SIN CITY

Marv is a real hero at the heart of Sin City

SIN CITY: Talk about the perfect vehicle for a dialogue on morality.


I can see how someone watching this film would be

~apalled, disgusted, disgraced, offended, annoyed, infuriated, hating it for all the reasons that someone else watching this film would be

~delighted, enthralled, humbled, enraptured, entertained, challenged, loving it for all the exact same reasons.



This movie is flat out perfection in every conceivable way for me.

I believe it is an intellectual time-bomb: a literary weapon aimed with bull's-eye certainty, its cross-hairs centered directly over its target: those who would verily oppose its gratuitous, 2-dimensional rendering of stereotypes and improbable scenarios and over the top ultraviolence as some kind of proof that it somehow displays a glaring "moral vacuum".

To the very self-righteous audience which would badmouth SIN CITY's message I daresay: beware of the twi-edged (& razorsharp) blade that Miller & Rodriguez are wielding, here. That message is stated with all too perfect clarity for the rest of us, who just so happen to Get It.

The fact this movie is not for everyone is precisely the reason it exists in the first place.

*spoilers ahead*


Just take a look at Marv. The one guy whose motivations and intentions are all 100% good -- it ain't enuff for him to achieve vengeance; nay & verily -- he is compelled to torture, excruciatingly, the evil fucks he is out to deliver from Sin City's equilibrium. Maybe then he'd achieve a modicum of getting even, considering the heinous nature of these bad guy's crimes. Marv is truly vengeance and justice personified. As such, I believe that makes him the moral centre of this ultimate morality tale.

It is as if Miller and Rodriguez are several steps ahead of their moral majority critics, and have playfully upped the bar in challenging them to, of course, think.

Because the way I see it: I challenge any person "of morals" who hated this film: Let us take John Hartigan, the Bruce Willis character, as the perfect example with which to issue my challenge to the Moral Majority (who, by their nature, would hate this film: an oxymoron I find truly fascinating). So, Moral America: your problem is that a good cop pushing 60 saves an 11 yr-old girl from being victimized by a sadistic pedophile who happens to be the son of a powerful senator, and then is framed by said senator to spend 8 yrs in prison on faked child molestation charges, and then he is released 8 years later only to find the 11-yr old girl he saved is now 19 years old and a hot stripper who has fallen in love with him and wants to have sex with him, am I right-? (I have read some reader reviews off imdb that display this exact criticism, if it wasn't, ahem, already perfectly obvious on its own.)

The problem I have with you Moral America, is quite simple, really: John Hartigan never once took advantage of the opportunity presented him by the starry-eyed young stripper whom he'd saved from the clutches of the nefarious pedophile, now did he? Hmmmmm....I wonder if this means Frank Miller quite literally pulled a subtle fast one on you, by making you jump to the conclusions you so obviously entertained, hmm-? In other words, 'twas YOU, Moral America, whose minds came up with the idea that it's wrong for a mid-60's man to, *koff*, what -, exactly-? Save a child and remain chaste despite her coming on to him hot & heavy when she's of age? I'm sorry to have to say it, but it was your minds who came up with sex, and not John Hartigan's. Sure, the girl as a 19-yr old came right out and asked for it, but it pains me to have to point out to you (I'm still speaking to Moral America here) that the character Bruce Willis portrayed not only quite literally refused that offer from the sexually-immature longing of the girl he saved, but he went so far as to make the ultimate sacrifice for her, because he too had fallen in love with her, and you know what they say -- if you love something, set it free -- which is precisely what John Hartigan did, and he paid the ultimate sacrifice in order to assure she did get to go free. Seems as if you missed the entire point of that story, huh Moral America?

If that isn't an immaculate morality fable empowering true morals and the potential goodness that lies in the wellspring of the human heart, then I don't know what is.

What I do know, is that Moral America just doesn't Get It; but that's okay, of course. Because this movie is, in the immortal words of Eddie Vedder, Not For You.

But I am not going to let you get away that easily, Moral America. First off, I have no problem with anyone disliking a movie for what they might consider to be valid reasons, such as: watching explicit sex or listening to profanity.

But I must point something out, here. Some have even gone so far as to mention the "sex" and "language" in the film as being listed under the banner of offenses. But the funny thing about it is, even I answered with a "yeah" when asked by a co-worker if it was full of foul language, such as the over-usage of the F-word, etc, which he personally found distasteful in movies. Imagine my own surprise when, later, after having seen it for the second time--I couldn't recall the F-word ever being used, even once! Now maybe I missed it; perhaps I've become desensitized to its use, and would miss it even if over-used; however, I just can't recall the F-word being used in this movie. Quite the opposite, in fact: I found there to be an alarming lack of profanity in SIN CITY. (When I see it for the 3RD TIME, I am going to carefully listen for every single use of profanity; I would become especially pleased if not somewhat surprised to find that, indeed, there may not be any profanity in SIN CITY.) All this has forced me to realize that the manner in which this movie earned its R-rating, was done quite intelligently, and with precision. Violence and Nudity. There was hardly any sex in the movie at all, actually. That appears to be yet another lame accusation by the increasingly questionable judgment of Moral America. The only sex depicted in the film is a brief shot of Marv and Goldie in their hotel room mostly covered up by a red satin bedsheet, and not graphic in the least, by today's standards, actually: we've all seen far more explicit sex in other movies.

So, it is becoming quite apparent to me, that Rodriguez & Company have managed to put together a rather astute morality tale in bringing the SIN CITY comic book to blazing life for the silver screen. And Moral America will be hard-pressed for their Case Against Sin City to have a leg to stand on.

I must reiterate that I firmly stand by my observation that this movie is quite the opposite of the "moral vacuum" which those outraged about it seem to think it represents. Which leads me to question the moral majority's common sense.

SIN CITY is, ultimately, a morality tale with lessons about true love and goodness nestled deep in the center of its heart. By utilizing extreme situations and the stereotypes of the comic medium, SIN CITY is poised to achieve what its detractors seem to have had much difficulty trying to manage over the past two thousand years of hypocrisy: the delivery of a simple message of truth, justice, love, and brotherly compassion. It is a depiction of ultimate sacrifice to a world that has itself evolved to the point of becoming the Ultimate Villain surrounding and harboring us all. It is concerned with nothing less than the personification of the principle that "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely". As such, it is not only a brave and uncompromising film--it is a work of art with an ultimate message of goodness and morality at its heart. Next time, try and pay more attention, won't you, Moral America?

Sin City 2: A Dame To Kill For

hits theaters on August 22, 2014