Review of Death Wish (1974) by Mikko L — 17 Jul 2008

I suppose Death Wish is a classic of its kind. I spawned four sequels after all. In the flick Charlie Bronson is a bleeding-heart liberal pacificst architect whose wife gets mugged and killed. If I was to shown mug shots of the culprits, I'd be able to recognize young Jeff Goldblum. Sick and tired of the crime on the streets of NYC, Bronson turns into a vigilante who sweeps the streets of NYC from hoodlums any time he confronts them, and he has this tendency to bumb into them often. He becomes a pet to the media and the great public, and, indeed, the publicity aroused by him causes the street crime rates in NYC to decrease substantially. This makes the police, and the district attorney, actually reluctant to apprehend him, even though they pick his trail relatively quickly. Finally he gets caught, and the police tells him to leave the city, and his gun will disappear in the river. Bronson then asks "By the sundown?" Kinda cool.

If I was to analyze this movie into deeper, which I won't, I'd say it's pretty basic movie by structure and plot. You can't make Charlie to look like a bleeding heart pacifict liberal no matter how hard you try. What touched me in this movie, was justice, and revenge. I'm not sure in which order. Now, I'm not all for vigilance, but then I am. Modern societys protect the hoodloms way past people's view of justice. I was once assaulted on a street. I kicked the assaulter in the head, and then reported him to the authoritiies. Before long, my doorbell rang, and there was a man delivering me a subpoena. Much to my surprise, I was being charged for assault. So, we ended up in the court, and my assaulter pleaded that he was too drunk to remember much of what happened but that I provoked him to bunch me. I had two wittnesses saying I wasn't. Now, in the Finnish justice system it is allowed to lie as much as you please as far as your own case is concerned. So, what happened after I had presented my case, the judge asked me "Did you kick this person in the night in question?" I said "Yes, sir." He then repeated the question "Are you sure that you kicked this person?". My reply was the same. He then asked me for the third time that "Are you quite sure that you kicked this person the night in question?" My bile raised, and I said that "I wasn't drunk, I kicked him in self-defence, and when he calmed down due to my kick, I no longer touched him. How many times do I have to repeat this?" You see, the judge knew the right state of affairs. He wanted to convict the person who assaulted me, but at the same time he propmpted me to lie. Had I said that I have no recollection of the events in that particular evening and I did not kick him, I would have been acquitted. Now I know better. The justice system is a failure. The next time someone assaults me, he will get his ass whooped, and no authorities will be involved in the case, even though I would like to have their records filled with convictions so that they'd end up doing time. But the law protects lunatics, and allows decent citizens no safety on the street or the right to defend themselves. The only right you have in the event of an assault, is to run away, and run like a hell, even if you were attacked by 140 cm tall migdget. Lay your hand on him, and you're screwed, as far as the justice system is concerned.