I wasn’t really surprised to see a lot of negative comments here on a recent review of the film “Kick-Ass.” An eleven-year old-girl cursing and firing a Glock 20 into the faces of mob thugs isn’t exactly for everybody.
I was shocked by the one star review by the once relevant film critic known as Roger Ebert. After all, this is a guy who gleefully relishes the violence of Tarantino films and has no problem with controversial and morally offensive material.
How could a movie so offend both the Left and the Right? And how could that same movie be so entertaining to me that I’ve already seen it twice and demanded that every member of my post production staff see it this weekend?
And then, halfway through my second screening, it hit me. “Kick-Ass” may be the first truly Libertarian film I’ve ever seen.
A very conservative, religious friend once asked me to explain my views. He was stumped that we agreed on almost everything. But, when a lot of the social issues came up, I kinda shuffled my feet and looked to the ground. I summarized it this way: He and I could spend all day Saturday agreeing about taxes, the role of government, and foreign policy, yet, on Sunday, he would be in church and I would be nursing a hangover.
Libertarians are the party boys and girls of the conservative movement.
While I acknowledge that our country was founded by religious men and that many, if not all, of our traditions stem from Christian concepts, I don’t think our liberties are directly tied to any specific religious belief or moral paradigm. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. The notion that government doesn’t have the right to take my money, my guns, or my property without my consent also extends to the notion that no person, from the government or anywhere else can tell me how to live my life.
Unlike the left, who shares a portion of this view, I have no negative views of religious people or people who choose to live a life based on a different moral code. I find myself as uncomfortable or comfortable at a church picnic as I do at a bar in West Hollywood. It’s simply illogical for me to judge another, or inflict my will upon my fellow citizens. It’s your life, not mine.
I can completely understand why Christians would not want to see or support “Kick-Ass.” There is nothing inconsistent or revealing in that position. All I will say is that it is wicked cool and you’re missing out.
Ebert and critics on the left are a different story. Why would he be so offended by the “Hit Girl” character? After all, this is a man who recently gave a glowing review to Roman Polanksi’s latest film. Roman Polanski, of course, sexually forced himself on girl not much older than actress Chloe Moretz. Sure, Ebert will say that you have to separate the film from the filmmaker, but wouldn’t the same logic excuse an actress simply playing a part to make a larger thematic point?
Further digging reveals that Ebert gave two stars to the unwatchable film “Hounddog.” In that film a similarly aged Dakota Fanning is raped on screen. There is no outrage at that from him. Nor is there any protest to the underage Fanning acting quite adult in the recent “Ruanways” film, which he gave three stars.
What Ebert is really offended about is the fact that the underage “Hit Girl” isn’t a victim. It’s okay to have young actresses brutalized sexually or engaged in salacious situations involving drugs and sex as long as they maintain the leftist party line that women are helpless victims. The movie “Precious” depicts a young girl who is brutalized by her family and must turn to the state for help. Awesome! Four stars. “Hit Girl” doesn’t take sh!t from anybody, avenges her family, drives a hot rod, and has $3 million in cash in a suitcase. She doesn’t need anyone or anything. My, my how offensive!
In the leftist paradigm, being a victim is the pinnacle of human achievement. Each special interest group battles society and each other to prove who is more oppressed, who has less civil rights, and who deserves more of our pity. “Kick-Ass” is about people who refuse to be victims. It is about average people who rise up and take whatever means necessary to restore the balance between good and evil. They do not go to the police or rely on the government to help. They do not revel in their underdog status. They perceive true injustice and take steps to stop it.
Perhaps even more offensive to Ebert is the film’s lack of moral ambiguity. Good guys are good. Bad guys are bad. Period. End of discussion. The heroes do not realize that they are becoming like their enemy at some point in the film. They do not buy into some notion of a “cycle of violence” between cops and criminals. They dispose their righteous justice, then rightfully go back to their normal lives.
The individual is king in “Kick-Ass.” Each character makes their own decisions and lives by the consequences of their actions. They do not wait for others to help them. They help themselves. They react to the empirical, undeniable, reality of right and wrong. They do not act selfishly, for they understand that in helping themselves, they help those around them.
At one point, in a hilarious riff on the main theme of the “Spider-man” films, Kick-Ass states that “with no power, comes no responsibility.” Isn’t that the central tenant of modern leftist thought? Why should they help others when the government does that? Why should they donate to charity when they patriotically pay their taxes? Why should they risk themselves when someone is in trouble because the police or military do that. Of course, “Kick-Ass” doesn’t reinforce this notion. It goes against it. Every human being is responsible for making the world a better place. The best way to do that is by making yourself the best you can be. You can’t turn a blind eye to evil and injustice, wallowing in your status as a victim, you must be proactive to defeat injustice and evil in a personal, direct, and often risky way.
Yes, on the surface, “Kick-Ass” is morally depraved. It features wildly offensive language and breathlessly violent images. It does indeed have an eleven-year-old girl who could take down Van Dame and whose mouth would make Mickey Rourke blush. It features people having sex in public. It depicts drug use. But that’s not the whole story. At it’s thematic core, it’s about the struggle between good and evil, personal responsibility, and the importance of the individual. It is a solid, truthful message wrapped up in a morally questionable package.
And that friends, is Libertarianism in a nutshell.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.