Hit Man: Movie Review (Warning: Contains Spoilers)

 

By Michael Momper

Can a movie be morally irresponsible? Where should we draw that line?

I submit to you that it can, and I think you will agree. Consider two subjects: tone and content. When a movie's tone is problematic, even if the intentions are good, we might have a compromised piece of art. Consider a movie about a real serial killer that fumbles the tone so badly that you actually root for the killer, or find him charming and likeable. Rightfully, audiences call this out as irresponsible filmmaking- the killer had real victims, and likely living, still-grieving families, so whatever the intentions of the filmmakers it is still important to never let the film revel in the evil of its subject. Content is a slightly thornier subject. If you've read our blog, you know that Graham and I are no prudes. We aren't going to call out a film as "morally irresponsible" just for having some nudity and lots of swearing. However, a piece of art that glorifies evil is something that is problematic and objectionable. Imagine seeing a movie that portrays gang violence as sexy or rewarding. Imagine a movie that portrays racism as a punchline, or sexualizes children. We would call these morally irresponsible and would caution others against viewing them. That is what I hope to do here with Richard Linklater's latest film, Hit Man.

Richard Linklater is one of my favorite screenwriters. He is the creator of hilarious and charming movies such as Dazed and Confused, School of Rock, Everybody Wants Some, and the Before Sunrise trilogy. In Hit Man, his latest and most action-forward endeavor, he creates a somewhat-factual and somewhat-fictional story about a lawman who pretends to be a hit man as a sort of sting operation. As with all of his films, this one is technically very sound- excellent acting, sharp editing, and a well-paced story. It is because so much of it is well made that the ending and unbelievably cynical messaging are so maddening.

As mentioned before, it is not Hit Man's rated-R components that I find objectionable. Its swearing, sex and violence are more than commonplace in Hollywood today and are present in plenty of good art as well. But we must always consider an artist's message when we look at a finished product. If the message is evil, if the message is unjust or hurtful, we walk away from it feeling compromised and unfulfilled. In Catholic tradition and other Orthodox traditions, there is a metric regarding three pillars, essentially translated into English as clarity, radiance, and wholeness (also translated as integrity). Even amongst films or plays that tackle crime, or involve anti-heroes, we still can see these three pillars are standing firm. Shakespeare was a master of writing tragic and dark tales of sin and corruption- but they worked precisely because they were cautionary. If he had glorified the acts of murder, betrayal, genocide, or infidelity, the art would be compromised. Think of your favorite anti-hero stories- whether it be Walter White, Tony Soprano, Nucky Thompson, or Don Draper- and you will still find that the often complex and thorny moral themes in the lives of these characters were handled with seriousness and care. These shows had clarity of vision- evil was depicted as evil, as something not to be taken lightly, something that destroys lives. In this same way, these shows had integrity- they challenge viewers to be better people, by exposing the ways that we can morally rot away. Yes, these shows had radiance- they were impeccably acted, directed with beauty and intrigue and an eye for important metaphors.

Conversely, Hit Man does not take crime seriously. It attempts to be a sort of cutesy Bonnie and Clyde, desperately trying to woo us with sexuality and embrace deep cynicism just for a few laughs and to get us to bite on the romance of its two main characters. Gary, our protagonist, ends up betraying his civil duty by bedding the subject of one of his sting operations. This plotline could have gone in some very interesting directions, but instead, it doubles down on the relationship and attempts to get us to buy in. In its conclusion, these two main protagonists kill a fellow cop because... I honestly don't know. He's white trash? He's a possible "future white supremacist"? It is such a cynical and nihilist move that I honestly couldn't believe the writers committed to it so wholeheartedly. The movie then ends with a saccharine little flash-forward of the two now-married lovers, having cutesy talk at the kitchen table with their kids running around. As viewers, we know that what afforded them their freedom, however, was grave wrongdoing, shirking of their civil duty, and cowardice in facing the music.

In committing to this message, that two protagonists can do something awful and both get away with it and even be rewarded for it, Hit Man is morally compromised. Consider a crime movie like Goodfellas: crime that at first seems petty and fun soon becomes dark, scary, and all-encompassing. Our protagonist, Henry Hill, ends the movie by telling the audience that his glory days are over and he will now live the rest of his life in crushing boredom. He has to face the music. His crimes destroy his life, his friendships, and eventually his family. In the world of Hit Man, anything goes. Getting a leg up on the world can involve using any means necessary.. as long as you do it with style. That's a world I never want to live in.