Perhaps it was a mistake to think that any movie is relaxing after an exhausting day at work. Boondock Saints would definitely be on my "movies not to watch for relaxation" list (if there was one). In fact, I can say without qualms that it was one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. It wasn't so much from the sheer grittiness and the extreme profanity (although one can take only so much before it just begins to become annoying and even seem unrealistic), nor can I say the movie wasn't well made. Actually, it was the references to religion particularly, within the context of the story, that, although some would perhaps find this an added bonus, was what made me nauseous (figuratively speaking). Indeed, other than that opinion that would take killing "evil men" in the name of Christ as praisworthy, or other than another (perhaps more common) who find something definitely wrong with that picture, but cannot find the reason why doing such would be bad, I find the "religious" life of Connor and Murphy McManus to be nearly the exact inversion of the life of Christ.Take the scene in the courtroom near the end, after they joined forces with whom they earlier tried to kill in the big house brawl, the "firefight." Right before they kill one of the foremost mobsters in Boston and the one who killed Rocco, everyone in the courtroom are told:
"You people have been chosen to reveal our existence to the world, you will witness what happens here today and you will tell of it later."
Here, the inversion is most apparent: whereas the "saints" went around Boston killing the lowlifes and the most evil among them, for, as they say "it is your corrupt we
claim, it is your evil that will be struck by us," Christ's mission was the exact opposite. His work was the work of healing, of the restoration and redemption of the corrupt, of forgiveness and mercy of evil! And whereas the "saints" proclaimed loudly their work to the world and commanded that people "tell of it later," Christ, by contrast, commanded those whom he had healed not to tell anyone of what happened nor who did it. The latter point, I think, is the most profound, for it speaks not only of the mercy of Christ, but also his humility. The "saints" by contrast boasted about their deeds and had them proclaimed. They pray (if it can be called that), but never point to Christ for recognition. This is none other than the proud Pharisee. In short, the "saint's" religiosity is a joke. It holds little weight as religious at all, for it is entirely egoistic and essentially demonic. Since the "saints" claim to be "shepherds" and "stewards" of God, in spite of the favorable opinions expressed at the end of the film, Connor and Murphy's killings are far more severe and grave than the common criminal who might kill out of emotional anguish, need, or revenge. It is therefore not disordered to a lesser extent precisely because they claim to be enacting the justice of God, rather, precisely because they claim to be enacting the justice of God, the act is far more disordered. Justice is God's and God's alone, that is what
makes it the justice of God. It is impossible that this justice can be enacted by anyone other than God. Simply because we are not God, makes the deed all that more evil. I am thus reminded of another courtroom scene, but this time an ancient one called the Sanhedrin where Christ was tried before his crucifixion. One accusation was that he cast out devils (healed) by the power of the devil. The saints, on the other hand, kill by the power God. The first claims God's work (healing) is by demonic power, the other claims demonic work (killing) is holy. In either case, as Christ responded earlier to the accusation, "a house divided against itself cannot stand." The strict inversions of lives and worlds that constitutes the difference between the "saints" and Christ, shows that the accusation against Christ is extremely fallacious, while it it true for the "saints."
I watched the movie to conclusion only with the hope of seeing these damned punk kids from South Boston finally get what was coming to them. No satisfaction. But of course it must not and cannot be another with the same like-minded "religious" intent that would commit such a crime. For it would denude the deed of all religiosity. The other problems of the film not mentioned here are its extreme binary perspective that divides the world into the "good" and the "evil." Also, it is essentially Calvinistic and Moralistic. But I do not deny that unfortunately the same ideas are not really held.
