The thing is though, since it wasn't war and it looked like it was done intentionally and he held a grudge against those who may not have been evil themselves but in his view deserved to die, it was more than just "collateral damage" and I believe that this term isn't exclusive to what American leaders would say and for one in any war, even "just war", it happens all the time.
But the scenario portrayed in this movie was different to that of a war. And because he alone was responsible and targeted individuals personally (weren't all his kills intentional?), all questions especially degree of labels and guilt (in this case, villain or NOT) apply to him.
And I am guessing in between really would mean anti-hero (like for instance, Travis Bickle was in "Taxi Driver" (1976) to name a classic example.)
reply
share
maximmm (3408)
2 months ago
when I use the term 'our dear leaders' - I am referring to all dear leaders - after covid, I am convinced that they are all part of the same cabal. It's all a theater at this point - the world's a stage.
As for the film - he had a greater goal in mind - all people that had to be taken out in order to achieve that goal were either guilty or collateral damage in his view.
And yes - ultimately, he is anti-hero, in my opinion. The film producers/director obviously saw things differently, given the ending and the focus on the corrupt fellow smiling - but it wasn't an evil smile - he was in the director's view the true anti-hero character.
reply
share