with dynamite during a lull in fighting as they depart. Hired Gun Angel Eyes on the other hand is ensconced with senior officers in a secure military compound, enjoys relative luxury the men in the trenches can only dream of and happily watches over prisoners of war being degraded, tortured and executed.

I mention these plot points for their metaphorical significance. Despite the period setting of the film, it was made at a time when the Vietnam war was still going on, and when there was much disillusion and disaffection within the US population about the point of the war and the huge cost to life. It seems to me therefore that the film is not just a Western-themed adventure about hunting fr buried treasure but a metaphor for the tragedy of the Vietnam war pursued for dubious political ends and ultimately seen as questionable by the independently spirited American people.

And returning to the climax of the standoff, and the theme of The Holy trinity (which might already be implied in the film’s title and triangulation of the three main protagonists) we can see “Ugly”, Tuco the Bandit as the “Son”, the sinner who embodies the naive sins of everyday people, “Bad” Angel Eyes who is seemingly aligned with rational and just authoritarian power, but is in fact self-serving and morally bankrupt as the “Father” in whom “we” (the audience, the American people) have lost faith, and the “Holy Spirit” is the “Good” Blondie who delivers moral reckoning and transcends (in this story) both the earthly “Son” and even the wicked “Father” who has lost his way.

Now although I haven’t seen these theories elsewhere, it would not surprise me at all to discover that others had made similar readings of the film and the characters. But if in GBU the notion that the Holy Trinity are represented is not a huge leap of imagination, the reference is almost explicit (to me at least) in Reservoir Dogs. The standoff here quite literally includes a father Joe Cabot, and his son “Nice Guy Eddie” Eddie Cabot as well as Harvey Keitel’s character Mr White, and a passive fourth “Mr Orange” (played by Tim Roth) who has been fatally shot and is suspected by Joe to be an undercover cop - which in fact he is.

Joe the father is the mastermind behind the diamond heist that went wrong and led to the depicted bloodbath. The plan for the heist is Joe’s will being expressed. Eddie, Joe’s son is on the ground running the heist team - he is enacting his father’s will (here on earth). Mr White (obvious symbolic significance in the name) is a lifelong friend and associate of Joe Cabot, but also the morality-driven antagonist in that in the standoff he threatens to shoot Joe, if Joe shoots Mr Orange as Mr White doesn’t believe he’s a cop. Eddie completes the triangle by threatening to shoot Mr White in defence of his father.

While Reservoir Dogs was released in 1992, the same year that Bill Clinton won the election by a huge margin, the film would have been incubated and produced in the period before under Republican rein that lasted twelve years and was latterly led by George Bush senior. Again, during this period the country was disaffected (exemplified by the election) with the status quo as America had sunk into recession in 1990 and were ready for a change that they hoped would revive the economy and reduce unemployment.

Aside from the standoff scene, one of the other most iconic from the film is the discussion between the crooks in a diner at the beginning of the film. Joe says he’ll get the tab and the rest of the group can pay the tip between them. When “Mr Pink” played by Steve Buschemi refuses stating that he doesn’t tip he is lambasted by the others with arguments that the hardworking and underpaid waitress deserves and probably relies on the tips. The crooks are presented as relatable, down-to earth and with morals, ordinary (working?) men that we can empathise with.

My reading then is similar to that of my reading of GBU, the film is about losing faith in authority and the theme in Reservoir Dogs is even more explicitly crystallised in the standoff scene. However, and perhaps is a sign of the changed times, I see Reservoir Dogs being much more morally ambiguous than GBU. In the standoff from GBU Blondie had secretly removed the bullets from Tuco’s gun beforehand. He could then be more certain of surviving the shoot out having only to kill Angel Eyes which he does. But although he could, he chooses not to also kill Tuco, who is therefore effectively re-born. As the audience we might well sympathise with this choice as Tuco had been portrayed as the underdog of the three, not in the same league or even realm as it were, as The Father and The Holy Spirit. We can make sense of it morally and rationally within the framework of the story.

Things are less straightforward in Reservoir Dogs however Joe’s desire to kill Mr Orange who is indeed a cop can be seen as rational from his perspective and even morally justifiable to him if he knew his suspicion were true. Mr White however is easier for us to empathise with as he is defending the underdog in this case, a much younger and less experienced crook whom he believes (wrongly) to be innocent of betrayal. Eddie on the other hand is defending his father out of filial loyalty, he is not concerned about the facts and is prepared to kill someone who is so close to him and his father he might as well be an uncle, so even all other moral considerations are subjugated.

To me then, the more complicated “loss of faith” as represented in Reservoir Dogs speaks of the time in which it was made and is set - the information age. In 1991 French Sociologist and Philosopher Jean Baudrillard famously published three essays, then collating them as a book assertions that “The Gulf War Did Not Take Place”. Despite refusing to adopt policy that would alleviate consequences of the recession, framing by the Bush Administration of the American air strikes on Iraq as a justified war saw his popularity bolstered. Baudrillard however argued the military action was not even a war as there was no real engagement of troops on the ground and that our narrative of the “war” was essentially carefully curated propaganda. Ironically as information and communication was becoming increasingly accessible via mass media, the dawn of the internet, and mobile phones, we might also think of this as the beginning of the post-truth age.

In this context, the factual and moral ambiguity of the Reservoir Dogs standoff is easier to make sense of. We are confronted with having to accept that each character’s rational and moral positions can be seen as equally valid, or put another way, equally true, while simultaneously none of them are true. Although Joe is factually right and in his terms morally justified, we don’t empathise with his position as he’s a murderous crook who took his chances and got outsmarted. Facts don’t even feature for Eddie, but we can’t empathise with his willingness to shoot Mr White even to protect or avenge his own father as we know how close Eddie and Mr white are, and of course have warmed to Mr White with his greater presence in the film. But finally we know/discover that Mr White is factually wrong in insisting Mr Orange is not a cop but are compelled by his defence and Mr Orange’s own likable charachter and protestations to side with Mr White morally.

So in summary, although the setup for the dynamics of the metaphor in Reservoir Dogs may be more complicated than that of GBU one can see equivalence. Both Mexican standoff scenes ultimately represent a loss of faith in authority (The Father) and transcendence beyond base human desire and behaviour (The Son) by alignment with a higher self (The Holy Spirit). And indeed, it is this sort of inter-relational tension I think I could explore well with my work and attempt to both recognise the cultural narrative of our Christian underpinnings while also critiquing some of the less desirable consequences.