The Purge, who would be worse off?

[Lark]

You know the whole idea was featured in a really old episode of the original star trek too?

There was an AI computer which had been running a colony on a planet Kirk and co. visit, the planet's inhabitants obviously dont know that its a false religion and believe that for one night (or maybe it was one week) the spirit of this AI possesses them and they commit whatever misdeeds they choose, it features someone begging forgiveness from the father of a woman he has raped during the festival at one point, its all psychological suggestion but Kirk and Co. for a bit believe that it was possibly necessary for the planet to remain stable the rest of the year, I dont know, I think that's all a lot of Lorenzian or Freudian "hydrolyic" aggression and stuff which has since been proved invalid as theories go.

 

[cvp12gh5]

[MENTION=6281]CrazyBeautiful[/MENTION]

Oh definitely, and those tropes are what make the original movie. It implies all of them which is exactly why we don't see any resentful poor people or middle class attacking the neighborhood.

Token kid questions morality of the purge which sets up moral quagmire for the movie.

Kid spots convenient hunted black man and lets him in. It has to be a poor black man so they can deconstruct the stereotypes by having the kid let him in and show how he's innocent and just wants to live. i.e. they pick a black man to create tension which would not be present if it were a sharp dressed white businessman instead.

18 year old guy is dating the man's daughter against his wishes. Sneaks in before the purge lockdown to "talk" to her father. Soon as you see this guy it should be blatantly obvious that "talk" is going to mean "attempt to murder". He wouldn't be so conveniently placed there otherwise.

The black man goes missing in the house. The rich kids who were hunting him finally show up and demand him so they can finish the job, but he's nowhere to be found which sets off the moral quagmire when the family is threatened. This obviously sets up their descent into evil and then asking themselves "what have we become??" and of course they have a moral change of heart and never push the black guy out to be murdered, they protect him instead and the rich kids break in to slaughter the entire family.

The rich neighbors come to the rescue, but in reality they want to kill the family themselves. Black guy stops them and reveals he was big damn hero all this time. Of course.

Yes, the movie was very predictable. While watching it, I was correctly calling out what would happen next, as I'm sure you were too.

 

[say what]

Completely agree with this.

Also the people in that movie were really really dumb. All crime is legal; all crime. Corporate embezzlement, incorrect disposal of toxic waste, nuclear armament.

And what do they do? Kill and loot. I wish that was the reality because I would be a king in that world.

The movie is a great idea, just poorly executed. A lot of crime would have significant international fallback- from the movie, it implies only America has this law. So does this mean only crime within American law is illegal? What if I wanted to hire a hit on someone in Canada?

Overall, great concept...poorly executed. Even the second one was terrible.

Spoiler

for a movie ABOUT anarchy, it had 5 minutes of it in the entire film

As for the OP's question: crime typically impacts those who are the most disadvantage- while we typically think they are the perpetrators of most of the crime, we forget to realize that they are also the most likely to be victims. The people who would be most impacted by this, and the movie does touch on it, are these individuals. People who can't afford to arm themselves or keep themselves safe. People who are force to sell themselves to rich families so that they can make money for their loved ones. It also gives the government free rein to do what they want on the public. Essentially, they can cull the unwanteds of society with absolutely no repercussion.

An interesting idea that I'm surprised hasn't been discussed is the idea of who this benefits the most. A movement like this would benefit weapon sellers, insurance, security, and any other large business run by the rich. It's essentially widening the disparity gap.

I think an interesting idea in the movie is whether or not a night of killing or releasing your aggression would actually tame the population and eliminate the violence...or would it actually encourage more aggression?