'The Purge: Anarchy' Takes Aim at the One Percent

The absurd extremes of this story have an expansive quality that leaves acres of room to explore its moral, political, and socioeconomic possibilities. But it doesn't.

The Purge: Anarchy

Director: James DeMonaco
Cast: Frank Grillo, Carmen Ejogo, Zach Gilford, Kiele Sanchez, Zoë Soul, Edwin Hodge, Michael K. Williams
Rated: R
Studio: Universal Pictures
Year: 2014
US date: 2014-07-18

Frank Grillo’s Sergeant in The Purge: Anarchy is armed to the teeth and looking for vengeance, just like almost everybody else out on Purge night. Unlike almost everybody else, though, he's a good guy. We know this because, when he sees working mom Eva (Carmen Ejogo) and her daughter Cali (Zoë Soul) being dragged into a truck by a grim-looking crew, Sergeant only hesitates for those crucial few seconds required of every reluctant hero. After that, he spends the rest of the movie driving around accompanied by this pair, and also a bickering married couple, Shane (Zach Gilford) and Liz (Kiele Sanchez).

By dropping a textbook action hero like Sergeant into the mayhem of the Purge, writer/director James DeMonaco dilutes some of the moral uncertainty that jangled up the home-invasion plot of last year’s The Purge. In that clever bit of exploitation science fiction along with horror, DeMonaco introduced the setting: a near-future America where a government run by the “New Founding Fathers” has instituted an annual 12-hour period when any crime is allowed.

The stated purpose, repeated mantra-like throughout Anarchy, is to “cleanse the beast”. Of course, the idea that a half-day of legal savagery, when some people lock themselves indoors and pray for daylight while others roam the streets looking for blood, would reduce crime or unemployment is ridiculous on its face. But as a license for creating crisply told and politically resonant exploitation filmmaking, it’s close to perfect.

In the first film, the ridiculous rationale left open the suggestion that the Purge's real purpose was even uglier. What if the big night isn't a means to purge unwanted impulses, but rather, a way to get rid of unwanted people? In Anarchy, the politics read loud and clear. Sergeant and his carload of charges face down everyone from flamethrower-wielding ATV rednecks to storm troopers cruising around in armored big rigs and nihilist skateboard punks with ghostface makeup and machetes.

In between these episodes, DeMonaco offers signs pointing to the ritual's foundations in class warfare. When the band comes across a corpse bound with barbed wire over a bank entrance, the camera lingers on the sign around his neck explaining that he was a stockbroker who robbed the killer’s pension. Anti-Purge revolutionary Carmelo (Michael K. Williams) makes the case more persuasively: “Who dies tonight?” he shouts during an agitprop video. “The poor. We can’t afford to defend ourselves.”

We see this underlined by the film's setting in a generic downtown (Los Angeles skyline and streetscape mixed with the odd Manhattan subway entrance). Where the suburban McMansions of the first film are fully armored, here the working poor can only brace their apartment doors and shiver behind them with handguns.

DeMonaco underlines that sentiment with a pop Marxist fervor. First he litters the screen with ironic flags and pointedly holds the camera on cash whenever it appears. One character even offers himself up to a rich family who want to purge safely from home in order to give his working-stiff daughter $100,000. There even comes a scene where tuxedoed swells bid on the chance to hunt the captured in a controlled arena; their death-mask-like grins and the nightmare theater resemble David Lynch Lite, but the hunt itself is straight B-flick action fodder.

This is the largest problem with Anarchy. Too often, when the film starts to get interesting, DeMonaco falls back on cliché. As a sequel, it is both more ambitious and workmanlike than its predecessor. The absurd extremes of DeMonaco’s story have an expansive quality that leaves acres of room to explore its moral, political, and socioeconomic possibilities.

"We’re anti-Purge in this household,” says a woman who briefly offers Sergeant and his party refuge. Such offhanded references to the question of why some people purge and others don't are left hanging. Speedy and efficient, the film works within an exploitation narrative idiom, but doesn't pursue the radical political questions that propel the best examples of the genre.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.