PREFACE:

Sicario might be the greatest action movie ever made. Of course, that isn’t too much of a surprise considering it’s from director Denis Villeneuve, but it definitely makes it a film worth diving into. It presents itself as the basic thriller, but examining it with greater depth leads to new discoveries about its themes and characterizations.

PREMISE:

After rising through the ranks of her male-dominated profession, idealistic FBI agent Kate Macer (Emily Blunt) receives a top assignment. Recruited by mysterious government official Matt Graver (Josh Brolin), Kate joins a task force for the escalating war against drugs. Led by the intense and shadowy Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro), the team travels back-and-forth across the U.S.-Mexican border, using one cartel boss (Bernardo Saracino) to flush out a bigger one (Julio Cesar Cedillo).

GOOD VS. EVIL

I have seen this film twice now, and the number one thing I have picked up on from it is its perspective and good and evil. The lines between the basic definition of morally right and wrong, and how they may become more blurred than we expect in situations like Sicario. Can we trust anyone? Are there any good people out here? Who can we root for? This movie gives you a straight answer: no one. The question of what defines good and evil is practically ingrained in our heads, and we as humans constantly try to hold on to a tangible sense of doing the right thing. But what happens when that isn’t the right thing to do anymore? What can we do when everything that we thought was morally correct is stripped away? These are interesting questions worth pondering over, and things this film so clearly asks.

USE OF TENSION:

Sure, artfully made violence is arguably the most key thing in an action film, but what about building tension? Slowly raising the audience’s heart rate until a beautifully cathartic piece of brutal violence plateaus the built-up excitement. Two things make this happen so easily in Denis Villeneuve’s masterpiece. One, Roger Deakins’ cinematography is impeccable. This film gets reviews or appreciation posts all the time celebrating this aspect, but I mean it with the utmost certainty. It may not have the big budget flashiness of Blade Runner 2049 (don’t get me wrong, that film’s beautiful) but in terms of grittier, more down-to-earth filmmaking, it successfully portrays the neutrality and blurred lines of morals. Two, Johan Johansson’s (RIP legend) haunting, chilling score is something to note down as well. It’s a meticulous assault on the ear drums that comes off as jarring in all of the right moments. Everything is unclear, complex and ambitious, and these two highly proficient technical aspects just accentuate it to the best extent. There are many aspects that make a dog-eat-dog environment, such as the screenwriting, acting and directing, but these two were the most atmospheric.

THE COMPLEXITY OF PERSPECTIVES:

One thing that Sicario does to truly separate it from the common film in the genre is its approach to good and evil. How does this film view the two vastly different words? At least from what I have noticed, it does it the most effectively with several perspectives from various characters. Admittedly, Emily Blunt’s Kate is the main character of sorts, but to be honest, there are more people to focus on. With each person introduced, whether it’s Josh Brolin’s Matt, Benecio del Toro’s Alejandro or even Silvio, a man doing anything to protect his family, each character has something new to offer. Matt and Alejandro embrace the nihilism and wrongfulness of this world, Kate is repulsed by the murderous actions they take, and Silvio is simply caught in a world of drugs while having people to care for. Of course, we cannot forget Jon Bernthal’s infamous Ted, who uses illegal and corrupt methods for easy money. But then again, can anyone really blame him? Can we even call him the bad guy? Not really, and this is because this movie never makes it clear who to root for. In general, especially in these types of films, it’s almost become a convention to establish a certified “good guy”. Here, there is simply no such concept. It’s highly subjective on where one lands in this case, and in the real world, isn’t this more or less a far superior and realistic portrayal of morals?

THE CHARACTERS:

It is more than worth taking a little bit of a better look at these characters. Obviously, we have Kate, an idealistic, by-the-books FBI agent who wants to do everything in her version of “right”, but that conflicts with other perspectives. Alejandro on the other hand is the ultimate opposite perspective of Kate, doing whatever it takes to complete his mission. He argues that her way of solutions isn’t always necessarily successful, and sometimes you have to become the bad guy to defeat one. This is a greatly intimate experience exploring what not one, but several characters think of each event in the film. This is yet another distinction I can make from your typical thriller. Brutality and illegality are the ways Alejandro rolls with, but the film shows that these are commonly more effective than Kate’s. So is he truly wrong? Or is it just her conflicted viewpoint on the matter struggling to side with him. Brolin’s Matt isn’t too different, as his methods align more with Alejandro’s than Kate’s. They both play as magnets of sorts, pulling her to see another way of seeing issues in the world, for better or for worse. It further makes the audiences and Blunt herself question if her way of thinking is correct in these types of situations. It’s a bold new take on a troubling real-life issue, The War on Drugs, and completely unique in this sense.

EVIL TO FIGHT EVIL:

Additionally, I would argue that although this film sends some pretty iffy messaging at times, it’s such an uncompromisingly smart look at good and evil. It argues that the most powerful way of fighting monsters is to become those monsters. Insanity to combat insanity. Brutality and violence to go hand-to-hand with more acts of depravity. It isn’t exactly the most positive look on things, but the execution is a flawless projection of Matt and Alejandro’s cynical look on morals, and how this almost clouds Kate’s judgement. Not necessarily in a bad way, however. It doesn’t quite shape her into a good person, but it teaches her the valuable lesson that sometimes, your viewpoint of “bad” is the greatest strength to fight evil. Even if it means breaking the law, this film pulls no punches.

THE BRILLIANCE OF AMBIGUITY:

Every motivation, every action, every dialogue and every single method one of these characters uses has a purpose in this movie. It all contributes to one massive shade of ambiguity, complexity and blurred morality. By the end of the film, audiences don’t know who won or lost, who made a difference in the world and who didn’t. Even the answer to who was the good guy or not. This movie is incredibly ambiguous, and that plays as a major part to its brilliance. This way of telling a story is deeply metaphorical for the message it is attempting to depict. The methodical execution is difficult to stomach, but Denis Villeneuve has presented one hell of a vision that will not be forgotten. This movie uses so many top-notch aspects to convey the fact that the only way to complete the mission is to maintain order. Unfortunately, to actually keep things under control, Alejandro and his methods shall prevail over her’s. Still, are they really people to idolize over either? Not even close. That’s the genius of Sicario. A definite future action classic that will come to be highly respected in the Hall of Fame in cinema.