3.5.09

Naturally Born And Bred


This is more of a venting post today then a movie review:

Natural Born Killers is one of the only movies of the class that I have seen and one of my faves. That being said I'm not going to review this movie but rather touch on a couple of things I have noticed over the countless amount of times I have watched this...


From a directorial standpoint, I think Oliver Stone's best shot scene in the whole film happens within the first ten minutes. The scene inside the car, showing the outside world in a variety of different film clippings, newspaper snippets, and a cocktail of different songs, embodies the movie itself. Horses, Indians, headlines saying "Route 66 Latest of Grizzly Attacks," Demons that look like Mickey, and civilians are all, in one way or another, symbolic of the movie and the culture at the time. The article Small Ceremonies points out that Killers is a western in a way, a "re-inscription of Manifest Destiny, the national myth that legitimated our own version of 'ethnic cleansing,' appropriated land and resources, and attempted to destroy and discredit" savagery of our culture (176). The movie is extremely violent and these small scenes as Mickey and Mallory ride in their car, in my opinion, reflect the identity loss of the 90's. Why did Manifest Destiny exist? To create and legitimize a national identity that ranged from "sea to shining sea." Mickey and Mallory have no identity. The Navajo man says that they are both suffering from a sickness, being a loss of spirit and guidance, and this mass killing spree, ending with the killing of the Navajo man, is a way to find that identity. In a way this is very representative of the 90's in general. The Berlin wall had just fallen, signaling the end of the Cold War. The Communist were no longer a threat to America. America had won but in the process loss the way of distinguishing themselves from the rest of the world. Simply, America had nothing to fight for or promote in the world; they were now just another democratic state in the world. The country was in need of another manifest destiny to find their role in the international landscape.  

Yet I would also like to comment on an article by John Grisham entitled Unnatural Born Killers. The article Small Ceremonies asks the questions "Does Natural Born Killers itself make a meal of viewer's souls? Does it tap into and ultimately feed destructive powers" (169)? Essentially John Grisham would respond to that question with an utmost and affirmative yes. Stone himself says the film reflects the violent and bankrupt culture of America and shows the "power of the media to fascinate, addict, and posses" (170). Yet Grisham says that the film did just that, possessed two individuals from this bankrupt culture to kill in a way that the movie promoted. His article focuses on two people called Sarah and Ben who decided to travel to Memphis to see the Grateful Dead, and ended up killing two people in a way similar to Natural Born Killers. As they drove to Memphis they spoke openly of killing people, randomly, just like Mickey spoke to Mallory. The profile of these killers are crucial to his argument: nothing in their past indicated violent tendencies. But once they saw the movie, they fantasized about killing, and their fantasies finally drove them to their crimes. Yet even if NBK drove these people to kill, Stone's message behind the movie still rings true. The media, which includes Hollywood, does have the power to fascinate, addict, and posses this violent and bankrupt culture, especially during the new media boom during the 1990's. The 90's gave America the birth of widespread cable and satellite television, allowing the typical American household to have access to 100+ channels. The media could essentially reach more people in many more ways. This included movies, which could be made cheaper, quicker, and played on various theaters and television channels. Why would NBK be exempt from the media's power to fascinate, addict, and posses? 

Thanks for listening to the rant and if you want to comment on the article by Grisham as well here is the link...

3 comments:

  1. Dont know if that was really a rant but it was a decent blog to read. I dont think that NBK was so much of an exception but it defintely had some crazy things in it. I dont know of very many killer movies that happened b4 this one other than the classics so i dont know where the line would be drawn as to what would be exempt from media.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Simply, America had nothing to fight for or promote in the world; they were now just another democratic state in the world. The country was in need of another manifest destiny to find their role in the international landscape.

    This is sounds absolutely accurate and is a good way to look at why America was so infatuated with this film or is. The funny thing is when I talk about his film people always say how it was Tarantino's first movie and yet he doesnt really want any association with this film because of how it was made. Isnt that kind og funny?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Didn't read as ranty to me either--just a really sharp and incisive analysis. You should rant more often!

    ReplyDelete