I am happy to admit that I was wrong about this film because, if you are a Republican, there is an awful lot to like! I can understand some of the critical complaints against the film, but it doesn’t warrant the rotten ratings it has received; what would warrant rotten ratings, from a Democrat/Liberal critic at least, is the way it skips the psychoanalytic double and goes straight for the psychoanalytic triple to lay serious charges at the feet of President Obama.
Snow (Guy Pearce) is seen to have shot an agent that he was supposedly protecting but the head of the investigation against him Langral (Peter Stormare) was actually seeing Snow in a mirror, hence, only seeing a part of what was really happening. Shaw (Lennie James) seems to be a good guy but when Snow hands him the briefcase containing state secrets that had gone missing, Shaw knows the combination; when Shaw opens it and sees there’s nothing in it, he’s mistaken: there is an invisible mirror in the briefcase, and just as Langral saw Snow in the mirror, so Snow sees Shaw in the mirror of the briefcase’s emptiness and knows that Shaw knowing the combination makes him the one selling out America. The false reflection of Snow committing espionage against America is countered by the accurate reflection of Shaw committing espionage against America. Why is this important?
Lockout does this throughout the entire film, consistently, delivering such a tight script that it's really enjoyable just seeing how the script plays itself out.
There are two sets of codes needing to be broken in the film: encrypted codes and identity codes (who is who). The briefcase combination is one code that has to be broken in the film; the other is the mysterious encryption “I see you, I foresee you,” which has to be figured out to get to the briefcase to discover who the real spy is. Why is this little game important? Because, according to the film, someone in a very high position within in the government is selling out on America, and Lockout is saying, “I see you,” and what you are doing, and that means “I foresee you” in what you are going to do. That person is the president of the United States, not just in the film, but in real life.
Please remember, that I am not intentionally grafting my personal political viewpoints onto the film: I will gladly admit to my interpretation of the trailer, how the film was going to use the prisoners to symbolize the Republicans who had re-gained control of the House of Representatives in the last round of elections, and the film was positing that American voters had acquired brain stagnation and now the Republicans were holding Obamacare hostage (the president’s daughter, that which he has “given birth to,” and bears his name, the health care program) and the near-sighted Republicans (the psycho inmate with a blind eye) were going to intentionally crash the prison into the eastern seaboard and destroy the United States. This is exactly the kind of insulting film I foresaw and I still went to go see it, fully prepared to have mud dumped all over me.
There are two sets of codes needing to be broken in the film: encrypted codes and identity codes (who is who). The briefcase combination is one code that has to be broken in the film; the other is the mysterious encryption “I see you, I foresee you,” which has to be figured out to get to the briefcase to discover who the real spy is. Why is this little game important? Because, according to the film, someone in a very high position within in the government is selling out on America, and Lockout is saying, “I see you,” and what you are doing, and that means “I foresee you” in what you are going to do. That person is the president of the United States, not just in the film, but in real life.
Please remember, that I am not intentionally grafting my personal political viewpoints onto the film: I will gladly admit to my interpretation of the trailer, how the film was going to use the prisoners to symbolize the Republicans who had re-gained control of the House of Representatives in the last round of elections, and the film was positing that American voters had acquired brain stagnation and now the Republicans were holding Obamacare hostage (the president’s daughter, that which he has “given birth to,” and bears his name, the health care program) and the near-sighted Republicans (the psycho inmate with a blind eye) were going to intentionally crash the prison into the eastern seaboard and destroy the United States. This is exactly the kind of insulting film I foresaw and I still went to go see it, fully prepared to have mud dumped all over me.
But that’s not what happened.
![]() |
| Hydell, the psycho inmate who starts the riot. There are some striking similarities between Lockout and Wrath of the Titans, for example, Hydell is the brother of Alex (the prisoner who assumes leadership and hunts down Snow and Emilie, pictured below) just as Hades and Zeus are brothers; chaos is unleashed when the prisoners take over the floating prison crashing towards earth just like Kronos is chaos being released in Titans. Whereas Kronos in Titans symbolizes the chaos of the American Revolutionary War, the prisoners rioting and the prison falling from the sky symbolizes the the general chaos that has been building as a result of decisions of the Obama administration; how can I prove this? President Obama basically ended NASA, the country's space program by ending funding for it and in Lockout, it's private companies that have been experimenting on prisoners for understanding long-term space exploration. I am a capitalist, but it seems the Obama administration (and Lockout seems to be making this point as well) is doing what it shouldn't (playing doctor) and not doing what it should (regulating outer space experiments). There will probably be a sequel, and the film does a great job of highlighting funding conflicts between Emilie's charity and the company funding the floating prison (it's privately operated, the government has nothing to do with it). The prison falling out of the sky and potentially onto the eastern coast of the United States is, again, the general and backwards chaos from the way the administration has handled the Constitution (the eastern seaboard of the US is where the colonies were born and where this country and our ideals were born). There's another aspect to him: he continuously reminded me of Noah (Adrien Brody) from The Village in his mannerisms and intellectual ineptitude. Just as the villagers in that film had sought refuge from the violence of life in seclusion, so the people of the US sought safety in secluding the prisoners in orbit, but the boundaries were breached (films will reference other films like this to extend commentary so it doesn't have to waste its own time, but can still provide additional dialogue with its audience). |
There's a great deal more that can be said, but this is at least a start, and one more film that aligns itself against Washington. Towards the end, the president is asked to give permission to launch an assault on the prison and he refuses because his daughter is up there; even after she tells him to blow up the prison, he still won't, and so Langral has overthrown the president's power to preserve the safety of the country; maybe, instead of playing golf this weekend, the president should go see Lockout...









17 comments:
What a bunch of psycho-babble crap. This proves that there is nothing you can't find something political in to bitch about. It's just a fun movie. Why not leave it at that?
Dear Anonymous,
I do agree with you, it was a fun movie! I loved the part where Snow had dyed Emilie's hair and punches her so she will blend in and be safe; they are getting ready to go into the prisoner's general holding area and Emilie's so scared she tries to take Snow's hand and he says, "Dude, you're a dude."
The reason it's a fun film is because it's cathartic: Lockout (like all art) expresses our needs, frustrations, hopes and fears; if you don't buy into that, it's fine, but you have to be consistent. Either art never ever means anything, or it always means something, even when it disagrees with what you believe and think (as I wrote in the post above, I thought Lockout was going to be extremely offensive to Republicans but I went and saw it anyway). It's fine if you disagree with my reading of the film, but offer a counter-reading or point out specific problems with my reading, please articulate what you are saying.
Thank you for taking the time to leave your comments, I am glad that you enjoyed the film!
Though I agree with Anonymous here, I'll at least try to explain why.
You seem to have(at least in this case) confused art with allegory. Additionally, being "consistent" doesn't mean "always or never". It just means "usually". Art does indeed usually have meaning, but that doesn't necessitate a hidden, convoluted meaning as your review here seems to suggest.
I've worked on productions myself and I know that direction and design decisions are almost always purposeful rather than merely whims of fancy. I also know that Luc Besson is responsible for some very enjoyable, deep, well made action films. Having said that, I can say with total confidence that you have read entirely too much into this movie. It is NOT a political allegory that concerns the current US administration.
Dear PF102,
Thank you very much for your authoritative and well articulated comment, it is most appreciated. I know few people have time to spend reading blogs such as mine, so when they take the additional time to leave thoughts, comments, suggestions and the like, it means even more.
Just as you are confident that the film doesn't mean anything, so I am confident in my interpretation. It is quite simple: either all art means something, or none of it does. If someone decides that sometimes art means something, and other times it doesn't, that sets up--to use a strong word--tyranny, because then only one person can decide whether it means something and what that meaning is. If someone doesn't like the interpretation offered by someone, then they simply say that's not what it means.... please, there is a difference between you just not liking what I am saying (if, for example, you happen to be a Obama supporter) and me actually having done a bad job in understanding the film. That isn't the circumstance. If you just don't like what I have said, please say that instead.
It must be very exciting work you do on productions, however, once the director and producers have publicly released a film, they have publicly released their authority over it, and it exists for public consumption, including interpretation. Regardless of what a film crew did or did not mean when they made certain decisions, if they do not make those decisions to completely and clearly communicate with the audience, then the film makers have failed, not the audience.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to leave your comments, they have been most appreciated and helpful!
First off, I would like to point out that I never said the film meant nothing. Simply that it was not intended to contain this hidden meaning that you have somehow attached to it. Part of me believes that you know this, as you point out that once the film is presented to the public, it is open to each audience members’ interpretation regardless of what the people who made the film actually intended to say (if anything). Though you mention in your review that you are not “intentionally grafting [your] personal political viewpoints onto the film”, I have a strong feeling that you did indeed graft political viewpoints onto a film where they do not exist.
Having an opinion is one thing, but when you say “we know all films are encoded because that’s what makes them art instead of documentaries” you start bending (breaking) the truth. To begin with, documentaries are indeed considered art. The difference between documentary films and other films is that a documentary deals in nonfiction and attempts to document either something that has happened or something that is happening. They can be edited to elicit emotions from the viewers, and can sometimes be colored by the opinions and viewpoints of the film makers.
As for non-documentary films always being encoded, well that simply isn’t true. As I said before, everyone is welcome to their own opinions and interpretations, but by saying all films are encoded you’re implying that the hidden codes/meanings were put there on purpose by the film makers. Though this is true in some cases, it is certainly not true in most cases. Sometimes when a character is wearing a green shirt, it is only because we don’t want you to confuse them with the character in the red shirt. Even having worked in stage productions where the actors, directors, and designers try to use everything at their disposal to convey characters, settings, and actions, I can truly say that sometimes a blue sky is just a blue sky.
This idea that art must always have meaning or never have meaning is a logical fallacy. Some art does indeed have an underlying meaning, some art is instead meant to evoke an emotion or reaction, and some art is simply a representation of a person, place, or thing in time (can be either real or imaginary). What makes art artistic (whether it’s film, painting, sculpture, food presentation, automobile design, etc.) is in the method of depiction, the medium used, the crafting skill, the originality, and much more.
The reason I decided to post in your blog was not because we have differing opinions, but rather because I felt like I was seeing something erroneously presented as fact. If all you had said was something along the lines of “hey, I saw this awesome action film the other day, and it was really weird but parts of it made me think of how terrible Obama and socialized healthcare are. This is how I personally interpreted Lockout…”, I would have just though “that’s really weird…” and moved on. Instead you wrote a very detailed blog post on how this straight up action film about convicts depicts the problems with the PPACA, a link which I still confidently say does not exist. Don’t get me wrong, I love films that contain subtle layers with elusive meanings and hidden references, but Lockout simply isn’t that type. As such I will use your very words and say yes, you did a bad job in understanding this film.
I should also mention that my personal political views have nothing to do with my criticism of your review. If I had read your review of the trailer where you had the opposite impression of the film in question, I would have still argued that you had a gravely mistaken interpretation of what this film is all about.
It should also be noted that the original concept from this movie came from Luc Besson, a Frenchman, and was probably conceived long before Obamacare ever existed (perhaps even before Obama was elected president). Additionally, it was co-written and co-directed by a pair of Irishmen. This film was conceived by a European, written by Europeans, directed by Europeans, and produced by a European production company. If anything, you should expect glowing praise for US President Obama’s move towards universal healthcare.
Oh, and a bit off topic but I just HAD to make mention of it. You write in your review that "President Obama basically ended NASA" which is simply not true. Funnily enough, the link you included is to an article that specifies the funding cut to the Constellation program (manned moon missions) which is only a very small part of what NASA actually does. I am VERY interested in space exploration so misinformation like this really stands out for me and I feel compelled to address it. Though as a big proponent for increasing spending in fields of science and technology, the defunding of NASA's manned space missions was a sad note for me, there is a big difference between saying "Obama basically ended NASA" and correctly saying "Obama brought certain NASA programs to an end".
Dear PF102,
First of all, please, DO FORGIVE me for not getting back with your comments; they were posted when I had become ill and I misplaced the emails notifying me of your posts and have just realized that I neglected to respond. I am DEEPLY SORRY for the terrible lag time between your comments and my response.
First, permit me to state what we probably agree on: CONSISTENCY IS NEVER A LOGICAL FALLACY. I think we both agree that art always means something, whether it is accessible or not to the viewer, but meaning in art CANNOT BE ARBITRARY to suit the viewer/interpreter, e.g., art only means something when it suits my viewpoints and political position. I vehemently disagree with you about documentaries: documentaries might be able to do something ARTISTICALLY, but that doesn't mean they are art (case in point, anything by Kenneth Burns, fabulous shows, BUT THEY ARE NOT ART).
Please, demonstrate where the "rules of art" are written, and how I am breaking them, because in the seven years I have studied film and art, I have never seen them.
PF102, in spite of all your writing, I really can't help but feel that you are really just trying to sensor me. What's the big deal? So what if a low-key film doesn't support the president, it's called "Freedom Of Speech." If you really had ANY POINTS that were in your favor, you could easily just offer a counter-reading of the film that would go against mine. BOTH READINGS WOULD BE VALID, they would NOT be mutually exclusive (only one reading being "correct" and the other being "incorrect"). There have been numerous pro-Obama and anti-capitalist films the past year, this just isn't one of them, but if you think it isn't then please, don't hesitate to use elements WITHIN THE FILM to support your position instead of just telling me that I am wrong because I know you are not a dictator, but that's the kind of things dictators do when they want to censor someone.
About the space exploration: I do apologize if I didn't provide an adequate link and mis-understood the current administration's stance on NASA; so? That doesn't change anything in the film or the analysis I have provided, it's extra-topical and doesn't matter anyway, I misunderstood an issue and I DO APOLOGIZE for that, and I do thank you for correcting me on it!
Again, there are lots of socialist films out there for you to enjoy, The Descendants, The Hunger Games, Pirates! Band Of Misfits, Dark Shadows, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, but Lockout isn't one of those, unless you can demonstrate it is. If you decide to, I very much and eagerly anticipate your interpretation and thank you in advance for sharing it! Again, please accept my apologies for the delay in getting back with you!
Best regards!
I stopped reading at "there was an invisible mirror inside the briefcase"
Really stretching it, aren't you?
And after reading all of the comments, I feel like I should write something worth more than my above comment.
For a pretext, I didn't bother reading your 'interpretation' past a few seconds of skimming, and of course the initial few paragraphs. I did however, read the comments, in particular the conversation with PF102.
I'm not sure if there was a huge gap of time that passed in between your reading and your response, if you simply went over a few key points he made, or if you are just being stubborn.
For example, "First, permit me to state what we probably agree on: CONSISTENCY IS NEVER A LOGICAL FALLACY. I think we both agree that art always means something."
PF102 said the EXACT opposite, in that ART DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN SOMETHING.
You consistently state that it is up to the interpreter whether or not art always means something, or art never means anything. The actual ARTIST is what dictates the meaning behind a piece of art. Whether you interpret it the way the artist intends or not is up to you.
I can however tell you, that based on the background of the film's crew, the general feeling of the movie, and the timeframe in which the story was constructed, that this is not a criticism, and actually in no way related to President Obama.
I'll state it again, you reach way too far in many of your analogies to tie it into our current Administration.
There is no censoring going on, you are either being paranoid, or, you are attempting poorly veiled ad-hominem argument.
His views on this movie, and in particular in your mis-guided interpretation of this movie, fit under our Freedom of Speech.
Telling someone they are wrong is not analogous to someone being a dictator. I'll tell you right now, you are wrong, I don't care if you believe your fantasy that you have created about this movie (as much as I may try to convince you otherwise), honestly, it does not make a difference in my life, or even my day.
As for the next part of your most recent comment. It is not up to anyone, except for yourself, to take elements from the film to support their position. It is up to you, as the accuser to prove your case. The accused (or whoever is trying to defend the accused) only has to disprove your arguments. You can't grab for something that doesn't exist. This goes along the lines of "You can't prove a negative."
And Lastly, the comment section is not for others to post their own interpretations, it is comments about the original post. I find it offensive that you take these comments, skim over them, and accuse the writers of the comments of being dictators, because they do not agree with you. Seems ironic to me.
Dear YoBroseidon,
I posted my comment from last night before having finished all of it so I deleted it to complete my response to your comments. I would like to begin with your last statement first: "The comment section is not for others to post their own interpretations, it is comments it is comments about the original post." I habitually INVITE all others to post their own interpretations and insights of films so we can all benefit from a collective effort; there is no wrong or right answers, only those observations which are "more fruitful" or "more engaging" than one-dimensional answers.
Secondly, AGAIN, I would like to point out that I didn't even want to see Lockout, thinking that it was going to be an anti-Republican film, but I went anyway, and if it had been an anti-Republican film, I still would have posted on that and what I saw as the "tensions and structure" of the film instead of making up my own structure which would not be supported by the story of the film. Thirdly, you are reading this post in an isolated context: it exists within the context of all my other posts which I have tried to consistently be "accurate," clearly indicating how Dark Shadows, The Three Musketeers, The Descendants, The Hunger Games, Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, Pirates! Band Of Misfits, etc., are all anti-capitalist or pro-socialist. To make your statements about me and this blog based on one post which you skimmed over briefly is probably not something which you would want someone to do to you.
Further, if the artist is, as you suggest, the only one who decies IF there is any meaning and what that meaning is, then, again, why isn't there a pamphlet handed out when we go into/exit movies, TELLING US what to understand, what the meaning is? Your thesis doesn't reflect reality in any culture at any time. If you don't want to believe that there is any meaning to art, that is fine, IT REALLY IS! But when a film or painting comes along that supports YOUR ideas, art can't suddenly have meaning, and it can't suddenly be devoid of meaning when it supports my ideas; that is what I mean by being a dictator.
AGAIN, if you would like to PROVE that Lockout doesn't mean what I have sought to demonstrate it means, then PROVE that I am wrong by using the story, plot and devices, don't just TELL me that I am wrong, offer your own interpretation for all to read and judge, just as I have.
I disagree with you about the inside of the briefcase being a mirror: Snow was accused of being guilty BECAUSE OF A MIRROR, so it's fitting that the guilty person be condemned by a mirror and Snow cleared by a mirror; it's called structure.
Thank you for responding,
I do apologize for the statement about the purpose of the comment section - it is your blog, you can do whatever you want with it.
It does not matter if you wanted to see it, or you didn't. You walked into the movie looking for a political agenda, am I correct?
And don't worry, I do see the socialist, or anti-capitalist themes in the other movies you listed - I don't think you're a complete lunatic, just that you're stretching in this instance. There isn't a pamphlet given out because movies are for a broader audience - the average movie-goer would not care about interpretations of a movie. Not to mention if there was a pamphlet describing what an Artist wanted you to take-away from his film, the effect would be so much less. An artist wants you to come to a conclusion by yourself, giving you an "ahhh" moment. If you knew what an artist was trying to convey before you even saw the movie you would definitely be less convinced by whatever he was trying to portray, just because you didn't reach a conclusion by yourself.
Once again, it is not up to me to prove anything. As the author of this blog, it is up to you to convince me, without a doubt, that this movie means what you say it means. I may be the only person on this one, but even if it structurally makes sense, if you could not actually see it in the movie, then don't infer that it happened (with exceptions). In this post, I am of course talking again about the "invisible mirror," we saw no mirror in the briefcase (and if there was one, I promise you the director would have made a point to show it). The extreme stretching, just in this one example, threw me off to your whole interpretation.
Dear YoBroseidon,
Thank you very much for all your statements; it appears that perhaps we just have a disagreement. I promise you, I am not selling anything, so please don't feel that you have to buy it. I LOVE films and art. I hope to help others engage in art through their OWN VOICE. I hope that by pointing out things which others might not have noticed, they might--in either agreeing with me or disagreeing with me--come to their own conclusion because that's the purpose of art, that's why every culture throughout history has art and cherishes it and continues to produce it, because it is necessary to our identities. Your understanding of the film is as important to your identity as my understanding is to my own identity, because it reflects on a far deeper level who we are than normal, day-to-day events would permit us to explore if it were not for art and the possibilities of individuation which art makes possible for us. That's why, under no circumstances, could I ever convince you or anyone of an interpretation, because my interpretation is reflective of my reflections, just as yours are of you. Even if I convinced you, that would leave millions of people who then would not be convinced, so there's never one, stable, unchanging interpretation to a film; that's why art such as The Legend Of Sleepy Hollow, Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup Can or the Sistine Chapel are still important to us today and will continue to be so for future generations: everyone will be able to reflect, in at least a small way, on how that art reflects themselves.
Only the very best wishes to you and my deepest thanks for your comments and challenges!
It's psychoanalytical, not psychoanalytic, you confused, pretentious fool.
Shaw could not be so stupid as to open it. That was a great mistake in the scenario.
Dear Anonymous (July 20),
I will not, for a moment, deny that I am a poor fool: I have studied far too much to ever begin to suggest that I know even a gram of the glories of the world's knowledge; I deeply regret if I have come across as "pretentious," as you suggest, but, alas, there is a difference between a person being pretentious and a person holding steadfastly to what they believe and not folding under attack. If you will, please, research your own suggestion regarding the difference between "psychoanalytical" and "psychoanalytic," and you should find that both are perfectly acceptable.
Dear Anonymous (August 9),
I deeply, deeply regret, I haven't seen the film since it opened and it was so long ago that I don't recall what you are bringing up. I hope to see the film again very soon and will reply after I can refresh my memory on the film!
Post a Comment