The method of analysis used in in order to support this claim was narrative criticism. Narrative criticism uses the descriptions of the characters, setting, narrator, and events in order to examine an artifact, and then analyzes them using coherence and fidelity. Coherence is the degree to which the story makes sense within itself and as compared to similar stories. Fidelity is how much the story resonates with real life experiences.
With these factors in mind, the setting of the movie is modern day United States of America. Much of the story takes place at the White House with cut scenes to the panic room at the Pentagon. Tensions between North and South Korea are growing and the United States has wedged itself between their civil war. This compares very well to our real life modern-day United States. Tensions between the Koreas and the United States still exist, and now other terrorists groups from the Middle East are threatening the United States.
The most important factor I argue is the characters in the movie. The movie portrays the protagonist Mike Banning (played by Gerard Butler) as an American patriot who would do anything for his president and his country. He is the failed hero, looking for redemption after a fatal accident involving the president's wife. Banning, with little help from the Pentagon, takes down an entire terrorist group on his own and saves the United States from the worst missile crisis in history. Banning cuts through government red tape and refuses to take orders from officials who want to give in to terrorists' demands.
Kang is the villain of the story. He is the ideal terrorist. He and his terrorist group are all of Korean dissent with black hair and tilted eyes. Unlike Banning, Kang does not care how many lives he has to sacrifice in order to destroy the United States. Banning goes to each of his fallen comrades and calls them by name. He knows each one and their families. Kang willingly sends two of his men as suicide bombers to take out the fence in front of the White House. These are two very different men representing to sides of a real life conflict: anti-terrorist United States and a terrorist group from Korea.
Upon further study, the narrator and events add to the coherence and fidelity of the movie. The narrator is the camera except for time cards strategically placed in the movie to let the audience know the real time and places in which the story is taking place. Events in the movie also lead to some chilling realism. For example, Kang says the military could reach the White House in fifteen minutes and his group took it down in thirteen. This happened with 9/11. Planes took down the twin towers and help could not get there fast enough. The situation in the movie is fiction, but the circumstances could be very real.
The movie begs a question: is one life more important than a whole way of life? By the characters in the movie saying the United States does not negotiate with terrorists, they are saying that they would rather the captured President Asher to die instead of giving in to terrorist demands. In the end, Banning found a way to rescue the president, but that doesn't always happen in real life. The movie is portraying that the good guys win in the end, but is it really winning if American lives are lost? Are we any better than terrorists if we sacrifice American lives for the greater good of our country? To be part of the discussion, you can watch Olympus Has Fallen on Netflix or DVD/BluRay now.
I like the challenging questions about American morality, send more time there. Good job.
ReplyDelete