Re-watched the original “Mad Max” (1979) – available on various “streaming services.” <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Now, the ORIGINAL “Mad Max” was\/is a “low budget” Australian movie. It didn’t get “distributed” in the U.S. “back in the day” – which was why “Mad Max 2” (1981) was released as “The Road Warrior” (1982) in the U.S.
The “low budget” nature distracted me when I watched “Mad Max” on home video (probably in the late 1980s). I’m guessing that the version I saw had been “edited” somewhere along the way – because (if memory serves) it was shorter than 90 minutes.
There is a section of the movie where they establish the “bad guys” as VERY bad — which (when it was obvious what was going on and that it was going to last a while) I fast forwarded through this time around – it wasn’t “explicit” so much as “unpleasant.”
The “low budget” nature of the movie precluded the sort of “makeup” effects common in movies. I was reminded of Oedipus Rex (the Ancient Greek play) – there was plenty of “implied off stage” violence – but they didn’t\/couldn’t show it ON stage. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The often replayed scene from “Mad Max” is the finale – where Max comes across the last “bad guy” (who has obviously just murdered someone and is trying to steal the dead man’s boots). No spoiler – the “bad” guy (who Max had arrested earlier in the movie and then the “courts” released) pleads for his life saying that he is “sick” and that the “court says I’m not responsible for my actions.”
Yeah, Max gives the guy a choice – and then drives away. Remember “Mad Max” is set in a “dystopian future” but it reflects a “society without the rule of law.” “Max” crosses the “line” but only after he has been driven to it by the (VERY) bad guys.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
“Mad Max” unintentionally hit a lot of the “mythic storytelling” points – and then they INTENTIONALLY hit more of those “mythic hero story” elements in “The Road Warrior.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In true “vengeance genre” fashion Max is the “good man” pushed “too far” who then takes matters into his own hands. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Charles Bronson made a LOT of movies (161 credits on IMDB) – some of those movies are very good – “The Magnificent 7”, “The Great Escape”, “The Dirty Dozen”, and “Once Upon a Time in the West.” If Mr Bronson had stopped making movies (all of those mentioned were made in the 1960s) he would deserve a place in the “Action movie Hall of Fame”
(random thought: if there isn’t an “Action movie Hall of Fame” there needs to be …)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
BUT then the 1970s happened – the same decade that would give us “The Godfather”, “Jaws”, and “Star Wars” gave us “Death Wish” (1974).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I have to admit that I have NOT seen the original “Death Wish.” I saw one of the sequels when it was on cable – but by that time the 1980’s action movie and “horror” films had made the “one man on a vengeance mission” even MORE cliche. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Vengeance is Mine, and recompense; BUT again, Mr Bronson played the “good guy pushed too far.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n fwiw: the Judeo Christian “turn the other cheek” ethic doesn’t mean the “bad guys” get away with anything – e.g. the pull quote … ’nuff said<\/p>\n\n\n\n random thought: A character in the “Dirty Dozen” THINKS he is the “hand of God” carrying out punishment – but the character is nuts<\/p>\n\n\n\n ANYWAY The fact that there were 5 “Death Wish” movies says something about the business of low-quality exploitation movies than anything (people kept buying tickets, the movies kept making a profit, they kept making more sequels) – but “human vengeance” is never finished might be the message (if there is a message …)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dwayne Johnson (“The Rock”) made a “vengeance genre” flick called “Faster” (2010) which drives home the unending nature of “vengeance” — so the movie becomes a good example of “twisting” a genre a little. All of the “vengeance” elements are there AND they added some “philosophical meat” – Google tells me the movie made a small profit, but wasn’t one of Mr Johnson’s bigger “box office” hits <\/p>\n\n\n\n The MBA in me wants to point out that Faster made an $11 million profit on a $24 million budget so the return on investment (ROI) as a % might have been higher than some of those close to $billion box office movies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n random thought: that “low budget” but high ROI % was where “Hollywood schlock” legend Roger Corman made a living – Google tells me he had an estimated net worth of $200 million when he died in May 2024 …<\/p>\n\n\n\n IF the “good guys” act just like the “bad guys” what is the difference between the two?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, that is a good question. No, I’m not going to try to summarize all of human existence\/experience. e.g. Max does what he does BECAUSE of what the “bad guys” did. The bad guys did what THEY did because, well, they are “bad.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The “psych 101” concept of a “sociopath” involves not feeling remorse. Ever. If “sociopath” gets caught doing “bad thing” then they might feel bad about being “caught” but not for what they did. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This idea is the “psychology” behind the “repentant gunfighter” genre. “Shane” (1953) is a classic example (of course the book is “better” but the movie is good in its own right). <\/p>\n\n\n\n e.g. it is implied that “Shane” had done a lot of “bad things” until he decided he wouldn’t. Shane “turned away” from being a gun for hire … and “plot happens” … and Shane has to face another “gun for hire” in the climax.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The implied difference between “Shane” and the “bad gunfighter” (played by Jack Palance) is that the “bud guy” enjoys killing, and Shane is a “soldier” doing a required task (and he is just very good at the task). His expectation being that one day he would get into a gunfight with someone faster or more accurate than him and the tuberculosis would no longer be a problem. His final words (as he was dying of tuberculosis in a hospital bed) was “This is funny.” c\u2019est la vie<\/p>\n\n\n\n The important part of the above is that the sociopath (by definition) cannot be “rehabilitated” because they never feel remorse – they can never “repent” because (in their head) they have no reason to “repent.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are a lot of “click bait” sociopath tests that might be amusing – but if you want to know if someone is a “sociopath” all you need to do is ask them. They will (probably) gladly tell you that EVERYONE thinks\/acts they way they do and if someone doesn’t, well, they are fools.<\/p>\n\n\n\n BUT be careful, “sociopaths” (by definition) are also master manipulators – but it is hard to “hide” sociopathic behavior. Paying more attention to what folks “do” more than what they “say” is always good advice, but especially true of “sociopaths”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Their foot shall slip in\u00a0due<\/em>\u00a0time;
For the day of their calamity\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0at hand,
And the things to come hasten upon them.<\/p>Deuteronomy 32:35<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\nthe repentant gunfighter<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
From a MOVIE morality point of view the difference is “intent” and “motivation.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The legend of John Henry “Doc” Holliday comes to mind. Ol’ Doc was a dentist until he came down with tuberculosis. Since no one wants to go to a dentist with tuberculosis, Doc became a professional gambler and (sometimes) gunfighter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n