‘Kick-Ass’ Is the Quintessential Libertarian Film
by Leigh ScottI wasn’t really surprised to see a lot of negative comments here on a recent review of the film “Kick-Ass.” An eleven-year old-girl cursing and firing a Glock 20 into the faces of mob thugs isn’t exactly for everybody.
I was shocked by the one star review by the once relevant film critic known as Roger Ebert. After all, this is a guy who gleefully relishes the violence of Tarantino films and has no problem with controversial and morally offensive material.
How could a movie so offend both the Left and the Right? And how could that same movie be so entertaining to me that I’ve already seen it twice and demanded that every member of my post production staff see it this weekend?
And then, halfway through my second screening, it hit me. “Kick-Ass” may be the first truly Libertarian film I’ve ever seen.
A very conservative, religious friend once asked me to explain my views. He was stumped that we agreed on almost everything. But, when a lot of the social issues came up, I kinda shuffled my feet and looked to the ground. I summarized it this way: He and I could spend all day Saturday agreeing about taxes, the role of government, and foreign policy, yet, on Sunday, he would be in church and I would be nursing a hangover.
Libertarians are the party boys and girls of the conservative movement.
While I acknowledge that our country was founded by religious men and that many, if not all, of our traditions stem from Christian concepts, I don’t think our liberties are directly tied to any specific religious belief or moral paradigm. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion. The notion that government doesn’t have the right to take my money, my guns, or my property without my consent also extends to the notion that no person, from the government or anywhere else can tell me how to live my life.
Unlike the left, who shares a portion of this view, I have no negative views of religious people or people who choose to live a life based on a different moral code. I find myself as uncomfortable or comfortable at a church picnic as I do at a bar in West Hollywood. It’s simply illogical for me to judge another, or inflict my will upon my fellow citizens. It’s your life, not mine.
I can completely understand why Christians would not want to see or support “Kick-Ass.” There is nothing inconsistent or revealing in that position. All I will say is that it is wicked cool and you’re missing out.
Ebert and critics on the left are a different story. Why would he be so offended by the “Hit Girl” character? After all, this is a man who recently gave a glowing review to Roman Polanksi’s latest film. Roman Polanski, of course, sexually forced himself on girl not much older than actress Chloe Moretz. Sure, Ebert will say that you have to separate the film from the filmmaker, but wouldn’t the same logic excuse an actress simply playing a part to make a larger thematic point?
Further digging reveals that Ebert gave two stars to the unwatchable film “Hounddog.” In that film a similarly aged Dakota Fanning is raped on screen. There is no outrage at that from him. Nor is there any protest to the underage Fanning acting quite adult in the recent “Ruanways” film, which he gave three stars.
What Ebert is really offended about is the fact that the underage “Hit Girl” isn’t a victim. It’s okay to have young actresses brutalized sexually or engaged in salacious situations involving drugs and sex as long as they maintain the leftist party line that women are helpless victims. The movie “Precious” depicts a young girl who is brutalized by her family and must turn to the state for help. Awesome! Four stars. “Hit Girl” doesn’t take sh!t from anybody, avenges her family, drives a hot rod, and has $3 million in cash in a suitcase. She doesn’t need anyone or anything. My, my how offensive!
In the leftist paradigm, being a victim is the pinnacle of human achievement. Each special interest group battles society and each other to prove who is more oppressed, who has less civil rights, and who deserves more of our pity. “Kick-Ass” is about people who refuse to be victims. It is about average people who rise up and take whatever means necessary to restore the balance between good and evil. They do not go to the police or rely on the government to help. They do not revel in their underdog status. They perceive true injustice and take steps to stop it.
Perhaps even more offensive to Ebert is the film’s lack of moral ambiguity. Good guys are good. Bad guys are bad. Period. End of discussion. The heroes do not realize that they are becoming like their enemy at some point in the film. They do not buy into some notion of a “cycle of violence” between cops and criminals. They dispose their righteous justice, then rightfully go back to their normal lives.
The individual is king in “Kick-Ass.” Each character makes their own decisions and lives by the consequences of their actions. They do not wait for others to help them. They help themselves. They react to the empirical, undeniable, reality of right and wrong. They do not act selfishly, for they understand that in helping themselves, they help those around them.
At one point, in a hilarious riff on the main theme of the “Spider-man” films, Kick-Ass states that “with no power, comes no responsibility.” Isn’t that the central tenant of modern leftist thought? Why should they help others when the government does that? Why should they donate to charity when they patriotically pay their taxes? Why should they risk themselves when someone is in trouble because the police or military do that. Of course, “Kick-Ass” doesn’t reinforce this notion. It goes against it. Every human being is responsible for making the world a better place. The best way to do that is by making yourself the best you can be. You can’t turn a blind eye to evil and injustice, wallowing in your status as a victim, you must be proactive to defeat injustice and evil in a personal, direct, and often risky way.
Yes, on the surface, “Kick-Ass” is morally depraved. It features wildly offensive language and breathlessly violent images. It does indeed have an eleven-year-old girl who could take down Van Dame and whose mouth would make Mickey Rourke blush. It features people having sex in public. It depicts drug use. But that’s not the whole story. At it’s thematic core, it’s about the struggle between good and evil, personal responsibility, and the importance of the individual. It is a solid, truthful message wrapped up in a morally questionable package.
And that friends, is Libertarianism in a nutshell.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
635 Comments
I'm Christian and I want to see it. Bad.
I like to think that I have a pretty strong moral compass (even if I don’t always follow it), and I don’t necessarily have a problem with violence and foul language in films, even coming from children. Having said that, I do worry that the film, having been based on a comic book and featuring kids running around as costumed heroes, will drawn in an inappropriate audience. Sure, lessons of individualism and moral clarity are important for children to learn, but obviously this isn’t the right movie to teach it to them. One would think that despite marketing, the R-rating would give parents serious pause. But of course, that’s not always the way it works.
I’ll probably end up seeing it. It looks like a fresh and funny take on the superhero genre. And hey, if it really does give a thematic middle finger to leftist ideology, all the better.
Same here … loved the comic and Leigh is dead on about the theme and thesis.
That said, I too can understand why some folk aren't going to be able to look past the visuals (which in the comic were pretty bad).
I didn't expect social conservatives to like it, but its bonus points that Egbert didn't like it either.
Oh well, there's plenty of other films out there that those folk will enjoy.
I loved Kick-Ass. It was entertaining with no sucker punches. I did cringe at a lot of the violence, and my mouth dropped when I heard a lot of Hit Girl's lines. Her father didn't even use that kind of language. I can separate fantasy from reality though. I would never recommend anyone take their kids to this movie. However, it was very clever, and if folks could lighten up they may enjoy it. There's no agenda in this movie. It's a living comic and actually has some clever plot twists. I had to laugh thinking about some of the stuff they tried to pull off….it was really just a lot of fun at the movies, and that's why I go in the first place!
"Libertarians are the party boys and girls of the conservative movement."
Or, as another conservative I once met put it, "Libertarians are conservatives who want to keep their vices."
One other thing to add about children performing in roles like this. Someone else, in an earlier thread on Big Hollywood, compared this performance to Linda Blair's performance in The Exorcist. I found an interview with Linda Blair here where she talks about the experience. What should stand out clearly from that interview from a libertarian perspective is the point of consent because it's pretty clear that, as a child, Linda Blair didn't understand what she was being asked to say or do nor was she able to grasp the potential repercussions of her choice to perform that role. While it's reasonable for libertarians to stand behind the idea of "consenting adults" on all sorts of social issues, in the case of child performers, we are not dealing with adults and the idea of conformed consent may not be possible or meaningful, which is why the law defines an age of consent and doesn't allow minors to enter into binding contracts. So I guess what I have to ask is this. Doesn't anything about the idea of a child actress performing a role like that trouble you and if you are relying on the parents to provide consent for the child, where does one draw that line?
"In the leftist paradigm, being a victim is the pinnacle of human achievement. "
Then Great Britain is a frikkin' Utopia, right?
Ebert, and perhaps other critics of similar ideology, are possibly under the influence of "liberalism's" inconsistent pacifism. They instinctively (I say "instinctively" because it seams beyond reason) react negatively to the idea of the individual using force in self-defense, I suspect because self-defense is based on theindividual's right to life and liberty. Yet they love force when exercised by the State in the cause of their ideology. Statism can't exist without force.
I saw Kick Ass and thought Hit Girl and Big Daddy were terrific characters and Chloe Moretz and Nicolas Cage stole the film.
However, Chloe Moretz will probably be an interesting person to watch. She wore a super short dress on Leno last week that was probably more inappropriate than anything in Kick Ass. And from what I hear from someone in the know in LA, her "stage mom" manager and her "acting coach" brother are real pieces of work and they will be there every step of the way to ride on the girl's coattails.
As a libertarian myself (or classical liberal, as I prefer), I agree with Leigh almost completely, especially in regard to the status of the "sacred victim" in leftist ideology. They actually derive this trait from conservative theology, although there the victim is Christ. Substituting man for God is the oldest trick in the leftist playbook.
However, I am still disturbed by the protrayal of Hit Girl, particularly in the the way her verbal and physical violence is eroticized. In reality, No 11-year old girl could or would do as does, so her character is essentially objectified as a fetishistic wish-fulfillment, and in my opinion, not a healthy one.
That said, this movie is hilarious.
So basically we won't be seeing this one on Lifetime TV in the future.
You know I wanna see the movie. It looks good, got a great story line, and as a woman who has done a little kicking ass in my day, likes having a powerful girl in it. I appreciated the articles notice of the hypocrisy of the critics. Never equated it in my mind, thanks for new insight.
Oh and I must be a Libertarian, I am a conservative who likes to laugh and party hearty !!!!! ;0)
the struggle between good and evil, personal responsibility, and the importance of the individual.
Yes, luv. It's a moral environment not found in many other cultures, as astonishing as that seems. Fish don't notice the water they swim in, either. It remains true, however, that the cultural environment that allows you to see what you see is totally alien to other cultures. So, it's more than nature, it's nurture.
Every libertarian should rejoice that true Christians (not the hand-wringing insecure ones) are so confident of the abiding Truth that they are not unsettled by the godless or their choices. I am content to be the salt that preserves everything you enjoy about your freedom. Long may you enjoy it before dhimmitude subverts all reason and Truth.
I never saw hounddog, but when it came out there was an interview with Dakota Fanning. All I remember about it was that she said "I'm ready for rape." meaning she was ready to play that part.
There is no way she could have been. Grown women aren't ready for that. The cavalier attitude about it made me decise not to see the film.
I don't kow what to make of Kick-Ass. The title alone bothers me. If that is the name of the movie i suppose they don't hold much back.
the fact that we have this type of crudeness in our movie titles speaks volumes about where we are as a society.
I am no prude, and watch Tarantino with glee. But I'm not into kids being used thes way. It to me borders on exploitation.
I'm not sure waht to make of this.
I didn't like Kick-Ass for the same reason I didn't like Kill Bill: Smug, obnoxious, in-your-face irony disguised as satire. As for the Hit-Girl controversy, it's not offensive or morally reprehensible, it's just stupid and immature.
Yes I can see that. I am a Christian and a Libertarian. I don't like to be told what to do by the government. I choose what I can and cannot do based on the set of beliefs given to me by Jesus and the Gospel. I am not easily offended and I do most certainly have my vices. I guess what concerns me about this movie is that it kind of gives in to a vice that I believe should be universally unacceptable – the sexualization of minors to adults!
Great point! Freedom doesn't mean chaos and everything -goes A society can still be free and have morals! This is what separates conservatives from liberals.
If it truly is a "Libertarian" film, then that would tend to reinforce the opinion that Libertarianism is an ideology for people without children.
I didn't know much about the movie or even heard about the comic but I saw it after reading the review here and I was shocked at the violence and the language, especially from the young girl. But I loved the movie and I actually found it exciting that I could be shocked watching a movie in this day and age, I'm not as cynical as I thought! The violence and language is in context to the story and not overly gratuitous if you consider the movie is based on a comic.
I will go see it again and will recommend it to friends with similar tastes in movies, it was smart, fresh, lough out loud funny, shocking and entertaining the whole time. And for some reason every time Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) spoke I couldn't stop myself from laughing (quietly), he had one of the weirdest ways of delivering his lines I'd heard in a movie for awhile.
I do want to see this. It does bother me that a 12 year old girl uses words like c*ck and c*nt for no apparent reason other than to be shocking. I find this to be extrmely lazy writing as it adds nothing to the story or character besides make her vulgar.
Beyond that….
Violence, foul language, drug use and sex…….. Where do I sign???
Because people without children like to enforce their will on others? How does that work, Professor?
Or maybe an ideology for people who don't always take their kids with them to the movies.
This is why Saturday evening Mass is such a great idea. You can go out after and have Sunday morning wide open.
Looooved Kick Ass! My only problem w/ it, is I immediately wanted more.
Always a good read Leigh, and will give the movie a try.
[...] this link: ‘Kick-Ass’ Is the Quintessential Libertarian Film This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Okay, that's probably your best and most well-thought-out review ever. I'm sorry to say I don't generally utilize your reviews as much as some of the other guys around here, 'cause it seems that there's almost never a movie that you don't like or have a problem with. (I'm one of those guys that's in church on Sunday and not in the hangover crowd.) However, you hit this one right on. Good job!
KICK-ASS is exuberant filmmaking. Fun. Entertaining. Go. See for yourself.
Me… I'm ready for K-A2.
Mr. Scott,
I think what I appreciate most about this analysis is your honesty about the a-moral or immoral approach that Kick Ass takes and even your acknowledgment that movies have controversial and morally offensive material.
It is refreshing to read someone not trying to re-label offensive material as "artistic" or denigrating those that call it offensive by saying that they "don't get it."
Better yet, "Libertarians are conservatives that don't give a flying crap about anyone else's vices"
Interesting, especially since Ebert gave Nic Cage's horrific flop 'Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call' a shockingly "Top 10 movie of 2009" stamp of approval. This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Nevermind the fact you have to endur watching a revolting Cage essentially leg hump a young chick in a parking lot while he talks dirty to her, asking her if her daddy made her wear this and that. I'm still having nightmares.
Besides not caring to hear excessive and gratuitous foul language from Hollywood, I am disturbed at the very young age of the girl that what used. It seems it would have been better to use someone a little older, as kids who manage to see this movie will think that it is okay for them to swear like this and want to act this out. I can think of nothing scarier than some pre-pubescent kids running around shooting things up with BB, pellet, or worse a real firearm that they sneaked out of Daddy's closet at home. Most kids today do not have the reasoning capability to completely separate the fiction from real life at that age. With video games, TV and Hollywood glorifying extreme violence, I worry that our children do not have the proper amount of respect for life. That said, it does sound like a fun film to watch.
I was sold when I found out McLovin' is in it!!! I AM MCLOVIN'!!!!!"
"At it’s thematic core, it’s about the struggle between good and evil, personal responsibility, and the importance of the individual."
I am all for personal responsibility and the importance of the individual however so much of Libertarianism 'party all night long' seems to defy 'personal responsibility' for the sake of the self-pleasuring individual.
For example (remember this the next time you are in surgery) I know several Libertarian friends who are anesthesiologists by profession yet heavy-duty pot smokers by pleasure; I am not confident these anesthesiologists waking up every day with a stoner hangover are engaging in personal responsibility.
I know that across the board there are a plethora of 'party all night long' Libertarians in professions which do have an effect other people's lives yet so often fulfilling their personal pleasures often trump personal pleasure.
"partying all night long' works if one is in the entertainment business because that industry offers retakes, do-overs, photo-shopping etc which can hide all the flaws however in most all other professions are not afforded such luxuries.
Since new-agey Libertarian 'partying all night long' really begin around the late 1960s with the introduction of the drug culture and the sex de-evolution culture there are not many answers to the problem.
Most certainty Government mandates would be the evil solution however what can be done to encourage 'party all night long-drug induced-porn-addicted into flaccid' Libertarians to engage in personal responsibility?
If Libertarians are going to preach 'personal responsibility' then their actions would not be about 'partying all night long into a stupor dude'.
Please, don't lecture your Libertarian 'MORALITY' when my life is in your 'party all night long' libertarian hands.
I would go see it, but know what's coming: some doofus parent will sit around me with their little kids. That happened during Watchmen and it was like observing child abuse. I'll have to wait for the DVD because I can't stand that kind of behavior.
You guys don't spend much time around L A inner city 11 year olds, I guess. Being a tough little potty mouth is a badge of honor to most of that set.
Never seen a libertarian film before?
Check out the original The Day The Earth Stood Still.
Sold me on libertarianism when I was a teenager.
Philippians 4:8-9
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me—practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
It has become trite in our society but perhaps we need to think about it again. When you stand before the Lord is this something that you would be unashamed to have done?
This Irish Anglican has been in that boat a few times herself. Soloing in the choir loft on at least one not-so-memorable occasion.
C.S. Lewis once pointed out that, "It is a mistake to think that Christians ought all to be teetotallers; Mohammedanism, not Christianity, is the teetotal religion." (Mere Christianity)
It may be the first film I see in a theater this year. I don't think playing Hit Girl will necessarily scar Chloe Moretz. I'm reminded of another young actress who began her career at about the same age playing a young girl who's family is murdered by drug dealers and is then taken in by a hit man in his mid-40s who teaches her his trade while they develop a relationship with pedophiliac overtones before taking revenge on the drug dealers. Yet Natalie Portman seems to be doing alright these days aside from being a liberal.
"…no person, from the government or anywhere else can tell me how to live my life."
Even a free society must have rules, Leigh. A very wise man once said, "It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect." That man, James Madison, wrote the U.S. Constitution. Without that document, where would we be today?
If my Libertarian heavy-duty pot smokers who are Anesthesiologists by profession were in the operating room with you or your children on the operating table would you give a 'flying crap' about their vices then?
Or how about a 'party all night long' Libertarian who is an airline pilot by profession?
Or what about the porn-addicted Libertarian who is a public school teachers of your children?
Government would be the evil solution however what about your vices intruding upon my life? Where is the 'personal responsibility' after you've 'partied all night long'?
Mr. Scott, I agree with much of what you said and I enjoy reading your articles so please accept the following in the spirit of two friends discussing the subject over a good drink or better yet a good cigar or pipe.
Your contention that our liberties are not tied to any specific belief or moral paradigm is completely wrong and shows a misunderstanding of the history of western civilization. It is no coincidence that the same western society that embraced Christianity also developed into the most enlightened, free, and advanced society known to the world. Our political liberties and values come from that Christianity. Jefferson, hardly an evangelical, said so himself in the Declaration of Independence. Without Christianity, the individual has no eternal value or meaning.
Furthermore, by what right does someone who wishes to be free from religion then use terms like "truth," "righteous," "good and bad," "individual worth," etc. These terms only have meaning if a Creator exists outside of the system to give them objective meaning. In a world without a Creator, the meaning of these terms is at best relative and worthless. What gives you the right to define truth or even righteousness? What is your standard and why should it be considered a universal standard?
I wonder if Leigh would say this if he were on the operating table with one of my heavy-duty pot smoking Libertarian friends performing their anesthesiologists jobs?
Will Leigh tell the anesthesiologist working who is in the operating room with a stoner hangover that he has no right to be constantly stoned when he isn't at work?
Excellent piece, Mr. Scott. Thanks for writing it.
I saw the movie and didn't realize WHY it was so appealing, but yeah…I'm a sucker for stories that feature strong, independent characters who live by their own moral codes and codes of honor. People who will fight, kill and die to preserve those codes. Even if those people have not yet gone through puberty.
Amen, Toddes.
Many Christians no longer concern themselves with what God thinks. It doesn't enter their minds. "Entertain me!" is the spirit of the age. The Bible says "it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret." And here we have professed Christians eager to swim in the muck up to the eyeballs. But Mr. Scott's article does explain what Libertarianism is, and it helps explain in stark terms why its particular brand of conservatism is in many ways contrary to what it means to be authentically Christian.
It's "Van Damme," actually. And these days I think an 11-year old COULD kick his @$$.
I've always considered myself a staunch conservative. Never questioned it.
But recently, I took some test on Glenn Beck's website to "figure out" what I was. I did it to do it, not because I questioned my core values.
Turns out, according to Beck's test, I'm a Libertarian. Turns out, according to Beck's test, I'm conservative on all things, yet don't really care what other people do — unless of course it effects me and my family. Then, I care. Otherwise, live and let live.
For instance: muslims want to worship allah? I could personally care less. allah tells muslims to kill me? I personally care.
That's what conservatives are after all? A collection of individuals. Not a collective that over-rules the individual.
I enjoyed "Kick Ass". The issues I had with it were from a story stand-point. I wish it'd had more heart, frankly. I know… not this movie. Clearly, Matthew Vaughn wasn't interested in that. But, it seems to me that in a story about a father and a daughter there could be opportunities to have a ton of heart. There were times that I felt they were going to do there, but chickened out or decided against it. Anyway, I feel that's what the movie lacked, especially at the end. Even with an R rating, it may have attracted more audience with just some heart.
Otherwise, I agree with you. The movie was a romp. I laughed and hollered. A lot.
And I guess that makes me a Libertarian too. Albeit, a staunch conservative Libertarian.
It is to the leftists who dont have to live there.
Wow Libertarian discussion yet the word " P*rn" is flagged for approval.
Perhaps so but should LA innercity 11 year olds be the standard?
I like to think of myself as a conservative with libertarian tendancies… or is it a libertarian with conservative tendancies?
Hell, I'll just stick with American.
Since I have very little money, no job, and I am unable to work due to a back injury, it is very, very rare that I get out to see a movie at the theater. (It also doesn't help that the nearest theater is over half an hours drive away)
However, I was in our capital city this last weekend, and happened to have a little money in my pocket, so my wife and I went to see Kick Ass this weekend. It was the first film we have seen at the theater this year…in fact I don't think we went to a theater at all in 2009 either.
Loved it. I'm a life long comic fan, so the violence didn't phase me. Even though I had not heard of this comic series (Lack of funds again has curtailed my buying any comics in a few years too) I was looking forward to seeing it.
The language is nothing I hadn't heard before so again, it didn't phase me. I've heard kids younger than this say the same things.
I enjoyed the film.
After we got back I spoke with my parents and mentioned I had gone to see the film. My mother had heard about it and asked me if I thought it was "cute"
I had to let her know that it was enjoyable, but about as far from cute as it could get. She and my father would not enjoy the film, and I told them so.
I also told them that it DESERVES it's rated R rating, and should NOT be watched by kids, period.
So, I have no problem with the film. It has a rating that is supposed to keep kids away from it…as long as PARENTS actually pay attention to the rating.
Unfortunately there aren't as many responsible parents out there as there should be…so I'm sure that a lot of children will see this film.
Right after me, and initial here, here, sign there and intitial here…
The next time I have to use the word 'p*rn' when discussing Libertarianism I will use instead 'films of naked teenagers for pleasuring f*accid fat-bellied pot-smoking Libertarian losers".
Some funny going on.
that's one advantage we Jews have. Do our temple thing Saturday morning, then at sundown Saturday night we're free to party the rest of the weekend.
I think this stems from the Biblical imperative not to be "drunk with wine" and against drunkenness in general.
So, many Christians say, "Well if I don't drink I can't be drunk", so they don't drink at all.
But I understand your point.
Yeah, who wouldn't want their kid to be like an L.A. inner city kid?
I agree personally with you.
But, and call me old fashioned… but PARENTS are at fault if a child sees this movie not the child.
Kids have no business seeing this. true. yet, it's up to a parent to assure they don't.
Of course kids are going to want to see this. Because it's "forbidden".
But parents have to be on top of it.
I know I'm on top of what my kid sees. Of course, just because I police my kid, doesn't mean she won't find a way of doing things that are against the rules. Kids just have to know there are consequences. If I say: you can't go see "Kick Ass" and they go see it anyway behind my back and I find out, the punishment should be swift and harsh. Take away cell phones, computers, allowance, car. Anything. Everything. Make it hurt.
They should fear consequence.
When I was a kid, I lied to my parents and said I was going to see some PG movie and instead snuck into SCARFACE. I was shocked and flabbergasted. I was a kid–I'd never heard that kind of language or seen that kind of violence.
Even though I disobeyed my parents, I remember being terrified (even as I sat in the movie) that they'd find out I saw it. So I did not cuss (in front of them). Because I knew they'd know where I got that from.
I only told my mother recently that I'd done that. Her disappointed scowl still saddened me and I'm a grown man with a family of my own!
Bottom line… just because we don't like Hollywood making these movies doesn't mean they shouldn't. It's freedom of expression. We can't silence it.
We just have to police our children better.
That way, even if they sneak in, they know there will be consequences if the parents find out.
Great post Leigh. I'm glad there's debate over this film. It shows that people still give a da** about keeping some boundaries, which is rare enough in Hollywood these days.
I've been on the fence over this one. I have a daughter that's about the same age as the Hit Girl character, so that's kind of hard to wrap my head around. But I'm mostly ambivalent because the writer of the comic is the same guy that wrote "Wanted" and I just didn't like that movie. We are talking about different directors though, so I'm sure I'll give it a shot.
I wonder if Leigh would say this if he were on the operating table with one of my heavy-duty pot smoking Libertarian friends performing their anesthesiologists jobs?
I saw this movie over the weekend and loved it, but my liberal-minded friends scolded it for being "morally irresponsible." Puh-lease. This article hits the nail on the head.
I was horrified when I saw the Hit-Girl trailer. I thought it was depraved. Cage was slumming. Again. The US is going to hell in a handbasket and this was the proof.
But…. I went to see it anyway. Like a moth to a light bulb, I just couldn't resist. I had to see if it was really that bad.
And I loved it. My wife loved it. I've seen it three times now. I'm still queasy about using an 11 year old actress for this, but I simply can't deny that I loved every minute of Kick-Ass. Leigh's characterization of this movie as having a rock solid moral center wrapped in a questionable wrapping is accurate. Both the center and the wrapping appealed to me.
And yes, my favorite parts of the movie are hands down the Hit-Girl / Big Daddy scenes.
LOL … Nice and simple, American. Sounds like a winner. ;0)
I'm Christian and I want to see it. Bad.
I'm a vegetarian and I want to eat steak. Bad.
*grins*
We knuckledraggers like to keep things simple.
LOL Good one!
Or as another libertarian I know put it, he has no moral authority to use the force of government to make me live according to his will.
Libertarianism is just a bunch of flaccid wankers who want their vices moralized without having to be personally responsible.
Here Libertarians are talking about how great is this candyland movie with 14 year girl used as toileted as those girls in the 'films of naked teenagers for pleasuring f*accid fat-bellied pot-smoking Libertarian losers" yet the use of the word 'p*rn' is flagged.
Libertarians are Wankers wanking their own chains of moral righteousness on the level of an obtuse drug-induced pedophilia movie director made famous for screwing the children.
Yeah, that happened to me during one of the Lord Of The Rings movies. There were parts of the movie that scared ME, and I'm a 40 year old 250 pound dude! These kids were MAYBE six at the most. I HATE it when (so-called) parents do that.
Just sayin' that it was a lot easier for me to be a Libertarian (to the point of acutally voting Harry Browne for President the first time he ran) before I was entrusted with the moral development of another human being.
Perhaps, given a certain understanding, "Children of Men" presents a far more "Libertarian" future.
So true. But I think he DID mean to say "Van Dame". Get it? "Dame"? As in "chick". LOL It's funny. Laugh with me! LOL!
I went to see this movie not because it has limited reviews but in spite of that. I thought it was great not because of my politics but in spite of them. I don't find myself liking the movies that the critics push. I go because I hope I'm entertained. If the movie shove a view that I hate, I leave. I found the best part of this movie was that I didn't know the whole story. I watched because it was fun. Yes it was Kick a$$. I hope it does well. Even Cage was funny speaking Adam West.
The more I learn about libertarianism the more I stay away from it.
Oddly enough, that's what I keep thinking every time I hear this critisism… "Haven't you ever eaten in a foodcourt at the mall next to a table of these kids?"
>>>And that friends, is Libertarianism in a nutshell.
I'm sold!
Agreed. Its my Christian beliefs that led me to libertarianism. Jesus teaches us to spread the word, but not one single reference in the Gospels does it say Jesus command us to use force to convert people.
Mat 10:14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town."
Convince people you are right, don't force them to accept you're right.
My guess would be any heavy-duty pot smoking person of any political persuasion would make it through the rigorous studying necessary to become an anesthesiologist.
If some one wants to smoke pot, using their own money, on their own time, what business is it of yours?
The whole point of libertarianism is that people are responsible for their own actions.
Excellent point.
I agree. Should we then open up all our laws to not have age limits. Why in real life can't an 11-year old own a gun, drive a hot rod, etc… Because we have with our laws acknowledged fact that children do not understand the ramifications of all of their actions. So you can't make a contract with a child, its not valid. Why? Because the child doesn't understand everything. In fact there are scientific studies that show there are important chemicals that a person needs to make decisions and those are not developed until later in life.
In the comic book you can see that political correctness did invade the movie. Big Daddy , in the comic book and shown in the movie, quizzes Hit-girl an various topics. The last question he asks is "what is a liberal" Or "what is a democrat" I forget exactly how he states it. Hit-girl answers, " A liberal/democrat is someone who will let babies be killed and then hold a candle light vigil for a serial killer." This particular question was completely cut out of the movie while several gratuitous sex scenes were put in. No one has yet found this act of political correctness.
The fallacy of your thought is if you fallow the thinking all the way through, no one is ultimately responsible for anything.
No doubt there are plenty of parents who don't deserve that title. But the alternative is the government making all the rules for every one.
And even if you do approve of that scenario, what happens when government is run by people who you completely disagree with? Kind of like now? If We The People agree government should have ultimate power when we agree with them, then we are stuck with that when we don't agree with them.
The only solution is government not possessing ultimate power, which means it must reside with We The People.
It is if you ask the people running the place, holding all the power.
I read last week that Brits under the age of 18 can no longer by silver ware, because even though the butter knife is dull, its still a knife.
There's a lot more people who are libertarian than realize it. As I see it, it means, I agree to leave you alone and live your life the way you see fit, and in return you agree to leave me alone and live my life as I see fit.
What I think turns most people off about that, is the human natural fear of the unknown. Humans want to know some one is there to take care of them. The problem with that is there is nothing in libertarianism that says I can't freely choose to help my fellow man, and I do that. I just don't want to be told who to help and how much I have to pay.
Let me decide, and I guarantee 99.9% of the time I will make a better decision than government can.
Actually I find libertarianism a perfect moral ideology for raising my daughter.
I teach her that her actions have consequences, and she has no right to the property of others, if she wants something, she herself must earn it. And she's doing quite well with it. Two weeks ago she earned $140 cleaning roofing debris out of our attic, now she has the spending money she wants when her aunt takes her to NYC in a couple of weeks.
Or Polish Catholics.
If my vices offend some it's because they're sticking your nose into my business. Leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. Life really is that simple sometimes.
Yeah? Well we get wine during Communion!
Top that!
Yes, government is a necessary evil. We must band together to have a society. But we don't have to have an all powerful government that controls every aspect of our lives with an iron fist.
That's the entire concept behind out constitution. It specifically states what government can do, and then specifically states what's not listed government can not do.
If you were going to design a government that would have ultimate control and power, would you ever even think about something as complicated as our 3 branches and separation of powers? Hell no, its damn near impossible to get anything done in Washington.
That's not an accident, that's an on purpose. Its too keep politicians so busy with rules, regulations, red tape, and negotiations so they are too busy to bother We The People.
If I had my druthers, I'd have the tee-totaling/non-stoner anesthesiologist at the table. Having seen the effects of rampant drug use among my college roommates, I don't think that a job that requires that degree of responsibility is the right fit. That being said, what you do to yourself on your time is your business. When I can feel them cutting me open because you were too high or hungover to pay attention, your business becomes my business.
we get it after services with bagels and schmear. The really sweet stuff.
Thanks for the review. I'll pass on the film, and you've helped me make that decision.
I've always been intrigued by how many atheists are attracted to Libertarianism. They want the limited government and protection of individual rights, but without any morality at all.
Libertarians' push for legalize marijuana is a reflection of this near-anarchy society. They would transform us into "Amsterdam America", legalizing every vice known to humanity! They would welcome a crack house, porn shop, and house of ill repute on every street corner.
No thanks! That's why I am a member of the Independent American Party and have voted for Constitution Party candidates in recent election cycles. Libertarian America is one of near-anarchy with degradation and depredation at every turn. And that is NO PLACE to raise a family!
Titles mean nothing. See this book by a renowned environmentalist reporter in Dade County, FL.
I think they have support groups for that.
….Oh, you were talking about the movie
And you simply can not accept the idea that what you think is right every one else must think is right, and if they don't you want to use the force of government to make them live the way you do.
It's easy to say 'I have no responsibilities, because government will take care of it.' It takes guts to say 'I'm am responsible for my own actions and my own destiny.'
Or a Lutheran like me!
Although typically I party on Friday nights…
Count me in.
Leigh Scott,
I LOVED your article. You made me think about what you were saying from different perspectives.
Personally I am conflicted about the movie. It sounds very entertaining, and yet offensive to my values in many ways, and yet there are ways it is supportive of my values, much as you describe in your review.
I have stated I will no longer segregate my values from my entertainment, but this gives me a bit of a conundrum…
I need to think about it some more.
As long as this "superhero" movie isn't stupid as 'The Spirit', I'm going to watch it.
You must be logged in to post a comment.