A film based on exploring two fundamental contradictions. Superb.

Rating: 10/10 (18 October 2005)

I notice that this film has suffered some rather harsh reviews from critics. Many have argued that the film is incapable of dealing with the need to entertain and the need to inform. Yet most of these reviews seem to have missed the point. On one level the film is an exploration of how a seemingly rational and loving man (towards his family) could become one of the world's most successful arms dealers. On another level the film is a critique of how we, as the audience, want to view this man. Should we be entertained? Or should be be shocked - by the information that is given to us? Returning to the first aim of the film - an exploration of a man becoming an 'Angel of Death' (as he is referred to at one point), it is clear that in part he actually (rather worryingly, it would seem) enjoys his work. Sure it can get rather nasty at times, but as he informs his wife, he can't stop selling arms because he knows he is really good at it. The same can be said for the audience. We 'want' to be entertained by what we see. Yet at the same time we know our enjoyment comes from watching innocents suffer - horribly. How can we, as the passive audience, attempt to reconcile these two factions within us? Should be become as detached as Nic Cage? Or should we hold a higher moral authority? If we do hold that authority, what point is there is even trying to enjoy the movie? This is the contradiction the director seems intent to explore. Just like his earlier films, SimOne and The Truman Show, he is interested in our own ability to want to be entertained, and need to be entertained at all costs - even to the extent of deluding ourselves. What right do we have to criticize Nic Cage's character in the film when we actually are rather happy to go along for the ride and watch lots of sh*t blowing up?