They came back with the same casting and storyline as the previous one, only changing a little bit of background. So it can’t be better than the first one. It’s as bad as its prequel.

Michael Clayton: I am not the enemy.
Arthur Edens: Then who are you?

It is worthwhile to see Michael Clayton in that it shows a human being suffering in his/her life, not a hero judging the world. You will be disappointed if you expect that you can meet Erin Brockovich in Michael Clayton. Ironically, Michael is more appealing and valuable than Erin even though Brockovich is based on the true story and Clayton is not. He is not brave enough to fight against the enemy. And I don’t think that he honestly fights for the justice or the truth. But for the retaliation. Just like you and me. It makes Michael Clayton more realistic and attractive, I believe. As you know, we can blame somebody for something but hardly fight against it. Staring at us in the cab, Clayton may want to ask us, “I’m ashamed of myself. But what can you do if you were me?”

Agent 47 is nothing but the Bourne Wannabe.
But the mission completely failed.
TRY IT AGAIN?
Please dooooooon’t do it again!

I have neither seen any trailer nor read any synopsis about the Kingdom. I just knew that it’s about the Middle East. From the start I was getting irritated at the director, actors and actress, and the film itself. Resentfully and unwittingly I said “What a Bitch” when Jennifer Garner gave a Muslim girl a candy. The anger finally soared at the last line of Jamie Foxx and a Muslim girl.

Fleury: I said we were going to kill them all [anti-American].
A Muslim Girl: [Abu Hamza said] Don’t worry. We’re going to kill them all [the oppressing or the haves].

I believe that each rationale for both of them is very different from the origin. But Peter Berg tried to dilute murder with justice or vice versa.

The Kingdom is a fake or a bullshit. Peter Berg doesn’t show any political belief or an ideology in his film. Even worse, he seems not to have intelligence at all. He’s eaten up with the American supremacy. Without doubt, therefore, he doesn’t have to insulate people to follow the American Imperialism, Pax Americana or whatever you want to call. He explicitly keeps shouting at us through this film how you dare to make any resistance against ABSOLUTE POWER of AMERICA. It is natural that he doesn’t allow Abu Hamza a second to have a chance to explain his excuses. What can you expect from Colonel Faris Al Ghazi who made a decision to become a policeman after watching the green beast, Hulk?

Faris: When we find this people [Abu Hamza], I did not care to ask them a question. I want to kill them.

It is so painful when Faris is depicted as an ignorant justice keeper. He may believe in the attitude of “Once an Evil, Always an Evil. It can’t have any excuses at all”. This is exactly what Peter Berg representing American Imperialism would like to tell us through the [American] Kingdom. Unfortunately, however, we know that America is not perfect but you are good in propaganda.

너가 언급한 이야기에 나 또한 충분히 동감한다. 일차적인 원인은 문제를 일으킨 범법자들이라는 사실과 그들을 어떠한 방법으로든지 교화시켜야 한다는 것 또한 사실이야. 하지만 지금과 같은 현대사회에서 무엇보다도 절실하게 필요한 것은 그것들이 복잡하게 얽혀져 있는 고리들을 하나씩 풀어내는 것이 우선시 되어야 한다고 생각한다. 다시 말하자면, 우리에게 처한 문제들을 얼마나 다원적인 시각에서 바라보고 처리하려고 노력하느냐 또한 중요하단 말이지.

내 글의 요지는 - 자신들이 범한 행동에 대한 댓가를 받는 것은 당연하지만 - 그들에게 인권의 이름을 앞세워 면죄부를 주자는 것이라기 보다는, 동일한 행위의 발생률을 최대한 줄일 수 있는 방법들을 강구해서 원천적으로 그러한 행동들을 처음부터 봉쇄해야 한다는 데에 있다. 그러나 법이라는 게 그 출발부터 범죄의 발단을 예상하고 만들어 놓은 것이기 때문에, 사람들을 심리적으로 압박하는 도구로 활용될 수도 있다는 사실에 주목해야 한다. 그 압박의 수단이 사람의 육체적, 심리적 충동을 능가할 수 없다는 것을 또한 생각해 보면, 그것이 그렇게 강력한 힘을 갖고 있다고 생각하지 않는다. 내가 한대 맞았으니까, 너도 한대 맞아야 한다는 식의 논리는 근시안적으로 문제를 해결하는 것 밖에 되지 않으며, 이것은 극단적으로 생각하면 복수나 앙갚음 따위로도 여겨질 수 있음을 생각해야 한다.

물론 미디어 이외에도 많은 문제의 원인이 있겠지만, 내가 미디어를 들먹거린 이유도 바로 여기에 있다. 문제의 근원을 행동 유발자 자체에서만 찾아내서 해결하려는 시도보다는, 사회와 사람간에 얽혀져서 자극하고 충동질하는 요인들을 찾아내려는 노력이 필요하지 않을까 생각해 본다.

Originally written at 10:36 AM on March 25, 2006