Kate Is The Real Villain Of Sicario

Let's talk about why Kate is actually the real villain of Sicario, and also compare her to her opposite: Alejandro.
Sicario came out in 2015, was directed by Denis Villeneuve and written by Taylor Sheridan. Sheridan will be/has written the sequel Sicario: Day of the Soldado, whereas Villeneuve unfortunately won't be directing. Benicio del Toro will also be reprising Alejandro, but Emily Blunt's character Kate won't be appearing.

[@msh104utube]

i think the whole point of this movie is to tell us if you smell something bad, it's probably dead people stuffed into the walls of your house.

[@nickames3808]

LOL

[@TrinidadJamesWoods]

Ah, yes...a tale as old as time itself.

[@darylnd]

Could cause problems for the seller if he didn't include that on the disclosure form.

[@sinakimyu]

Brb gotta clean the bodies out of my walls

[@msh104utube]

@@darylnd "Rent generating property (potentially)! Tenants interested in staying!"

[@expwner1]

“you’re in a land of wolves now, and you’re not a wolf” is the perfect way to describe kate in this movie

[@eduardojesusjorgepascual1781]

They can't even with the Taliban will they be able to with Hispanics? hispanic power kicks gringo*😅😅😅

[@jacksinsel8798]

Facts! He described her perfectly in the end.

[@completelytransparent6320]

@@eduardojesusjorgepascual1781 stupid? yall hSPICanics are right underneath the U.S.?? take some lsd gringo

[@bradleywoods3742]

@@eduardojesusjorgepascual1781 Is that why gringos have the best militaries in the world? Keep dreaming boy

[@christhofer3492]

​@@bradleywoods3742and still managed to lose a war to some farmers 😭😭

[@9mwood]

Right after the shooting at the border Kate says “Are you trying to start a war!” I remember thinking how naive she was for not realizing that the war is already raging all around her.

[@ima8533]

Women

[@pluginleah]

And the war continues. The end of the movie is a kids soccer game interrupted by gunfire.

[@Zephur0s]

@@ima8533 really 😐

[@theGovernmentHatesYou]

@@ima8533 yep. Kitchen job is what they need.

[@ima8533]

@@theGovernmentHatesYou sexist pig

[@Adrianrulz]

They played her like a radio. Her signature at the end was why she was there.

[@mr.channel6467]

She was just another women Hollywood will put in a show to piss people off. That’s it. Be dum all you want 🤣

[@anthonychrisbradley]

Kate isn’t the villain, she’s the audience.

[@cymanca]

ACB Films Brilliantly stated!!!

[@Hoopla10]

I find the suggestion she's the villain kind of warped tbh. She's the audience, but also the audience's ideals. She's not just FBI, she's HRT, they're tough as fuck. They're the best of the best at what they do. But they work within the legal parameters of what we the public expect of these elite officers. When people complain Kate isn't tough enough, she should harden up they don't get what the film is telling us. This isn't Hollywood. She isn't a Hollywood action hero. Nor should she be. So to suggest she's the villain BECAUSE she doesn't adhere to Hollywood action hero tropes is kind of disturbing imo.

[@libextremist]

If she is,then she's a terrible one. Because I don't feel connected or relatable to her at all.

[@Hoopla10]

@Alexander She leads the raid. You think HRT lets random FBI agents to lead the raid? lol

[@Hoopla10]

@@libextremist This is kind of the point of the disconnect when you compare this to other more Hollywood type films. In these kind of films Kate's role is to introduce us (the audience) to the world that's being revealed. Using the hero's journey as an example in films like SW or LotR the hero experiences something, grows and returns changed and transformed. In those films what they've transformed into is that more hero trope (they win and return victors). That's a satisfying hero arc and it's why it's used repeatedly. But that's not what Sicario is about and is why people don't feel satisfied with her character. The line: "You are not a wolf, and this is a land of wolves now." people think is cool. It's not meant to be cool. And maybe that's one of Sicario's downfalls, like American History X, its framing is sometimes at odds with its message.

[@radforduniversity6424]

I served with a couple of guys that work both in Border Patrol, and in US intelligence, and they said sicario is the most accurate depiction of human smuggling we have today in a Hollywood depiction

[@bartsullivan4866]

I can believe it and after awhile even the most hardened by the book agents like Kate's will eventually change there minds to that of Alajandro's given enough time.

[@EarlofCrawford]

Sure thing, Walter

[@radforduniversity6424]

@@EarlofCrawford It's a league game, dude

[@xmanc5687]

Yep it’s very out of control at the border

[@sethshaw5680]

Yea that's absolutely not true

[@JoeyVSupreme]

I think the biggest part of kate is that she isn’t naive, at least towards the middle of the movie, but she chooses to be ignorant. She knows exactly what the cartel will do, and what they do to normal people. The house raid, Alejandro’s family, the dirty cop, her superiors telling her that there are no rules. She’s trying to rationalize everything under some misplaced sense of justice and moral superiority. That she’ll never be them, instead of understanding that people like Matt and Alejandro, who’re fighting fire with fire, are the solution. And apparently an effective one. She just refuses to accept that, because it doesn’t conform into her perspective, and she refuses to acknowledge anyone else’s. At the end, Alejandro tells her to “move somewhere where the rule of law still exists”, because if she doesn’t, it’ll kill her.

[@cjchonkoable]

She's what a lot of women and liberals are: self-righteous!

[@garad123456]

That doesn't make her a villain though. And I don't think it's fair to say that "she chooses to be ignorant". She's not complaining about some minor formalities, she's seeing very morally ambiguous things. She's right to question even her authorities. The whole thing is just so deeply messed up, that she has to finally figure out that she can't change it. And guys like Alejandro definitely aren't morally her superior. They're also ignorant, just about different things. Alejandro is going around killing completely unrelated people like the police officer in order to fulfill his revenge fantasy. To say that Kate is the villain is silly. Makes a good clickbait title but she's not the villain.

[@neymarmessironaldo5881]

She's not the villain. She's a representation of us, the spectators. We uncover this dark twisted world through her eyes. She is the law abiding, FBI hero that doesnt understand the rules of the game and her naivety is constantly faced with the harsh reality.

[@memesouls8653]

Well for many of the major fans of the film, who are ex-military or law enforcement, her portrayal is often mocked as annoying and warped to rally people behind the notion that war is bad. Yes, I agree war isn’t a fun or enjoyable concept, but it’s sadly a necessity in our world. People who work in these fields need to understand that there are no rules in war. There is no black and white. We aren’t expected to fight against the enemy with a book. Civilians don’t understand that without these people, we wouldn’t have the luxuries we have grown accustomed to. We wouldn’t be here sitting on our phones watching KZbin all day or taking our dogs on walks through the park. These people protect our nation security and often times have to do shady things to do so. I’m not going to be so quick to judge a field that I don’t fully understand. My father always told me the stories about his time in the special forces but he never brushed upon the truth of what he had to do at certain moments. I understood that it was probably for the betterment of my sanity. I respect those who lose their morality in order to do the tough things others won’t do.

[@neymarmessironaldo5881]

@@memesouls8653 I get your point. I completely agree that war is a necessary means to end evil shit such as cartels. She represents the civilian part of the world but i dont think she is a villain, shes just naive. I will always respect american soldiers and I admire your country's patriotism, my father served with americans many times.

[@memesouls8653]

@@neymarmessironaldo5881 My father actually served with the Singapore special forces and worked along side Americans. Also yeah I agree her character isn’t the villain per say, but she’s definitely an obstacle for the protagonists and is often a liability.

[@deadnorth8648]

Lol... since the joke of Vietnam, never understood why America stepped off soil for anything, not sure you ever helped, or didn't start wars for endless stupid reason... Not against military, but you're all fighting the rich overlords wars, while thinking you saved the world... Nothing about the middle east had a point, and this movie shows you that its clearly being started for money and control. This movie doesn't put military in a good light, its flat out showing you how bad it is... But yes let's play c.o.d and jer k ourselves off

[@kbrich-nn8od]

But she obviously found out in the end though'/!!!

[@LeozinhowCM]

If you think there is a hero and a villian in a movie like Sicario, you didnt get the ideia.

[@phyzics4all343]

Exactly, Sicario is the real deal. No Villain, no hero ... only interests and bullets. That is how War works, no good guys or bad guys. Only interests... The rest is Hollywood...

[@thatbasedfeliscatus577]

@@marcuspettibone9640 I heard that the walls of hell are lined of good intentions.

[@mikejunior211]

@@phyzics4all343 So you mean to say that the cartel bosses are NOT bad people? wow, just wow.

[@rabbitazteca23]

@@mikejunior211 according to the cartel, the Americans were the reason why they act that way. So in that way they are victims too. He even said "where did you think we learned from?" I agree in what the others said, there is no such thing as bad or good. What you see as bad will always have another person see it as good. No way for you to objectively/factually prove your opinions are the factual truths.

[@mikejunior211]

@@rabbitazteca23 With all due respect, yours got to be the most idiotic take I have ever read in the internet. I am very sorry, because I never try to be mean on purpose, and I always try not to insult anyone, even those who deserve being insulted but, oh boy, I cannot believe that people can miss the mark so badly in something as simple as an entertainment form of art such as a film. The part where the cartel boss told Alejandro "where do you think we learned it from" He was obviously referring to the Colombian cartels. He was trying to psychologically negotiate with Alejandro. He believed he was working for the Medellin cartel The Juarez cartel boss was telling Alejandro that he was not better than him, because he was now an assassin. And all the torture techniques the cartels do they learned it from the Colombian cartels during the 80's and 90's. This has a lot of sense if we remember that the Colombians had the monopoly of drug trafficking back in the 20th century while Mexico was just a bridge, later the Mexicans betrayed the Colombians and created the Juarez, Sonora and Tijuana cartels...Making a lot of enemies in the process...It was left unclear if Alejandro was still working for the Colombians or that was only assumed by Diaz. In any case The CIA was the one using Alejandro to kill Diaz, although he had personal motives...But Diaz wasn't sure of this and assumed he was sent by the Colombian cartels bosses for whom Diaz himself worked decades ago, hence the "who do we learned it from" comment. However and In summary, even entertaining the idea that the drug cartels are not the bad guys is totally moronic...of course everyone has a dark side and a good side...But just because even monsters like Ted Bundy or Charles Manson might have had a good side that doesn't make then less of a monster. The drug cartel boss said "It was not personal" meaning it was just business to kill and torture innocent people... He himself was after all still capable of show love...(towards his wife and children), while other people's wives and children was worth to kill and torture because it was just business... This doesn't make him less of a monster. Granted, we all have a dark side, but the good overshadows the bad for the vast majority of us... For others is the opposite...That makes the difference of who is good and who is bad... And thinking that the drug cartels and the DEA officers are all in-distinctively good and bad is beyond stupid. Again I'm very sorry if I come out as belligerent, but I'm flabbergasted when people can have such wrong takes on things that (for the most part) are crystal clear.

[@desnicar]

Kate is how we want to see the world, how we hope it is. Matt and Alejandro is how the world actually is. It ain't black and white, it's just gray. "Medellin refers to a time when one group controlled every aspect of the drug trade. Providing a measure of order. That we can control. And until someone figures out how to convince 20 percent of the US population to stop smoking and snorting this shit, order is the best we can hope for... Alejandro is working to return that order."

[@cesarcampos8950]

DEA and mexican Federal Police cooperated with the Cartel de Sinaloa (El Chapo, El Mayo) to fight against Los Zetas and the Beltrán-Leyva brothers, in the well known Guerra contra el Narco imposed by expresident Felipe Calderón, that's how Juárez and all of Mexico started getting worse and worse over the last 14 years I think it nods this events

[@itstrbo]

Agreed she's a simple tool for complex problems...

[@askani79705]

Operation Fast and Furious was the U.S government trying to ensure a winner while framing U.S. gun owners.

[@juainott5281]

@@cesarcampos8950 agreed, the CIA is behind this, mexicans have no idea calderon was just a puppet and not by choice, hes smart enough to do what US Gov says or else... they make you a dictator or an enemy of the world and get you killed.

[@TomAnderson_81]

C W I’m not too informed. Who are the “Leftists” and why do you feel they have allowed something as opposed to them attempting to fix the situation?

[@JonWilde2105]

1:28 Matt is aiming at managing the chaos to an acceptable level, whatever the cost. Alejandro is aiming at avenging his family, whatever the cost. Kate is aiming at maintaining the rule of law, whatever the cost. Matt and Alejandro are using each other to achieve their own ends. Matt is using Kate. Alejandro is if anything sympathetic to Kate because he is cynical about the relationship between Matt and himself - he regards her as naïve and unready. About the cartels, because she has not had a daughter dissolved in a vat of acid and about Matt too, because she thinks he is also on her side. He tells her at the end that she is living in a land of wolves, and she is not a wolf. Kate is not the villain. She is the third side of the triangle struggling against each other for the best possible justice. She prioritises protecting the innocent. Alejandro prioritises punishing the guilty. Matt's priority is that whatever way it ends up, it happens in a quiet and orderly fashion.

[@witnesstochange1801]

This is the best analysis of the movie that needs more upvotes!!

[@thebeebyboys1751]

look at you dig out the platonic triad.

[@glacialimpala]

True but some moments simply don't make sense at all, because she acts out of character, if her character is supposed to be able to think ahead and not act impulsively. How she couldn't see the angle with long game and the bank and all. It's as if she went straight from high school to this assignment. Not for a second can we imagine her as being uniquely chosen to be the right person for this job, or to have had any non-office experiences. Don't even get me started on how dumb it was to make her unaware that the whole thing was greenlit by everyone above her. And her and the black dude's ego! 'They sidelined us so let's ruin this whole multi year operation that cost dozens of human lives in order to prevent murder of thousands more in years to come'. Ugh, I hope the third movie will be good.

[@Heimdall2011]

True. Kate also realizes that the methods of Matt and Alejandro create a huge risk of erasing the difference between criminals and state officers.

[@mechanicaldavid4827]

So... who put the hit on her? No mention of that, a fairly big part of this film.

[@maverickdoe6984]

Well...I think from Kate's perspective, fighting evil with evil, makes you evil. She doesn't want to be evil.

[@heathmcrigsby]

So her (and people like her) milquetoast hamstringing will go nowhere leaving both sides locked and more innocents suffering.

[@maverickdoe6984]

@@heathmcrigsby Agreed. Committing acts of evil upon evil people is justice. It's the only thing evil people understand.

[@DhirC35]

Fighting evil with good never works. Unfortunately

[@cartergirl3of3]

Yeah but she saod herself nothing else would work so she is just perpetuating the problem. Having people waste time and resources getting nowhere.

[@cnak8723]

Eye for an eye

[@mortalmars3881]

She's not a villain. She's just not a wolf. And she was in the land of wolves.

[@smokeralots7284]

BULLSHIT SHES THE VILLAIN BECAUSE SHES A SNITCH!

[@marcadriano4568]

A sheep in a land of wolves

[@poisonapleproduction]

indeed

[@thatitalianguy7791]

She was not in the land of wolves, she was in the land of hyenas and she was not capable to understand it. Alejandro has said it a the beginning of the movie "Your American Eyes Will Not Understand" She is the antagonist,yes,but not the villain. She was scared to be a criminal so she got in panic.

[@opsaboteur1524]

Snitches get stitches

[@rasaecnai]

I think the whole point of this movie is moral ambiguity. There is no real 'hero' or 'villain' here because that is exactly what the movie tries to dispel. This analysis missed the entire point of the movie in insisting on the traditional sense of hero vs villain in telling a story.

[@didsheaskaboutme]

completely agree

[@rasaecnai]

Randolph Sturling Really? Whoaw my doctor said that my autism is very mild people will hardly notice it. Yep Mom was worried but now she is proud of my ability to comment on you tube channel to express my opinion. Ive been a really good boy trying to keep my infirm intellect on the down low! You sir must be a very observant internet person to notice, especially since my mom told me that idiots and imbeciles are a plenty in the internet i will blend just right in.

[@shamusbob7969]

The analysis tries to break it down pretentiously, thinking that a movie that's so grey in morality is about black and white morality. To paint anyone as a clear cut good guy or clear cut bad guy in this movie is a huge mistake as a viewer when approaching the movie. There is no one to root for, in the end we'll all just accept it as a part of our daily lives, which is why the soccer game continues playing normally after the gunfire is heard. Morality doesn't live in a place with no morals, so to even start off with "good" vs "bad" as the definitive concepts are a mistake. I think they wanted a more provactive title to get more clicks, because the video itself and the observations are pedestrian and things everyone was supposed to notice.

[@dagothhyde7297]

i knew it was a bad analysis when he said heroes journey

[@neocortex-es3zv]

I think you folks miss the point as well - there is a clear good guy - us. The message is focused more on methods - as driven home multiple times during the movie. There is a way to handle the cartel - and its not through standard law enforcememt ops. The female was appropriately identified as the problem - she was the weak link. She couldn't adapt and became a liability.

[@walkispacheco88]

Her character's purpose is to show that behind her game there is a metagame to which she is oblivious. It is a reality check for her (and us).

[@probableflaws3597]

She’s not the villain, she’s supposed to represent us, the viewer. We have a vague idea of right and wrong that we automatically project beyond ourselves despite having little real knowledge of the subject at hand. Because of ego, ours and hers, we are resistant to change even when our point of view is repeatedly shown to be wrong or misguided. The movie is a letter to the audience that let’s us know that we have no idea what the fuck we are talking about and that THIS is the world as it truly is. Instead of breaking the fourth wall and turning the film into a brutalist version of 24 Hour Party People they give us Blunt’s character to judge ruthlessly instead of having to admit we’re the ones that are misinformed on the subject at hand

[@noir_7217]

Interesting. I like your point of view.

[@thrawncaedusl717]

She is literally a ride-along character…

[@darknesscomesforallofus4632]

minus the first four words... you nailed the meta-analysis.

[@aaronreed4931]

I like your perspective, I would also like to add my opinion.. this movie helps illustrate how subjective right and wrong is, and how if you simplify any complex issue like "the drug war" or "the war on terror" into a battle between good and evil, then maybe you should take a good hard look in the mirror and realize maybe you are the evil one. Or maybe it's all evil and everything is icky and you are being used.. see also american sniper. If you took time out of your day to read the opinion of some random stranger on the internet (me) thank you for your time

[@billyccall5774]

But aren't we the villians?

[@allennguyen4477]

Shane Bertram: Kate is willing to have innocent people die just because she's unwilling to adopt unethical methods _Batman has entered the chat_

[@AnIllusiveFlorentine]

Which is a problematic take when you have war criminals like Edward Gallagher, soldiers who believe that they can operate outside the law in order for a greater good. This video inherently promotes a worldview where soldiers are not to be held accountable for their actions because they, not their civilian oversight actually know what needs to be done on the ground. But in reality what did Brolins team accomplish in the long run, the assassination of one drug lord will lead to more violence and countless death of Innocents in the power vacuum. We are supposed to empathize with Kate's perspective that believes what is going on is wrong, because it is wrong! The whole operation was morally dubious and even moreso legally. People like Graver and her FBI boss are the ones making the situation worse because in a path towards ridding the cartels and their violence, they commit the same injustices so that makes them hypocrites as well.

[@samsonjavati9622]

I absolutely agree with this

[@lucasgrey9794]

There is NO SUCH THING as "innocent people".

[@Nickademas1]

@@lucasgrey9794 then you've just crossed a realm that is untenable. Innocence does exist what kind of fucked up take is that?..

[@artingevondyan1613]

@Music Channel, I Guess it may seem like they have achieved nothing but thats only because the Cartel literally runs that country aka you are at war with the country of Mexico without declaring official war. If it was an official war and our military was sent in to exterminate the Cartel you bet your ass the drug problem would lessen but thats not what the heads of these agencies want at the end of the day. They make money off this trade just as much as the Cartel and I guarantee the Cartel only views these small squads stirring shit up as another hindrance rather than a threat.

[@Evanderj]

very interesting. I think she also represents the ever looming opinion of the American public that wants results without the willingness to do what is required to achieve them, and judgement over those who do. Her lens is tinted by the 'good guy' image in Hollywood media and her perspective is removed from the reality of the situation.

[@akneegrow6152]

I strongly agree.

[@Splyt057]

Wow

[@DemothHymside]

Except the problem is that she's also expressing concern about giving too much unchecked power that has almost no accountability. People will scream and cry about government corruption, but then cheer on these same people playing fast and loose with assassinations and meddling with underworld power structures. Like, they wanted to give the Columbian cartels the power because they were considered easier to control.... so what happens when they suddenly aren't easy to control and another Pablo Escobar situation happens?

[@akneegrow6152]

@@DemothHymside Which is unreasonable considering nobody involved is involved with any underground syndicate of any sort. Alejandro doesn't want to start his own cartel, he just wants to kill the guys that murdered his family. Kate was just out of her league and way over her head, a sheep in a land of wolves.

[@DemothHymside]

@@akneegrow6152 , yeah, and in the second film we see that their actions did jack shit but allow others to fill that power vacuum and continue terrorizing everything.

[@gbontwianyetei2234]

This is why writers use the term 'antagonist' instead of "villains/bad-guys". A character can be opposed to the objectives or missions of a piece's protagonists without needing to fill the "villain" archetype.

[@donbarracuda546]

Perfect comment! It's not her story, so regardless of where people stand on the morality of the methods employed by the actual protagonist, as well as supporting parties, her character poses the greatest threat to the operation and the goal of the protagonist.

[@juangomezfuentes8825]

Kate is not the villain, she is the spectator. Fausto is the villain and Alejandro is the hero/protagonist.

[@garad123456]

Alejandro isn't a hero he will even kill innocent bystanders in order to fulfill his revenge fantasy. If you see him as a hero that tells more about you than the film

[@Kyle_00]

I never saw Alejandro as a hero, in my opinion. Just as a nearly broken man. This movie is super morally ambiguous.

[@PussyBateman]

@@Kyle_00he killed 2 children in the end. Not very heroic

[@jeremybrown9611]

@@Kyle_00 No he's all of that and the Protagonist of this film. The script makes it clearer but the Director thought the opposite would have a better effect on the film and he was damn right.

[@arkdoesstuff7362]

Alejandro is not a hero, he is just a man on a revenge quest, a hero wouldn't murder the innocent wife and kids, since in classical terms a hero usually has a well defined and toned morals and ethics. He does not do this, did the kids murder his family, no, the father did, why should the kids burden their father sins, this is the difference between justice and revenge. He is still not the protagonist, because the story is still being told through kate, at most he is a duertagonist

[@orangecucamonga]

Surprise Antagonist: yes. Moral counter-compass: perhaps. Villain: that's a stretch. But a very interesting take, well done.

[@valentinpons9191]

i don't know if u can categorize her as the villain per se, but hear me out. when u read marx's communist books, every thing seems great, it should work perfectly, but when u take it to the practice in countries like cuba or venezuela, it doesnt work, because pragmatically is impossible. is the same as Kate, she wants to go by the book, but she is so far out of reality, that she doesnt know that pragmatically her ways are not going to work. is she naive? yes. is she the villain? I dont know, but we know for sure that her ways are not going to work, the same as the ways of the left won't work in the world.

[@aztecfighter5]

My take is that she is needed hence we become mexico by allowing us to go too far i love this country and its checks and balances

[@mikel27180]

Cope

[@BigDaddyDax]

She may not have been an intentional villian but a villain none the less. She was more interested in ending the joint taskforce than bringing down the cartel. She is Batman and the cartel is her Joker.

[@BigDaddyDax]

@Simon Cowell..... badass hero for the cartel

[@michaelbuick6995]

"Villain" is a stretch. She is fundamentally a good person and that's what puts her at odds with the others. She's trying to force a line between good and evil on to a brutal reality that will not comply, and is unwilling to make the internal moral compromise that Matt and Alejandro have made. It's like "No Russian" from MW2, where the CO tells the undercover agent "It will cost you a piece of yourself". You can't blame her if that's a piece she does not want to part with. You can't blame Matt and Alejandro for making the choice they did. They movie intentionally ends leaving us feel uncomfortable, and ultimately nothing is resolved, because that eternal question "do the ends justify the means?" will itself never be definitively resolved.

[@Maelstrom8]

Beautiful analysis. Kate definitely is NOT the villain. Most everybody other than Kate and her partner operate in the gray area. That's what makes this movie so interesting. Good and evil are too simple to define the folks fighting this war. Perspective is everything in this movie.

[@deancarr4507]

She's an accidental villain. She got herself into a career she wasn't cut out for. Like at the end when Alejandro tells her to go be a small town cop.

[@TheCompleteGuitarist]

She's weak and nice and that makes her a danger. She has no control over her desired outcomes and that makes her without agency and therefore either redundant or ... more of a danger than useful or helpful. God said the meek shall inherit the earth. The original meaning of the word meek reads thus ... he who knows how to handle or use his weapon but keeps it sheathed and ready. The strong will inherit, the determined, those who know what needs to get done and have that as a goal, not, doing it by the book.

[@OmegaF77]

@@TheCompleteGuitarist She's definitely not week she's HRT, which is like DEVGRU for police. And she is definitely meek, meaning she has discipline to do things by the book and not be brash. The problem is, in the movie she is always being thrown in situations where you must go outside the book, even a little and she seems to falter there.

[@ethanweeter2732]

I think Matt, much like Thanos, did not care. Alejandro had his own reasons for murdering cartel members.

[@quantum_ocean]

Kate is not the villain. The cartel boss who killed Alejandro’s wife and daughter is the villain.

[@Thund3rstone]

Dude, there are neither heroes nor villains in that movie. But as the protagonist Kate is representing the average person, living after a broadly common morale, opening for us the window into a world with completely different set of ethics.

[@maui_lou]

Indeed, it's funny how people are romanticizing Alejandro, lots seem to think they would be as 'badass' as him in this environment and that he's your unconventional good guy. But Alejandro isn't really accomplishing anything more than using tools at his disposable to get his revenge. It just so happens that doing so, it nudges the situation that seems favorable for the government by mutual interest. Never is it really revealed that his intentions are to end/tame the drug war or for the greater good. And more than the average person, Kate actually represent the viewer imo, we mainly discover the story and world of Sicario through her eyes.

[@brentloy131]

Sure we all know Sicario is a Masterpiece.. and I like that.

[@maxmakesfilms69]

After watching this, I can imagine that if the story focused on Alejandro and not Kate the entire time, this would feel more like a buddy cop revenge film where Kate's character would be that stickler type always trying to roadblock the maverick protagonist with rules and regulations. If anything, it's the perspective Sicario takes that makes it a brilliant study on the morality of extrajudicial tactics and how the problem with the war on drugs is the us policies that perpetuate it further. Otherwise when you really think about it, Sicario's plot isn't much different to an 80s-90s action flick.

[@byakugan2173]

If the movie wasn't from her perspective it would be plainly obvious she is a villain

[@sogerc1]

@@byakugan2173 I hope we will never have to see how your perspective would change if one of those cops would murder your husband because he had a hunch that your husband was a "bad guy".

[@vza7938]

@Mister Ious lol..what a shitty way...so, a man'snot free to intake what he wills? no wonder pinoys just play games and take them way too serious

[@filmmoviePRODUCTIONS]

I was thinking the same thing, most of the tension comes from her learning what they're up to while they smirk and walk off. All this needed was some 'Narcos' type music and it'd be a pretty standard netflix original with excellent cinematography.

[@gelmibson883]

Great take

[@johngal8449]

You just scratched that itch I couldn't.Thankyou my friend for deciphering it.

[@josephstalin9139]

That's a little bit of a reach my friend, I'd say she had more of a novice attitude throughout the movie more than anything. In the end the true villain at the heart of the movie was the DEA smuggling American calibre weaponry to the Cartels to keep the balance of rampant inferiority south of the border.

[@raymondnewton2388]

It's about her being a police woman in a military operation. Soldiers and police have different mindsets, and different missions. She was along for the ride to add a certain legitimacy, ended up being bewildered.

[@richardsellsaz6865]

There was no American military in the movie.those are CIA operatives in the BDU's

[@jordanmckoy5277]

They had delta force with them too.

[@bipedalhominid6815]

Richard Lopez lol they literally say delta like 100 times. Even put subtittles on and when they speak it says "delta operator:"

[@richardsellsaz6865]

Delta doesn't fight cartels.Those are CIA operatives in real life.'Delta" could refer to the team like "Alpha" and "Bravo" team

[@bipedalhominid6815]

Richard Lopez delta does whatever they are tasked to do.. we even send regular infantry troops to south America to bust up cartels. Why would delta be exempt? Maybe you are unfamiliar with the dynamics and spectrum of Joint Operations.

[@JDarkley]

There's a lot of good observations here about her character, but I think that classifying her as a "villain" misses the point of the film and her character arch. First off, the film exists in a moral gray area so terms like "heroes" and "villains" can't really be applied. The characters can only be classified as protagonist and antagonist, both of those terms refer to their function in the story and not necessarily their moral standing. On the surface the movie is about US drug enforcement agents vs. cartels, but really the cartels exist in the film's background. They're just there to inform the setting and provide a sense of danger. None of the cartel members (except Silvio, the police officer working with the cartel) are fleshed out characters. That's because at it's core the film is actually about the battle of morality between Kate and Matt/Alejandro (but I think we all knew that). I disagree with the assertion that Alejandro can be the protagonist because he has no character arch. Any change his character went through happened off-screen before the start of the film. So functionally him and Matt are both foils (and thus antagonists) to Kate. If we were to apply a moral standing to them, they'd be anti-heroes at best. Kate is in fact the protagonist because she's the only character that has an arch within the story. Her story arch is complete in the final scene when she signs the documents and points her gun at Alejandro. When she signs the documents legitimizing the operation, she did so under duress because Alejandro had a gun to her head. Her lowering her gun at him later is her making a choice to accept of his methods and let go of her naïveté as well. That's the significance of that scene. TL;DR: Kate's not a villain because the film exists in a morally bleak setting where heroes and villain don't really exist and she eventually accepts Alejandro's methods at the end anyway.

[@dvizionfilmz]

Thank you, I loved the video, because I like to study different opinions, but your angle makes the most sense to me, alongside with Chris Pham's. What's absolutely amazing though -- how the "hero" with the story arch and all affects absolutely nothing, while those, who has no arch do all the job and actually accomplish things. To me personally this looks like a great case in point of archs being largely misused in modern filmmaking, when they're seen as structure tools instead of purely organic companions of hero's journey.

[@streampunksheep]

It is sad to say, that not everyone is getting the point.

[@streampunksheep]

Thank you for adding sense to this video. The fact that they equate cool action hero as protagonist is driving me insane.

[@mcindoet]

I enjoyed your perspective, but may I add mine. I thought she in the last scene, felt several emotions. one, she remembered he save her life. two, killing him would not be "going by the book" and she would be held accountable in her concept of the "rule of law".. and three she accepted his methods finally as neccessary. Alejandro turned and faced her believing her naivete(not being a wolf) would not allow her to pull the trigger. It is nice to see a movie that incites these many responses, instead of movies put together by computers, unrealistic characters jumping from skyscrapers, and 100 pound ladies, beating up five 250 pound men, for a change.

[@JDarkley]

Thomas McIndoe, you're right, there's definitely a lot of ambiguity and mixed emotions in that scene. I think that ambiguity is one of the film's biggest strengths. It doesn't really take a side in the conflict between Kate and Alejandro and acknowledges both of their perspectives as valid on some level.

[@RetroHondo67]

Kate is not the opposite of Alejandro, she represents what he used to be as a prosecutor, so more of a mirror of contrast not as an antagonist but as measuring stick to see how far Alejandro has changed, or his arc from good man to evil. The last scene shows how Alejandro’s actions actually do little to eliminate the cartels in Mexico.

[@vee1766]

In substance you're right about everything you say about her character, but calling her "the villain" demonstrate a certain bias and somehow an misunderstanding of cinema and storytelling in general. You seem to be one of those people who wrongly think that the protagonist (or even the "hero") have to be the character you like or empathize with.

[@meansartin]

Kate isn't the villain, Kate is the audience. Kate is the American public who would react in a similar way to learning about Matt's strategy. In the end she is ultimately broken.

[@jacobstaten2366]

meansartin aren't we the bad guys then for thinking drugs are okay, but not taking steps to legalize them? If it were legal, the FDA and legitimate South American businesses could get involved.

[@thewhiterise5094]

"Legalizing drugs" won't stop shit - eventually the drugs that are put on the open market place won't be enough for people, they'll want stronger highs as addiction rises. You can ALREADY GET drugs legally,, and those drugs will get you similar highs and because of this, addiction to prescription drugs especially among upper white women is high and many die from the result. All that will happen is the drugs that are put on the black market will be a far better product than the ones businesses in the US are allowed to fund and put out It's an incredibly black and white viewpoint that legalizing drugs will stop the drug war.

[@jacobstaten2366]

The White Rise you can get drugs, but you have to jump through hoops or fit very narrow criteria to get them. Crime went up during prohibition because making something illegal that shouldn't be means you have to go through career criminals to get it. A false increase in value also occurs because of the risk associated with getting it. We have legalized alcohol, and there is still a black market, but it's tiny and nonviolent. You are never going to get rid of the black market. If someone commits a crime while high or to get drugs, they should be charged for the crime and not the drugs as there are many people who can use drugs without resorting to crime. Like alcohol, if you need more of a high, you can just consume more, but it should be your responsibility alone to regulate. A lot of people who don't deserve to be in prison would be released and/or avoid arrest in the first place. Crime would definitely go down.

[@thewhiterise5094]

Drugs are far more diverse and addicting than alcohol. Your comparison is bad.... And while there is STRONGER alcohol, it's not as addictive as experimental drugs. So, where do you put the line when we legalize drugs? Do you give a pharmacy far more leeway to put whatever they want out there? There is a good argument that they ALREADY have too much pull and put out some harmful shit to the public, as I mentioned, it's not like upper class white women are doing too well with drugs.... So you put a line on what you can do with drugs and put out there on the open market - as I said before, when it comes to hard drugs, people will want to up their high especially when their addiction manifests. We can talk about recreational drugs, sure. We can talk about how people who do drugs shouldn't have harsh punishments - but pretending legalizing some drugs would destroy the cartel is absolutely naive. The Cartel would still be pushing the best product when it comes to hard drugs and people with addictions will not be satisfied with the lowly drugs that are 20 years out of date that a pharmacy is pushing. Read this for other facts on this - it's always been a ridiculous notion. foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/22/legalizing-drugs-wont-stop-mexicos-brutal-cartels/

[@meansartin]

Jacob Staten Crime was up during prohibition, but it never went away. The Mafia didn't hang it up in 1933

[@teebirderv8]

Chronicles of Riddick said it best: In normal times, evil would be fought by good. But in times like these, well, it should be fought by another kind of evil.

[@petrbouda1741]

Jesus fucking Christ, citing a train wreck of a movie that Chronicles of Riddick is...

[@jrmemnoch7650]

Good reference bro

[@seanimac7759]

Yeah. Tell your mother I want the meatloaf.

[@paolovallejo8022]

and you think, nobody thought of that before that so called movie? read some books mate

[@stevent2049]

@@paolovallejo8022 Aw Pablo is maddo

[@dannygibson2597]

Sicario is a masterpiece. It's comical how much better it is than the BS sequel they made.

[@Shoegaze-]

It’s better but not by a high degree

[@eamonshields2754]

Sicario was a masterpiece, great breakdown

[@zTheBigFishz]

This is why Sicario is such a great movie. Several different, debatable interpretations are possible.

[@stu9000]

The film is demonstrating how there can be no good solutions in the war on drugs (it the underlying policy that is the issue). The approach of every character is flawed because there is no moral solution, as Kate looking for one clearly shows.

[@SOak145]

It amazes me that people in the US still seem to believe that the war on drugs is winnable.

[@ekerson]

@@SOak145 Its winning for those in charge on both sides of the boarder. As long as the cartels and corrupt US politicians keep getting rich, nothing will change. This "war" is making people too much money to ever stop.

[@eriscyl]

stu9000 When you say there’s no moral solution, not only do I understand that you don’t know what morality is, but you also resemble Kate as described in this very video.

[@smokeralots7284]

BULLSHIT SHES THE VILLAIN BECAUSE SHES A SNITCH!

[@LtBrown1956]

@@smokeralots7284 damned right

[@axisofresistance7225]

Loved it. Thank you!

[@Andy_Pancake]

You're truly gifted Shane. Hope you come back.

[@FixedWing82]

Kate is no villain. She is a tragic figure who represents the loss of innocence, and perhaps also the audience, who may have sided with Kate in the beginning. She's innocent, naive, idealistic. Throughout the movie she watches Matt's team, thinking "We are a nation of laws, we do things a certain way for a reason, this is going too far". She recoiled when it was revealed to her that Matt's brutal tactics were the only path to real results. She found herself submerged in a dark world of extralegal killings that she was not mentally or morally prepared to be a part of. That's the same boat most average people would probably find themselves in, I would think. It takes a certain person to go out and do that stuff, and still hold it together. Alejandro summed it up in the end... "go back to where the rule of law still exists. You're not a wolf. And this is the land of wolves now."

[@mrlaydback11]

This is how I think about her character as well. Good job.

[@frontsquats]

She's not a villain, but she is certainly the antagonist of the movie. She tries to undermine and hamper Matt's objectives at every turn. She's naive and wants to conform her surroundings to her ideals rather than face reality and do what needs to be done to accomplish the objective. This is illustrated well when she almost gets shot at the border crossing. Alejandro tells her to get out of the car. She thinks she knows better, stays in the car, and luckily avoids being shot by the Mexican police. She is arrogant and naive: a deadly combination for herself and those around her. She personifies these college kids that demand safe spaces that foster their own delusions and naivety while failing to prepare them for the real world. They feel everyone has to bend to their will and ideas and can't handle it when reality says otherwise. Even at the very end of the movie, after all she's seen, she hasn't learned much. She still refuses to sign Alejandro's paper. She wants to stand up for what she believes is right, but doesn't have the follow through. Her convictions are empty because she cannot act on them. She's right back where she started.

[@IJustMadeAComment]

FixedWing82 I think you’re both right. She is a tragic figure of ideals and doesn’t fit into the context yet at the same time she is a villan because of her continued obsession of the ideals over the outcome.

[@reds7vn644]

FixedWing82 But .... Even after she's told by her superiors that this is the law and that these are the rules and that these are the methods that we are now using she still tries to go against the system in even says after the tunnel scene I'm going to tell everybody what you did. Which we all know in a mission like that she signed a non-disclosure agreement so in a fact she is being the bad guy The Whistleblower instead of conforming to what she's been ordered to do and carry out of her lawful duties. She is the villain of the movie.

[@bartoszbaranowski604]

This! @OP has no idea what he is talking. For starters, one has to realize LEOs, (this is kind of simplification) are no better than criminals, they use same means, methods etc to fend of unwanted influence - in case of LEOs - criminals. One difference is that action of LEOs is sanctioned by society/gov and are subject to rules. If there are no rules it is just criminals and each other throats.

[@justsayin7416]

Everyone keeps saying that Matt/Alejandro's methods were "effective", but that is not the impression I got. If you recall, at the end of the film, it shows the little boy from the beginning at one of his soccer games. While they are playing, gunshots are heard not so far away. The players stop for a moment and the parents all look over in the direction of the gunshots, but then quickly pick up where they left off. This shows that the cartels/violence is still a problem (nothing has changed). Killing the kingpin was cathartic (maybe, probably not though) for Alejandro, but it did virtually nothing to stop the drug war. It's like a hydra. When you kill one, others are waiting to pop up and take his place. Hence the new movie. Someone else filled the void and the gov/military is no closer to ending the drug war than they were in the first movie.

[@mon_nobi]

They were effective once you were realize their goals were never to end the drug war in the first place. There is no good or evil in this, only mutual interests, players and pawns, supply and demand, and shades of gray. Matt is a player. Alejandro realized to meet his new goals (revenge) he had to evolve from pawn to player. Matt and the CIA recognize that this player has a mutual interest in taking down Alarcon, Matt to rebalance order in the CIAs favor, and Alejandro to seek revenge against his family's murderer (and also take out the competition for the Medellin cartel). Kate was a pawn, mostly there due to the rules of CIA missions on foreign soil, since US rightfully places laws around how the govt can claim plausible deniability, but those laws are mostly for show as they still need to get the job done (hence why she signed the paper but only at gunpoint). Overall, the movie showed the gray area of fighting this war on drugs, and the total hopelessness of trying to win it. There is no end, no magic bullet, no final boss, even if you take out whole families at once to avoid vengeance seekers, there will be another one to take their place, yes like a hydra. Why? Because supply and demand. Many ppl in the US have a desire to purchase illicit drugs. If its illegal, ppl will still get it by nearby sources who make it available. Until 20% of the US population kicks the habit, there will always be a demand for it which black market entrepreneurs will fill. The US govt recognizes this and allows what needs to be done not really to win the war, but only to maintain balance in their favor. No heroes, no villains. Only shades of gray.

[@Matti_us_Alpe]

Keeping cartel fighting with each other makes them less focussed on the border, makes them nervous, more prone to make errors on which the justice department waits...

[@chadford8500]

Their goal wasnt to end the cartel, the goal is to get the cartels to go to war and kill each other off until their is only one cartel. Like Matt said "Meddellin refers to a time when their was one Cartel controlling everything which provided a level that they, the CIA, could control." In other words, when their are multiple cartels out there the CIA had no control over all of them, but One cartel controlling everything is easier for our law enforcement and government to deal with.

[@SuperP37]

the cia was just putting down their own dog

[@seanoneil277]

The more open-minded viewer will note several issues in the movie Sicario. (1) Langley runs amok in any theatre/sphere it chooses. (2) Langley prefers to create issues that must be solved by military intervention. (3) The military intervention (under uniform cover, or via "private security contractors," doesn't matter really) never solves the problem that Langley proclaims it's trying to solve. (4) Langley is a Charlie Foxtrot. The viewer should not see Langley as "effective," only different from the policy-wonk nonsense that the Kate Macer character believes in so strongly.

[@MrTraxSta]

Kate does not come off as HRT leader material. That is the main problem. How did she get this assignment with the level of naivete she shows? She is a protagonist but is just bit mentally ready to be on the front lines and philosophically is a complete mess. She isn't an antagonist she is just conflicted in her approach and it does not jive well with the other men who are clear in their purpose and objective. At the end of the day the status quo remains so it was and continues to be pointless.

[@omarmansour630]

Love movies with morally ambiguous characters. Denis Villeneuve seems to be a master at it, both Sicario and Prisoners absolute masterpieces in that regard

[@mrlaydback11]

I don't think Kate was the villain. Her issue was she was an idealist in a non-idealist world.

[@mfc9328]

Also she’s guilty of self riotousness

[@theartemisgland]

Idealists are not realists.

[@Frijolero18]

Mizanur Hussain >self riotousness ... I can't

[@dannycurtis2591]

Frijolero18, Mizanur Hussain. Rightousness. If you're going to be here, at least learn the language.

[@mfc9328]

Frijolero18 hahahaha sorry I was high at the time, I only comment on shit when I’m high and bored

[@MrBubbaSkeeter]

"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster." I think that's why Kate was so fixated on doing things "by the book".

[@CB-vt3mx]

nope. Kate represents a type of person employed by the government at every level who is stupefied by the failure of the status quo but will never give it up. For Kate, the status quo provides her a job, status, authority, and power. She is only interested in those things. She is willing to sacrifice as many peasants as necessary to retain those perks and will do nothing at all, ever, to jeopardize them. In this way she is no different than a gulag guard, concentration camp commander, or any of the thousands of American and Mexican Federales who would sacrifice the world for power, authority, and status. She is a reminder that at least half of the problem is our own fixation on the rewards we are seeking and the price we are willing to allow others to pay for them. In the end, she is no different than a CIA agent smuggling cocaine in to fund a war in Nicaragua, or Afghanistan. I worked with people like this for 30 years in the Army. They literally run everything.

[@grimmblade]

"You become a monster so the monster will not break you" ; Bono

[@MrBubbaSkeeter]

​@@CB-vt3mx Ok

[@lbcguy8723]

@@CB-vt3mx ROFL

[@dab0331]

You HAVE to be a monster to fight one. A dog with fangs and a wolf's blood on its mouth looks the same as a wolf to a sheep. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions". Being naively "good" will get good people killed.

[@jaguarandi2]

From the Director about this movie : "As a kid, I [noticed] the headlines of newspapers are the same, all the time. There’s a feeling of repetition. Repetition is hell. How can we get out of those cycles of violence? How come we are still today talking about peace in Israel? How come we’re not able to find a solution yet? Something that will bring peace in this part of the world? It’s the same in a lot of places in the world right now. How come we are not able to find peace? Violence will just create violence and more and more violence. It’s something that as a society and as countries and as human beings we all reproduce. It’s so tough to evolve and to become adult as societies. It’s a topic that I think is very inspiring. Most movies, revenge seems like something that brings a kind of pleasure - a kind of satisfaction and something that has a power to solve problems. I don’t think so. So I like to explore revenge in a different way. "

[@PhilthyWan]

This is an absolutely brilliant movie and your character analysis has provoked an even deeper understanding of the players involved. Thank you for your invaluable insight.

[@monttemadness9250]

Sicario really captures how dark those battles can be and I LOVE it. A lot of your typical hollywood movies would have the same plot but instead, no civilians are harmed, it's just straight up good guys v bad guys. Sicario shows that sacrifices need to be made, lines must be crossed, and rules gotta be broken. Probably one of the best movies out there that can truly show you that and make you believe that it's for the greater good. If anyone has any movie suggestions that are similar, I'd love to watch them.

[@SeriusChevy]

She is just a puppet that has no idea wtf she's doing, that's what I saw. And she played the part well

[@byakugan2173]

She sticks to her code as it becomes more and more obvious that it doesn't serve justice. She chooses to stick to the code that she was taught, therefore washing her hands of the fallout of her actions or inactions, instead of taking making her own determinations and taking responsibility

[@derek96720]

@@byakugan2173 she's afraid of living in a grey world because it would mean she can't see herself as righteous.

[@landochabod7]

@@Sheeeit There's a quote that says "pawns are the soul of chess"...

[@regularman3153]

Puppet doesn't have will and curiousity, which clearly she have.

[@seanoneil277]

I'll bet my entire life's worth that the Kate Macer character did not require any acting from Emily Blunt. Apart from adopting an American accent, that is. Otherwise, I'd wager Emily Blunt thinks exactly as Kate Macer does about the situation portrayed and examined in Sicario.

[@wait4tues]

and now i have to rewatch the movie and change everything i thought i knew about it. thanks, i really bounced off this thing the first go round.

[@asalimi]

I enjoyed your narrative, well written and nicely performed 👌

[@Nick-jy4zf]

"it's clear she puts the importance of her own disconnected ideals above... most importantly, innocent lives" bro earlier you said alejandro is the protagonist, the guy who murders two kids and their mom

[@Nick-jy4zf]

the antagonist of the film isn't even subtext. what do you think the "who do you think we learned it from?" line is about? the CIA spooks like Matt who hire Alejandro and take advantage of Kate's naivete to allow them to perform legal clandestine domestic operations are the ones who started and continue to escalate the violence.

[@xavianbraams4614]

He is the protagonist myguy shit had to get done he let them kids live know they want to b in charge he did the absolute right thing but your ideology want let you see why

[@Nick-jy4zf]

@@xavianbraams4614 i mean i guess my ideology of "children should not be murdered" may be getting in the way of seeing Alejandro as the the good guy here yeah

[@xavianbraams4614]

@@Nick-jy4zf I feel like as the protagonist of the movie he absolutely made the right decision to kill them kids and the wife shit you ask me the made to but in a serious not In that life every stone must b flipped and Checked

[@grahamparr3933]

Obviously the wife knew what was going down, also the two buys would have joined the family business, prevention is better the cure.

[@hellhound45vil]

Seems like you really missed the point of the whole movie. Its not her "personal" rules, its the code of ethics followed by someone acting in U.S. jurisdiction. She's FBI remember, but she gets thrown into a conflict beyond the U.S. where rules are rendered ineffective - mostly due to the corruption & influence of the cartels. Her point of view is what makes the film so much more effective, constant violence is not the norm for most of us. How do you apply the rule of law in a place where violence is so pervasive that children hardly pause a game of football while bullets go off in the distance?

[@average_psyop_enjoyer]

Shes a karen to sum it all up

[@ianmccarty3903]

Glad to see someone else got it too

[@hiranom20]

@@average_psyop_enjoyer Lol it was so satisfying when Matt (Josh Brolin) went all combatives on her ass when she came out the tunnel and decked him. Such an annoying character 🤣

[@teahousereloaded]

Thank you hellhound. The war on drugs is as pointless as the prohibition and will eventually end the same way. The market takes care of the demand just as it should supplying the cartels with endless amounts of cash. Emily Blunts character sticks to her moral code, like a true western hero and is lost in this new world of endless escalation. What does killing the drug lord accomplish? The power between the cartels will shift, but that's it.

[@esotericgrave3129]

She is given the opportunity to make a difference. She is given explicit permission to exercise those opportunities. She refuses to make a difference. She is close minded and refuses to see the reality as it is presented to her. Anyone else in her position would see the grey and reorient the way she looks at the war. But she doesn't, she blindly follows what she was told in a by gone era. She is the representation of the US public. The public mentality doesn't change easily, she's there to show why there is so much held back from public. Whether it's right or wrong makes no difference when you have such a justification. If they knew, they would jeopardize everything that is being worked on.

[@akasgsvirgil9503]

She's not so much a villain as her character metaphorically represents the cognitive dissonance that exists when the uninitiated are initiated into the world of what really takes place behind the closed doors of government. For those who don't like word soup, she can't process the fact that the people she's been told are the "good guys" are really no better than the bad guys.

[@sana-cm7oc]

IOW Kate is a Karen.

[@fourthaeon9418]

They are much bettter, there brutality is controlled and directed. the cartels are chaos incarnate. Where any slight intentional or not is cause for bloodshed.

[@redcommander27]

I don’t think the movie was meant to portray Alejandro and Graver as heroes. The message I took away was that the only way to beat the cartels was to fight just as dirty as them on their own terms, and lose your humanity in the process. Kate was unwilling to compromise her integrity, even if it meant losing the drug war. She may not have been a hero, this isn’t a movie with heroes, but she was the movie’s conscience. There are no winners in this story.

[@JasonBunnell]

Also, there is a bit of this in Better Call Saul. Saul is always trying to do good, just not in a good way. Conversely his brother is always "by the book" but somehow is an asshole. His brother is doing evil under the guise of morality.

[@slappy8941]

Doing evil under the guise of morality is the preferred modus operandi of assholed and scumbags throughout history.

[@violent_bebop9687]

Throw in straw dogs , w/ Hoffman...!

[@jandcstopmotion7774]

It’s really not fair to say that chuck is “evil”. Just like it’s kind of naive to say that Emily Blunt is a “villain” in Sicario. She is supposed to be the moral compass of the film, even if her methods are not working.

[@rokhpaperscissors1349]

@@jandcstopmotion7774 Chuck is absolutely evil though. Emily Blunt's character in Sicario is much closer to a genuine idealist. Chuck is a thin-skinned hypocrite with no conviction, his "ideals" are concrete only to the extent that he can define goalposts to continually move so that from his perspective Jimmy is always bad, stupid, and unworthy of being a lawyer and Chuck is always good, correct, and worthy of it. He's a spineless, dogshit hypocrite with absolutely not a shred of meaningful conviction and he gets the ending he deserves. Not that Jimmy is necessarily a "good guy" but Chuck is scum, the fact that his ideals are wholly a facade becomes immediately obvious every single time Jimmy tries to better himself. If Chuck had even the thinnest shred of integrity he'd support his brother, but he cares more about being above Jimmy than literally anything else. I understand that the presentation of Chuck's end is intended to be sympathetic, but I had zero sympathy for him.

[@Sara-bk3yi]

his brother is absolutely not evil, are you serious? the only reason he comes off as an asshole is because he knows exactly what kind of person his brother is. Did you forget that literally every single accusation he made was true?

[@hermanhedning4220]

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster". This quote sums up the movie pretty well with its constant question of morals and values. Kate may be naive and "in a land of wolves " but she is definetly not a villain.

[@mikejunior211]

Villain implies intent...She does not want to be the villain...However she ends up being a liability....She is no wolf...in a land of wolves.

[@pmadood6970]

A villain can be someone who thinks they're doing the "right" thing but get a lot of people killed, that's what he's saying.

[@modernviking6436]

Just dangerously naive. Just because you're not actively doing wrong, doesn't mean that you can do no wrong. Plenty of bad shit in the world has been done with the best of intentions.

[@blaizerhodes]

There's a saying .. "Those who play with the devils toys, come by degrees to wield his sword". In short, the question being asked is "Do the ends justify the means?". One response to this is that if you adopt sufficiently harsh tactics against the drug lords are you any better than them? You can fight against them ineffectually according to the rules and fail, or you can oppose them using any tactics you wish and fail because you are now no better than them.

[@modernviking6436]

@@blaizerhodes I have always found that argument to be stupid af. "Now you're no better than your enemy"; you're already no better than your enemy for fighting them in the first place. There is no sense in being stupid & ignoring useful but dIsHonOrAbLe tactics that might help you win, (talking to you, Ned Stark).

[@winrope4814]

I have never watched the film and i didn't know about you - youtube algorithms. Well, here I am, subscribing to you and searching for the film.

[@ojas2004]

beautiful analysis bro

[@lt0295]

Kate isn’t a villain. “By the book” isn’t Kate trying to follow rules. It’s Kate trying to follow the *laws* , as Kate believes that the laws also dictate what is morally right and wrong. Kate stands for justice and pure justice, and this means justice that is not obtained illegally. The entire point of the film is the moral dilemma. Kate doesn’t believe that doing things illegally is worth the justice or order it may bring. Alejandro and Matt do. There is no good guy or bad guy. The audience is made to understand everyone’s motive in this film. Kate’s struggle. Alejandro’s desire for revenge. Matt’s desire for the greater good. Silvio’s love for his family. And yes, even Alarcon’s “nothing personal” mindset, and his family. We as an audience struggle with supporting or condemning anyone in this film, because there is no hero and there is no villain.

[@SuperP37]

quite the easy way out you took. If they had done it kate's way then a lot more people would have suffered and died = kate's a villain and a magical thinking one at that

[@lancemannly]

@@SuperP37 so you would prefer cops be ok with breaking the law? The point is the war on drugs is insane and that it's existence causes everyone to become a villain.

[@ohauss]

@@SuperP37 Hilarious, coming from someone who wants to legitimize precisely that suffering and death and say that it's perfectly ok if you can just construct some kind of mental excuse - i.e. "fighting" the cartel by officially approving the very ideology at its heart. The magical thinking is on your part, I'm afraid.

[@SuperP37]

@@lancemannly so please do tell us when these killers come to your neighborhood and affect your friends, family and neighbors what would you want to happen?

[@lancemannly]

@@SuperP37 which killers? The drug dealers or the cops? Because both murdered innocent people in the movie

[@MarkAndrewEdwards]

She's not a villain or an antagonist, she's a victim. She's a horror movie protagonist, who has their worldview shattered.

[@damjanmladic9327]

She was naive …… Woman ☕️

[@tdb4763]

You're too dumb to feel stupid

[@trav2233]

yea their world view. Their lil perfect world 💀

[@cartergirl3of3]

Yeah a victim maybe but also an idiot and does more harm than good

[@Dyno2999]

@@damjanmladic9327would you be any better in that situation LMAO

[@DThron]

Terrific analysis. I don't know if Kate's issue is so much her being selfish about how to do things, but the film is very definitely about the difference between the theoretical morality and active morality. Kate's moral system is idealistic, and in broad strokes, is a system that most everyone would agree with. But the challenge she faces - what she has to learn from - is that idealism is only theoretical: a guiding force, not a practical tool. So I wouldn't necessarily say she's the villain, as her goal isn't so much selfish as it is naive. She isn't heroic either, however. She is a protagonist in the classic sense: she is the one faced with the choice to grow or die - and, metaphorically, she dies. She is broken by the realization forced upon her, and fails to survive the synthesis of the story's themes. Villeneuve seems obsessed by this - when characters stick to their story, refusing to change as new information comes in, they fail - see Prisoners, Enemy, Polytechnique, and Dune 2. In a way, the false-prophecy/chosen one plots of Dune and 2049 are the same type of challenge as Kate's in Sicaio: Kate believes in an inflexible, unchanging golden path of righteousness in which she is the savior, just like K in 2049 believes he Deckard's son.* This is what drives these characters, and when they discover the story they've based their lives on isn't true, they are devastated. In the end of 2049, K is saved because he realizes being free of prophecy means freedom itself. But in Sicario, Kate is destroyed. In a world without objective, authoritative law, she is completely lost. *google Zosima's speech on true love vs. imaginary love in Dostoyevsky's "Brothers Karamazov."

[@dharmagirl5889]

Kate is the audience. She is the stand-in for the "normal" people in the theater, watching the movie. She is the avatar of the conflit between the rule of law and the reality of war.

[@randomkitty2555]

The Cartel absolutely love people like Kate because she is so easy to predict.

[@danblack5402]

This is, indeed, an interesting perspective. Although, I think it’s a more narrowly tailored point of view which misses the overall themes of the movie. She’s not the villain. She’s also not the hero. There aren’t heros in this movie. Only a common enemy, the cartel, our villain. The movie’s central theme seems to ask, and leave open, the question of weather or not the ends justify the means. These questions are posed when Alejandro kills the cop and, later, the cartel leader’s wife and children. In doing these things, have they become the very thing they were sent to destroy? While maintaining the status quo is the most likely alternative, becoming your enemy doesn’t eradicate the problem, it simply shifts the players.

[@ilijaknezevic8370]

Nice

[@JohnDoe-wt9ek]

You don't destroy your foes by being morally superior. You destroy your enemies, scorch their legacy, and dismantle their entire organization piece by piece, and send a message that any other who does likewise will face the same fate. Its what we did with the Nazis, so why is it now a fucking problem?

[@oceanicastronaut2830]

The groups smuggling drugs, firearms and human slaves into other countries are objectively evil and those that fight against them are objectively good. This movie isnt about such childish notions as "do the ends justify the means?", the movie is asking if you as the audience have the courage and moral fortitude to do what is necessary to eradicate evil. You cannot fight hardend, organised cartels with good intentions and court orders from legal entities they dont recognise.

[@danblack5402]

@@oceanicastronaut2830 - I never implied that the cartels were acting in a way other than evil. Indeed, their trade is evil, and the actions they take to continue their trade are likewise evil. What to do about it is the question. How do good people prevent the continuation of that evil? Is it doing evil to eradicate evil? If that’s your position, then should some other body enact evil to likewise eradicate the “hero’s”? Consider what the end goal of the “heros” was in this movie. It wasn’t to stop the import of illegal drugs into the U.S. it was to centralize the drug trade into the hands of another cartel in Columbia so they could more easily regulate the volume of illegal drug imports. Then what can be done? Well, American politicians can and should confront their counterparts in Mexico, Columbia etc. threaten them with sanctions, tariffs and other economic reprisals if they don’t actively work to thwart the efforts of the cartels in their own countries. These politicians could even offer assistance; weapons, training and military assets such as those depicted in the movie. If imposing these sanctions etc. is ineffective, and the governments of Mexico and Columbia decline to help eliminate the problem, the U.S. still has a number of additional approaches it can enact, such as militarizing the southern border and only engaging where there’s threat of passage into the U.S. or when engaged. Another option to consider is legalizing these drugs and producing them domestically. Are you starting to see my point?

[@ryanhorvath1308]

@@oceanicastronaut2830 you have no clue as to who the actual evil people are. The cartels and their minions are mere pawns of the actual masters in the war on drugs.

[@omali1105]

Bro could you tell me the music playing in the background of the video(which was great btw)

[@Lettuceman8135]

"melancholia" and "soccer game" + "alejandro's theme" by Johan Johannsson on the sicario soundtrack

[@incogniot]

anyone know what the music is quietly playing behind this? sounds familiar, can't remember where from

[@Lettuceman8135]

"melancholia" and "soccer game" + "alejandro's theme" by Johan Johannsson on the sicario soundtrack

[@egodreas]

Talk about missing the point. The movie illustrates the impotence of conventional law enforcement when faced with the problems related to the drug trade. It poses an open question, asking if the ends justifies the means, and tries to show us how just how pervasive and nebulous the issue really is. Kate is meant to represent the somewhat naive point of view of the audience. She is the protagonist because it is her journey we are following. Whether you like her or not has nothing to do with it. Alejandro is not written to be a protagonist, nor is he a "good guy". At best, you can argue that he might be a necessary evil.

[@jacobstaten2366]

Andreas Karlsson he isn't written as a good guy archetype, but if he were a real person, many would regard him as a hero.

[@thewhiterise5094]

> many would regard him as a hero The moment it came out that he murdered children he would not be known as a hero.

[@jacobstaten2366]

The White Rise it might not come out or be disregarded as hear say. Then again, some people might see it as a necessary evil of it scares the cartels and given what they did to his family. I'm not saying I agree. However unintentionally or not, the movie kind of treats him like a revenge story protagonist like Death Wish or the Punisher. It's not told from his point of view (sort of like how Lord of the Rings isn't in Aargon's view), but it follows a lot of the same story beats. The plan of getting the cartels that will cooperate to unionize and work with the government would save lives. There are plenty of statues and stories about supposed heroes with dirty little secrets nobody talks about. Hell, Che was just as evil as Hitler, but niave college kids still wear a shirt with his picture on it.

[@thewhiterise5094]

The film treats him as a character becoming the very thing that took his family. Kate's relationship with Alejandro was that of a father and a proxy daughter, at the end of the film, he had absolutely no problem putting a gun to her head to force her into doing something he wanted, and if she didn't, he would have murdered her. This is someone who viewed her as his daughter - this tells you how far he has fallen. This is why the video is strange to me and it leaves out an incredible amount of context. The ambiguity about morality isn't with him, it's with the government - is it necessary to work with the enemy/evil to reach the end goal or should morals stay intact like with Kate's character? You should watch the film again, he is in no way close to the Punisher - the Punisher is for using brute force against villains, but he is not someone who kills innocents to get to the bad guy - there is still a moral compass there, Alejandro's character is completely devoid of that.

[@jacobstaten2366]

The White Rise he is still arguably better than the cartels in that he is only doing this because of their actions and to stop them, not for profit, and would discontinue if he reached his goal. His targets do it systemically. That's what separates him from the Punisher. He has a goal that actually might be obtainable, but would cost more morally to get there. He has the same kind of drive and origin though.

[@MikeyBro5728]

Good video, and I enjoyed your perspective on it.

[@nzgamelife323]

This movie should be called liability and just have a pic of blunts face.

[@antonioangel9186]

A war that’s been lost . They do what they do the way they do because it makes no difference what they do or the way they do it

[@lutherandross3165]

This is not a character driven movie. It’s a subject driven movie. Theories regarding character are kind of nullified by the fact that there is almost no character development at all. In fact, Kate is more like Alice in Wonderland. She’s simply there to provide the audience with eyes on the ground as the events unfold. Almost all the dialogue directed at her is the writer (Taylor Sheridan, a Native Texan) basically talking to us, the audience. There are no hero’s or villains in this movie as there are no hero’s or villains in the war on drugs and the perpetual border issues caused by it.

[@MountVernonTrucking]

This is a peak into reality. Reality shocked her to her core. Only insulated individuals think this way. She needed this operation to open her eyes.

[@Draycoe]

She is not a hero or villain, she is conscience.

[@FabledGentleman]

Yes. She is basically the same character that Ben Kingsley played in Schindlers List. She represents the audience.

[@arng9588]

I agree she is not the villain or hero but she is also not conscience.

[@BD-jn5dn]

Peter Love no, she’s an idiot

[@caveman357]

She is a liberal

[@paulfrantizek102]

She was definitely self-righteous.

[@kev3d]

Naiveté and/or incompetence is not villainy. It may well be that Kate's actions, or inaction, may not be the most effective course to take, but that is wholly different from the willful, proactive destruction of innocent lives.

[@average_psyop_enjoyer]

point is shes the antagonist

[@wolfza2630]

What about a bumbling baffoon that triggers a catastrophic meltdown? Is that person a villain? Are we to absolve everyone just because they are naive?

[@byakugan2173]

She's a Pontius Pilate. Washing her hands of the the injustice that's taking place

[@twosocks8088]

If naivete and/or incompetence result in the death of innocents maybe it is villainy.

[@superprincesssims]

@Terror shes not stopping good things. If you look closely you see that matts plan was totally ineffective because as you might remember the last scene shows the police officers son playing football and there are again shootings in the backround. Matts methods only seem to be effective because they are loud and easy and look cool but fail to appy to our very complicated reality.

[@kaitospin3944]

I wouldn't say the villain, more like the threat to the team and the entire op. A more dangerous one than the cartel. Se had a very bad attitude from the get go, she insisted on bringing her colleague that nobody wanted, she then began throwing tantrums and question every move her more experienced and battle hardened superiors make, she then wandered off in the tunnels disobeying direct orders, and finally tried to jeopardies the op and wanted to rat them out, not to mention that she almost shot Alejandro in the back after he spared her life in her own apartment.

[@CounterT007]

Great observation…when Kate said, “I’m not a soldier…” and gets the reply, “don’t sell yourself short…” is the core antagonistic perspective once you buy into the righteousness of Alejandro. That’s the brilliance of the movie. But one can argue that Kate was more righteous…rules…society…civilized…an age old debate.

[@manassurya2019]

Glad to know Im not the only one who felt like that about Kate. She was too close minded and naive.

[@Admiration9]

i don't know man, feels like your interpretation is way off. Sicario has always felt to me to be about the naivety of people in gated societies towards the cruel realities of real life and of societies beyond their own.

[@Jenny_Lee_]

Kate sees the criminals as victims and law enforcement as criminals. Her entire goal throughout the movie was getting evidence to destroy people and their lives work. Kate: "I'm going to tell everyone what you did". Why is she telling if she was already told this was all done by the book and was approved.

[@mikejunior211]

@@Jenny_Lee_ She is just an idiot who wants to bring wooden knives to a gun fight.

[@valentinpons9191]

i don't know if u can categorize her as the villain per se, but hear me out. when u read marx's communist books, every thing seems great, it should work perfectly, but when u take it to the practice in countries like cuba or venezuela, it doesnt work, because pragmatically is impossible. is the same as Kate, she wants to go by the book, but she is so far out of reality, that she doesnt know that pragmatically her ways are not going to work. is she naive? yes. is she the villain? I dont know, but we know for sure that her ways are not going to work, the same as the ways of the left won't work in the world.

[@ser_igel]

the whole point of sicario, it ends where it starts the final scene is the football game not even getting interrupted by the shooting, everyone just keeps playing nobody won, nobody "gets the vibe that they're winning" the book is geneva convention and i believe some fbi/police rules and laws, if they did everything by the book, benicio's character wouldn't put a gun to her had making her sign the papers there's no hero and no villain, and if the protagonist is obvious, i'm not sure if there is a main antagonist and if there is it's definitely not kate

[@MITAKA9]

What a clever way to show that you can argue for anything and be convincing.

[@Minotauronabike]

Kate's arc fits into aspects Victoria Lynn Schmidt's "Heroine's Journey" narrative arc. Very common in heroine-centered narratives. Instead of the "Hero's Journey" with a hero who goes on an adventure and overcomes challenges, the heroine begins her journey by realizing that the world is not as it seems, that what she has been told about reality is false. I think part of what you describe about the emotional investment in characters comes from the intentional portrayal of Del Toro's and Brolin's characters as charismatic and capable; just like we expect them to be from their appearance (masculine, handsome, relaxed, self assured). The heroine often encounters these powerful male figures who make her question her own beliefs and even undermine her grip on reality. Following that archetype, Sicario only gets about halfway through the narrative, or at least skips through a few of the redemptive stages. Kate returns to her starting place, but is also in the "all is lost" stage of the story arc when the movie ends. I think that Denis Villeneuve, for all his masculinity, is very tuned into feminine power in story telling; like in Incindies, and even parts of Dune, the way he portrays Jessica.

[@loose007cannon]

"The ends justify the means" is why we have laws. And where your logic fails.

[@Prometheus7272]

Paul Cannon Laws don’t define reality

[@NickHunter]

@@Prometheus7272 and reality based on the most evil of evils doesn't define the law

[@loose007cannon]

I agree , we define reality and we the people have both the power and the responsibility of the law. Our country, our constitution is hard work and we as a populace have been lazy. Look at who we have let run for President the last few elections. These are the best America has to offer us? No , but we aren't using our vote, our voice to demand better. If the laws don't work, change them. Don't disregard them and please don't praise those who do.

[@The_Butcher_of_Blaviken]

@@NickHunter We define the law, if a law passes and nobody follows that law then that law is useless. We create laws to better control our reality if a law passes that nobody follows then its a failed law. So if a law is really distant from the reality then it will most probably not be followed and fail.

[@kareemmasri3934]

But we also have plea deals, undercover cops and criminal informants, so even THEY need to bend the rules a little.

[@valecrassus7835]

Can't get behind this take at all. The twist of this film isn't that she's the villain and not the hero. It's that Alejandro is the protagonist, and she (we) just thinks she's the protagonist, and is actually a powerless observer. A representative of the law refusing to resort to trickery, murder, and mayhem to achieve their goals is not a villain, not by any stretch of the imagination. What Kate runs into is the fact that her way of doing things---legally, above board, and beyond reproach---is not working. It's not that she's ignoring getting results in favor of "her" way of doing things. She is operating within what she has been taught is the letter of the law. Moreover, she's lied to (certainly and at least by omission) about what the task force is really doing. At the end of the day, all Kate is guilty of is refusing to sink to the level of the true villains---that is, picking lethal fights ("dramatically overreacting"), torturing prisoners, and turning loose a noncitizen assassin to murder the villain (and his entire family, including children)---to get some results. Results that in no way brings peace or saves lives on either side of the border, not really. It just ostensibly makes the situation slightly more manageable on the US side of the equation. This is exactly why Alejandro's last words are to admonish Kate to go somewhere far from the border, some small town where the rule of law still exists---someplace her ideals can still be practiced and result in justice.

[@PussyBateman]

You should make a video. This is 100% accurate unlike whatever I just wasted time watching.

[@judeannethecandorchannel2153]

Beautiful analysis! Radical, but not unjustified. I'm less comfortable calling Kate a villian (intentions count and her intentions aren't evil, she just can't reconcile her naive ideals with reality). Her growth is from certitude to confusion and ambivalence. That's her growth. But positing Alejandro as the real protagonist, I love that. I don't take it literally but as a way of highlighting that his crusade is the only fully motivated one and motivated at such a deep level. He was a notoriously driven prosecutor. He took great risk to put the murderous cartels destroying his country and terrorizing it's people behind bars. Then his family was gruesomely murdered by the cartels to send him and all like him a message. But instead of drinking himself to death or some other ineffectual response--he combined his desire to bring criminals to justice with his new need for Revenge. This makes him a pretty unstoppable Avenging Angel. What gives us pause is what happens the the cartel leader's innocent children. The leader, and his wife--they chose their path. Those child were innocent bystanders. At least what Alejandro did was swift and in that way somewhat merciful. Not like the depraved way his family was murdered. Sicario is a Great Movie. I would say Kate is an unsympathetic protagonist because her goals are incoherent. She wants to make a difference And she wants to defend methods that make No difference. Again, her arc is from naive, self righteous certitude to profound confusion. That's not an inspiring place for her to end up but it is a much more adult place for her to be. She'll have to integrate what she's learned and reinvent herself. Alejandro is the hidden co protagonist. His pursuit of justice before and after the murder of he's family is the unexpected, originally unrevealed emotional core of the film. That's why the climax is all about him. His terrible ultimate victory, that will strain his soul forever because those children were the collateral damage... Profound, unanswerable, heart breaking. What other choice did he have?? I have some further thoughts on the film which I'll add as comments to this.

[@judeannethecandorchannel2153]

My reactions to "Sicario: An Exploration of Good and Evil" kzbin.info/www/bejne/iHOrlKeNn7Sorc0 5:20 "Some people find it jarring..." Yes! I noticed that when I saw the film just last night. It almost felt like I was suddenly watching a different movie. Throughout it had either been Kate's fish out of water perspective or an ensemble of perspectives. Then suddenly the most impactful thing in the movie happens, and we're just with Alejandro in an intense way for a relatively extended period. But You're Right--that deviation from formal continuity is justified by the tremendous weight of the scene. No one is on the inside the way Alejandro is. He's paid the ultimate price in what happened to his family. He's the most wounded. His reaction in the dinner scene is far and anyway the most morally daunting event in the movie. However swiftly, he includes two complete innocents in his retribution. (I'm trying to keep this comment spoiler free. Forgive the vague abstractions.) I could ponder forever whether I'm apalled by what Alejandro did in the climax. And in the denouement. A man with a lesser excuse would disgust me. But Alejandro has the ultimate justification for his campaign of revenge... Beautifully morally ambitious, creating truly uncomfortable moral ambivalence. I wish life weren't this way--but while it is, I have infinite respect for filmmakers who can reveal that to us while we sit safely in our living rooms. It is a deep lesson that anyone who wishes to live in reality needs to learn... * I wouldn't say that the distraction between good and evil in the end is a children's game (The soccer game to me shows innocent life already interrupted and filled with fear and resignation by the cartel.) Despicable though Matt and Alejandro's methods may be, they're trying to curb brutal murders. I only saw 3/4 of the film when I caught it already in progress on TV last night. But the children in the dinner were the only innocents I saw the members of Matt's team kill. It's not a moral equivalence. It's a profound blurring of moral distinctions that doesn't erase them. If these truly want to help, they should do what Milton Freedman and do many others have recommended: Legalize drugs. As things stand: Recreational users are looking to alter their mood and consciousness. Just as those who drink legal alcohol and smoke now semi legal pot do. But their preferred way of doing so comes with the incredible moral tax of knowing that their usage supports these animals. It's the law that inspires the crime. Addiction would go up somewhat, but we could relocate resources to helping addicts. And we'd be disincentivizing these vicious cartels from continuing their illegal trade and protecting it by gruesomely murdering any one who gets in their way. As happened to Alejandro's family. (You referred to him as a former hit man. In the dinner scene the top boss calls him "the grieving lawyer," I thought he was originally a lawyer (probably an idealist taking risks to make a difference) who's family was targeted by the cartels to be murdered to intimidate and punish Alejandro. That in itself, and their killing methods (merciful to innocents versus depraved) distinguishes them.) The legal pot trade can be unethical in various ways, but it does not inspire the cruel crimes it did when pot was illegal (see Savages). Radical though it is, we pretty clearly should legalize drugs and stop trying to control the choices that adults make about whether and what substances to use. So long as we don't--we're creating the cartels. You can blame the users, but without the law prices would drop, the drug trade could be regulated, and the incentive to rip these countries about to pursue High profit crime would be gone. So who's supporting and Creating the cartel? The users, or those keeping an unenforceable law in place? Maybe the real evil is lack of courage in the political class, using a fig leaf law to show their decency and thereby creating indecency.

[@snowhuskybaalkaii8621]

This a classic and quite excellent technique displayed here that is about projecting in the story the average viewer and his/her mundane beliefs as a side character , where his beliefs are confronted ( and dismantled ) by the other "main" characters to involve the viewers more into the story . Here it is done masterfully , and that is one of the multiple aspects that made Sicario a gem .

[@glacialimpala]

if Kate was supposed to be the audience how come everyone came out pissed off at her sabotaging almost every chance she had? If that was the aim then only a civilian could be a suitable role. We expect more from the people who have to have a certain psych profile to even set foot in the FBI

[@SN-sk8co]

Jeez man, you missed the whole point of the movie.

[@NickHunter]

thank you

[@SN-sk8co]

@sneef Ha another one

[@SN-sk8co]

@sneef Yea with such a smart and cool statement like that I'm very sure you have understood the point of the movie.

[@SN-sk8co]

@sneef Smart and idiotic, well done brother. You should be a movie critic. A certified ham roll of a movie critic.

[@SN-sk8co]

@sneef This movie is one heck of a movie. Just stating that there really isnt a hero or villian in this movie. Point of Emily blunt's character is to show the difference between good and bad, moral compass of getting a job done. Just my opinion. That's what so good about this movie. One can have so many views. Sure some ppl think benicio is a villian, SJWs that is.

[@daddylongleg-zx9wz]

Dude, excellent presentation

[@jerrysstories711]

I think about this video every time I see a clip from Sicario.

[@beorntwit711]

"She's not appealing to some higher authority or rule of law..." Yes. She is. Kate has an inner moral compass that doesn't require her to ask her superiors for what's right. So when her superior tells her "don't worry about breaking the law" that doesn't do anything for her. In fact, her morality is a source of strength vs usual crime. It's just that rule of law isn't made for existential threats. This reminds me of Dale in Walking Dead, arguing for a trial vs killing a captive who might give away their position. Rule of law is for threats to public order, not existential threats. Like Dale, she has a hard time of adapting to a crueler, less stable world, clinging on to what makes her a very good LAW ENFORCEMENT agent. And while, in the face of all this chaos and violence, the "good guys" (Matt and Alejandro) seem to be in the right, it doesn't take much googling to find examples when "taking the pragmatic approach" has actually led to even more chaos, violence, or simply corruption. Eg. that's the whole premise of the amazing show called The Shield.

[@georgek3686]

The cartels are hardly an existential threat. I would recommend reading the book "Exceptionalism and the Politics of Counter-Terrorism" by Andrew W. Neal. It offers a very authoritative take on the notions of "exception", "rule of law", "security vs liberty" etc. Exceptional practices have historically proven to not work in combating what is made to be thought of as an existential threat. On the contrary, they achieve quite the opposite; reproducing the conditions that give birth to the threats they are supposed to deal with.

[@ruckerrc]

One shot, one kill. Great analysis of her character, motivation and actions. Noble intentions can have bad outcomes and bad intentions can have noble outcomes. The way of the world.

[@Jlnorman42]

"the road to hell is paved in good intentions"?

[@kinkyafro01]

Tell that to the cartel leader's kids. "Noble outcomes" my ass.

[@kinkyafro01]

What does this article have to do with the problem. Are you saying that killing those kids led directly to saving someone else's life? I don't think so. It was just revenge. He could have let the kids go like let the maid go. Your trolley argument only exists if that the lives of the five and the life of the one are directly and simultaneously linked and you are forced into making a choice. Almost as if you have a gun pointed at your head by a mad man. Were those the conditions under which alejandro was operating under? Or did he sneak into the house of his enemy and kill his children and wife in front of him? To make him suffer. For revenge. There were no lives at stake at that dinner table.

[@01MeuCanal]

Not exactly. If one fights against evil, kill the evil and at the end of the war becomes the evil, theres no outcoming victory! The real defeat is not death. The real defeat is to become the evil. For example: Martin Luther King was killed but he won! Alejandro wants revenge. Matt just wants victory at any cost. Kate is completely right when she fights to keep her values. The movie depicts a complex situation the causes every kinds of conflicts. Personal conflicts and legal conflicts. I think every characters in the movie are in some kind of conflict trying to find a path.

[@kinkyafro01]

Well you know what I mean. The cartel boss was dead and he deserved his fate.

[@TheJustina102085]

I love these movies; also interesting take, I like it!

[@mark.8949]

I would have signed off with everything they did, no questions asked. Alejandro brings me the papers, I sign them, and know they are doing the right thing.

[@samuelbush2765]

Missed the point The movie is about how the brutal reality of the drug war in Mexico causes bleed-in in America, tempting federal officials into breaking the law and violating people's constitutional rights within the borders of the US. The "book" she refers to is US statute and case law, including habeas corpus, search & seizure laws, international agreements against torture. That's the point of showing them repeatedly torturing suspects. Kate represents a straightforward, law-based perspective towards law enforcement. Her superior telling her "everything is OK" is the same phenomenon as when leaders in GITMO told their soldiers they weren't committing violations of the Geneva Conventions (even though they were), the SS leaders telling their soldiers nothing bad was happening in the camps, etc etc - there's always some suit saying "this is OK" In the end Kate is convinced to break the law and file a false report because an assassin (whom we now understand and empathize with) threatens to kill her, representing the complete replacement of the rule of law. Kate isn't a villain and you don't struggle to like her because she's evil - you struggle to like her because you're taken in in the same way that the CIA officers are, convinced by the reality of the situation that "actually, when it comes to *really bad* criminals suddenly the law is less important than doing the right thing" The drug Lord and the creeping corruption within the CIA is the villain of the film, not Kate

[@MeuFilho-EL]

Tks. But i get the impression that the real conflic is what morality is for the subject in question. I explain: In heinlein's book, starshiptroppers, it is stated the only moral imperative of living beings is survival. From this moral imperative, it is possible to "climb the stair" from individual self interest towards family interest or higher interest (nation, species). The conflict i undestood was about core principles of institutions, even when both institutions use the same means, the aptitude of violence. -> CIA is a subject that is competing in an international theater with lots of enemies, its core "modus operandi" is survival by attack, meaning killing enemies. -> FBI is a subject that is competing in a national theater with lots of allies ( since crime or felony is a social deviance, therefore and exception), its core "modus operandi" is survival by defence, meaning stability (arrest, prision, detention, "the book"). What do you think ?

[@thatbasedfeliscatus577]

@@MeuFilho-EL you make a good point.

[@jp.dlamini]

This movie, man... The dialogue, the tension, the disquiet. Utterly spectacular movie.

[@fldi17]

Your point shake me totally! So, I'm gonna watch this movie again with a brain new perspective. Amazing Kane, thanks!

[@SaintZombie1]

Thank you for this. After watching this last night, and I've seen it several times before, I was like her character is, "I'm going to HR to complain " or " I'm telling the teacher ". Nobody likes a tattletale. Lol

[@Iyindu]

Boy, this is some convoluted logic.

[@felldoh9271]

the perfection of this movie is that she's simultaneously the villain, bystander, audience, a sheep, etc.

[@oscararellano4767]

I remember watching this movie and yelling "why is she here " 😆

[@jimreadey4837]

Awesome breakdown!