Violence in the Media — Natural Born Killers (Film Review)
Exploring the Enigmatic World of “Natural Born Killers”
Prepare yourselves for a deep dive into the intriguing universe of “Natural Born Killers,” a film that has not only shaken the very foundations of our beliefs but also challenged the boundaries of art itself. This uncut gem from the 90s, directed by the visionary Oliver Stone, takes us on a thrilling journey through the twisted minds of two individuals whose thirst for violence knows no bounds.
“Natural Born Killers” is not a film for the faint of heart; it is an audacious creation that splinters the mind and leaves no room for indifference. In this movie, the line between reality and illusion blurs, and morality becomes a distant memory. The story revolves around two characters, exploring the depths of their psyche and pushing the limits of human nature.
Oliver Stone’s direction immerses the audience in a world where violence and chaos reign supreme. The film challenges our perceptions and forces us to question the very essence of humanity. With its bold storytelling and visually stunning sequences, the film also invites viewers to grapple with uncomfortable truths about society and the human condition.
As we embark on this cinematic journey, be prepared to confront the darkest corners of the human soul. This article will dissect the film’s themes, analyze its impact on popular culture, and delve into the controversies it sparked upon its release. So, without further ado, let’s unravel the enigma that is “Natural Born Killers” and explore the profound questions it raises about the nature of violence, reality, and the human psyche.
Natural Born Killers tells the story of Mickey and Mallory Knox, two serial killers with violent pasts who embark on a killing spree across the Southwest, all the while being glorified by the mass media.
One of the main themes the film explores is the obsession with true crime in American culture.
Oliver Stone has claimed that this movie is a satire depicting how America romanticizes crime in the media and how the media turns killers like Mickey and Mallory into celebrities, placing them in a spotlight that would typically be reserved for actors or entertainers. The film delves deep into the dark underbelly of society, highlighting the disturbing fascination people have with violence and criminality. Through Mickey and Mallory’s twisted journey, the movie raises questions about the blurred lines between reality and entertainment, forcing viewers to confront the unsettling allure of sensationalized crime stories in the modern age.
Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but Oliver Stone might just be a genius. When you take a step back and observe the world we’re living in today, it becomes evident that not much has changed since the film’s release. Violence in the media remains a significant aspect of American culture.
If you glance at the top-rated movies on IMDb, almost all of them revolve around crime — be it prison, the mob, or murder.
The popularity of true crime podcasts, TV shows, and movies cannot be underestimated either. According to Insideradio.com, 17% of American podcast listeners tune in to true crime content. However, the statistics for other media sources are even more intriguing. Television captures the attention of 52% of viewers, and movies attract 39% of the audience. These numbers illustrate the enduring fascination people have with real-life crime stories, showcasing how society’s appetite for such narratives continues to thrive.”
Another example is ‘The Jeffrey Dahmer Show,’ which premiered on Netflix in 2022. Within days, it soared into Netflix’s top ten shows, ultimately surpassing a billion hours of viewing within just 90 days after its release.
The point I’m trying to emphasize here is that ‘Natural Born Killers,’ though highly unorthodox and incredibly challenging to comprehend, carries a kernel of truth within its narrative.
In a specific scene featuring Wayne Gale conducting interviews with fans, the film exaggerates the attention these killers receive in the media. People in the movie are shown applauding and cheering for Mickey and Mallory, akin to the adoration reserved for celebrities like Taylor Swift. This irony sharply highlights society’s tendency to glamorize even the most heinous acts, blurring the lines between infamy and fame.
In fact, the film is filled with ironic scenes. One such scene depicts Mallory’s family life, shot in the style of a sitcom. Rodney Dangerfield plays Mallory’s father, a curious casting choice. The family dinner scene initially portrays a facade of normalcy, but as Dangerfield’s character begins to verbally abuse his daughter, the atmosphere becomes uncomfortably awkward.
As Mallory rushes upstairs, overwhelmed with humiliation, the audience in the background strangely erupts into laughter and cheers. It’s perplexing to imagine viewers finding amusement in a heavyset father mistreating his daughter in a realistic setting. In a typical movie, the audience would likely despise such a character, perhaps even hoping for his demise. However, this film attempts satire. Yet, the scene’s intent eludes me. Watching Dangerfield portray an abusive father and husband is deeply unsettling. Moreover, the scene’s filming and editing choices undermine its seriousness, making it challenging for the audience to empathize with Mallory. A more somber tone could have elicited greater sympathy from the viewers.
One of my initial concerns about the movie revolves around its protagonists, Mickey and Mallory. Don’t get me wrong, Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis portray the Bonnie and Clyde-inspired duo brilliantly. However, I find it challenging to root for these characters.
The reason many anti-heroes in other movies and shows resonate with audiences is because they are well-developed. These characters possess clear desires, needs, and core beliefs, allowing viewers to understand their perspectives. Take Dexter Morgan, for instance. If he were
just a regular serial killer, it would be difficult to sympathize with someone who kills indiscriminately. But Dexter is different. He targets specific individuals, usually other killers or criminals, giving the audience a reason to support him.
Most successful anti-hero protagonists work because their wants, needs, and beliefs are clearly defined. Characters like Dexter, Walter White, and Joker resonate because they possess qualities people can relate to.
However, Mickey and Mallory Knox lack depth. They lack strong beliefs or goals, making it hard for the audience to connect with them. Sure, they have minor objectives like escaping prison or evading the cops, but these goals are too trivial to evoke genuine empathy from the viewers.
I believe the audience could empathize more with Mickey and Mallory if the movie provided stronger reasons to support them. Unfortunately, such moments are scarce. The only time Mallory exhibits a redeemable quality is right after Mickey shoots the Native American man who offered them shelter.
This scene strikes me as quite peculiar. Upon encountering Mickey and Mallory, the Native American man immediately senses a malevolent force and attempts a form of exorcism to banish the demon. I find myself intrigued and curious. For anyone knowledgeable about Native American rituals, is this portrayal accurate? Is there any authenticity in what is depicted here, or is it merely a stereotype devoid of truth? I welcome any insights on this matter.
Mickey and Mallory find themselves relentlessly pursued by Detective Jack Scagnetti, an individual deeply entangled in the world of serial killers and psychopaths, having even authored a book on the subject. Scagnetti, however, is not just a relentless pursuer; he embodies a pervasive theme in the film — police corruption.
An illustrative scene unfolds outside a drug store, where Mickey engages in a shootout with the police. The officers, instead of using their authority responsibly, resort to excessive force. They deploy tasers on Mickey, and when that fails, they mercilessly beat him with their clubs, a stark display of their abuse of power.
Additionally, there’s a chilling moment when Scagnetti exhibits his own psychopathic tendencies. He strangles a young woman in a hotel room, showcasing his utter lack of empathy and moral restraint. This disturbing act underscores the depth of his malevolence, a point I will delve into shortly.
Moving on, the murderous couple is incarcerated and placed under the authority of Dwight McClusky, portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones. During a prison tour led by Scagnetti, we delve into yet another theme explored by the film: our criminal justice system.
As we navigate through the prison, it becomes glaringly evident that Warden McClusky prioritizes public safety over the proper treatment and management of inmates. The tour highlights the stark contrast between the warden’s concern for the outside world and the prisoners’ well-being within the facility.
It’s worth noting that Oliver Stone deliberately incorporated this exploration of the prison system into the movie, shedding light on the complexities of the criminal justice system.
Moving forward, we discover that Mickey is set to participate in a live interview with Wayne Gale on Super Bowl Sunday.
This segment of the film holds my favorite and least favorite scenes.
The interview between Mickey and Wayne Gale stands out as my personal favorite. Clearly drawing inspiration from the interviews of Charles Manson, Mickey candidly shares his perspective on the unfolding events. He delves into his feelings about the incidents and articulates his disturbing beliefs on murder, creating a captivating and intense moment in the film.
This scene is my favorite in the film because, in a twisted way, Mickey is oddly accurate in his statements. His perspective forces us to confront uncomfortable truths. Consider when we stomp on an insect or swat at a fly — in essence, it’s a form of killing, a parallel to murder. Moreover, if we apply basic knowledge, humans inherently possess predatory instincts. Our genetic connection with chimpanzees, some of the planet’s most deadly creatures, highlights our violent tendencies. Historical events like the Roman Empire and WWII underline humanity’s long-standing engagement with violence. There exists a violent component in human nature,
often overlooked or downplayed. I’m not attempting to glorify violence, but Mickey’s words do hold a kernel of truth.
However, after this thought-provoking scene, my enthusiasm takes a downturn during the prison riot, which, to me, is the least enjoyable part of the entire movie.
This sequence stands out as my least favorite part of the movie. It’s lengthy and chaotic, leaving me feeling thoroughly disengaged. The scene where Mickey and Mallory escape with Wayne Gale’s assistance, only to then kill him, disappoints me. I find the ending lacking, as if the film has become too sprawling to digest. The rapid succession of events in the last thirty minutes likely leaves the audience bewildered. Questions linger: Why did Mickey and Mallory kill him? Why did they suddenly lose their compulsion to kill?
The introduction of the theme “Love beats the Demon” feels forced and anti-climactic. It arrives so late in the film that it fails to resonate effectively. The concept doesn’t allow the audience enough time to grasp its significance.
So, what do I think overall?
My main problem with Natural Born Killers lies in its intricate yet chaotic plot and messaging. The film attempts to tackle three significant political issues: the flaws in our criminal justice and prison systems, police brutality, and the portrayal of violence in the media. While all these topics are intriguing individually, their amalgamation in this screenplay feels haphazard.
Ideally, the movie should have honed in on the portrayal of violence in the media, which sets it apart and could have been its unique focus. Unfortunately, this aspect isn’t explored thoroughly. Instead, the narrative becomes cluttered as these themes are jumbled together without clear direction. They lack a vivid, distinct message, leaving the audience with a disjointed and confusing cinematic experience.
One significant issue I have with this film is its editing style. The constant use of bizarre visual filters is overwhelming; it feels like my eyes are being subjected to a visual assault. The film switches abruptly from color to black and white, then to vibrant green, and various other weird filters, reminiscent of an MTV-style editing approach. This editing choice makes the movie incredibly challenging to watch; it’s almost like being in a psychedelic state, and I find it very off-putting.
I’m puzzled by Oliver Stone’s decision regarding the editing. In an interview with Charlie Rose, he mentioned wanting to have fun with the film, but the result feels like a nonsensical two-hour-long MTV music video edited in a state of complete absurdity. I strongly dislike this editing style and find it detrimental to the overall viewing experience.
While I acknowledge the film’s messy narrative and loss of focus, it does manage to convey some intriguing points to the audience. The aspects that do shine through are particularly noteworthy for me.
The standout moments, in my view, include the scene featuring Wayne Gale’s interview with Mickey and the interviews with the fans of Mickey and Mallory. These two scenes, in my opinion, effectively encapsulate the themes the film aimed to convey.
The cast delivered exceptional performances, with actors like Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, Tom Sizemore, Robert Downey Jr., and Tommy Lee Jones all shining in their respective roles.
The standout performances undoubtedly came from Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis. Despite their characters’ flaws and complexities, their on-screen chemistry was remarkable. Juliette exuded enthusiasm, evident in her energetic portrayal, especially during the diner scene where she confronts the guys at the beginning of the film.
Woody Harrelson’s performance, on the other hand, was both mesmerizing and unsettling. His portrayal was a masterclass in portraying psychosis, creating a character whose aura exuded an undeniable sense of malevolence.
The music in the film is remarkable. “Waiting for the Miracle” by Leonard Cohen and Patti Smith’s “Rock N Roll N Word” are standout tracks in the soundtrack. I appreciate the music selection; it successfully captures the essence of Western action-packed violence, contributing significantly to the film’s action-oriented atmosphere.
Overall, the term I would use to describe Natural Born Killers is “complex.” The film attempts to address numerous topics and issues, but most of them become muddled in this chaotic blend. Critics and viewers have criticized the film, especially its portrayal of violence.
As a satire, I believe the film falls short, especially when compared to works like American Psycho. It lacks the sharpness of satire and fails to deliver its intended message. Part of this failure can be attributed to the editing, making the movie difficult to endure and impacting its overall impact.
Additionally, there’s controversy surrounding the screenplay, originally penned by Quentin Tarantino. The differences between the original script and the final version are substantial, a topic worth exploring separately.
In my assessment, this film falls into the realm of ‘okay.’ After multiple viewings, the core themes and plot points become more discernible and appreciable. However, the chaotic editing style and the core themes getting overshadowed in the film’s frenzy create significant challenges in both watching and comprehending it.
For these reasons, I would rate this film 6.5 out of 10 stars. While the themes are present, they require multiple viewings for most viewers to truly grasp them. Moreover, the intrusive editing style poses a real obstacle, making enduring the movie a rather demanding experience.
