Contextual Analysis of The Purge

In a 3 star film that probably wasn't trying to be as overtly political as it actually was, the concept of there being a crime- free society where all crime is legal for a 12 hour period is intriguing and deeply thought provoking.

The Purge explores themes of the class divide, moral and ethical implications of Purging, economic jealousy, media influence and impact on political views and the dynamics of a newly wealthy and upper middle class family. The film is psychological horror more than anything else, feeding off the every day fears that most of us have.

With the political unrest in both the UK, US and even Spain, the hidden context of The Purge has never been more relevant.

The effect of media bias on political issues.

At the time of writing, it is the day of the US election; Kamala Harris versus Donald Trump. The media outlets are in overdrive, churning out numerous articles of celebrity support for Harris, the political promises of both parties, as well as threats of violence and civil unrest depending on the outcome.

It's no secret that media outlets often report the news with a bias that reflects their own agenda. There is such a thing as unbias mainstream news, but it seems to have the smallest voice in comparison to some of the bigger papers, streaming outlets and television stations. While one particular left leaning paper will paint Harris as the saint who will save America, they are simultaneously calling Trump the devil, and others are doing the opposite- All with the intention of swaying popular opinion.

The Purge begins with news commentary discussing the benefits of the Purge prior to the start of the 7pm event, claiming that purging unburdens society by eliminating the poor, the needy and the sick, implying that this demographic is causing the downfall of the economy. There is an assumption that these people are the most reliant on the government, the ones most likely to cause crime and be disobedient.

But this is not an entirely fair asseessment of this demographic. The film, or the media representation in the film, glorify the Purge itself, rather than delve into why there is poverty or lack of support for the ill in the first place. Rather than crticise or analyse government policies, the media are pointing fingers at those they deem responsible. Encouraging the Purge without further thought, or reliably informing the public of government policies, encourages ignorance in this fictional nature, and the ideal that the only people worth saving are the ones with the means to save themselves.

The exploration of primal instincts.

This final point leads onto a discussion about our primal instincts as human beings. Once hunter gatherers, we have evolved over centuries to develop language, tools, technologies, democracies.. Yet out basic human instincts have changed with all of these developments.

As we become more reliant on technology, we are becoming less reliant on our own skills an intellect. Where once we were scouring encyclopeadia for knowledge, information is available to us at the whim of typing a few simple words into a search enging. Sources aren't always reliable and fact checking is required, so we use our natural doubt and instincts to double check and ensure we're correct.

Not only does this apply to the media bias above (there doesn't seem to be any inclination to explore whether or not the media claims are accurate) it applies to the lack of development that is apparent in our main characters.

None of them appear to have any concept of danger, whatsoever. The youngest boy is perfectly willing to let a stranger into the house, without any awareness of hte potential threats the stanger might face. The teenage daughter doesn't stop to consider how dangerous and worrying it is that the boyfriend snuck into the house- She's so penis blind that she doesn't perceive him as a threat, ot stop to consider that he might not have been the only one to come into the house prior to the security system being activated.

The adults in the film do have an understanding of danger. Of course. They were around when the government changed and new founding fathers reshaped the country. They've experienced society as it was before. But the children were not. They have lost the natural human ability to sense danger by not being aware of or exposed to it, making them unfit to survive the events of The Purge. Given the subject matter of the film, it seems naive not to arm the children with an organic tool that might save their life, especially considering another primal instinct is being unleashed in full force.

Will a man given the opportunity to kill take it?

Once the stranger is in their home, a group of 8 machete wielding maniacs in masks appear at the front door demanding their prey is returned to them. The leader advises the family that the group just want to express their patriotic right to kill, rid the filth off the streets, on this one night where it is legal. They don't want to hurt the family, they're the same after all, equals.. but if they have to hurt the family, they will.

It's interesting to note that the masked group don't appear to have gone out hunting for their victims. The end of the movie reports that in one location 200 people gathered in a town square to participate in the carnage, but the group haven't done that.

They have selected a homeless man to use as their toy for the evening, clearly so as his clothes are tattered and torn, and he doesn't have the gracious behaviours of the wealthy. He is more rugged and wearing dog tags, suggesting as well that he is a military man who has found himself living on the streets now that his skills are no longer needed. (A sad reality that is common in and outside of the film.) He obviously doesn't belong in this neighbourhood, where the houses are spacious and the driveways are large enough for two cars, and room for children to play out front. Their act is pre-meditated murder, indicating a predisposition for murder, enough hatred of the poor to commit such an act, and enough loyalty to their country to believe that their actions are right.

This alone begs the question: If man is given the opportunity to commit a crime of any sort, including murder, and he believes he has motivation to justify his actions, would he accept?

The film implies yes, that man is inherently evil and cannot be trusted. Debating whether or not the wealthy are the ones that are worth saving, due to their desire to cleanse the country of those not considered equals, it's hard to ignore the commentary mentioned above where many were gathered in a town square with the intention of committing murder, motivation or no. There is no need to justify their actions in that place, they do it because they can, because they have been given the opportunity.

Morality and Ethical considerations

The family don't present themselves with the opportunity, though they claim they support The Purge with the blue flowers as a token, bringing us two separate contextual considerations.

The first being the moral implications of hosting the stranger in their home. They spend much time looking for the stranger in their vast home, before coming to realise the much larger consequences of their actions when they finally see the stranger fighting for his freedom while strapped to a chair, bloody and bruised, the father character instructing his wife to stick a knife into the strangers injuries to prevent him from squirming. The father is determined to protect his family whatever the cost, but with her daughter concussed and her youngest child witnessing their father in a brutal frenzy, the mother puts her foot down. Morally, it is wrong to sacrifice this man for the sake of their own safety and they need to let him go, was her pained suggestion.

Was it the right thing to do?

It's a difficult scenario to be in, as they were in an unpredfictable and heightened situation. There was no guarantee that the gang wouldn't still attempt to break into the house and murder the family once they were finished with the stranger. Releasing the stranger would always have been a gamble. But the family wouldn't have been able to live with the guilt of sacrificing someone they didn't know for another person's blood sport, an action that seems deeply hypocritical considering they were profiteering from the Purge that they claimed to support.

Which, incidentally, is our secondary ethical dilemma.

The family are liars. It becomes clear from their actions that they don't support the violence at all. The father only wants to keep the family safe but the mother and son don't want to participate in the events at all, and would rather keep the peace than get involved. They don't approve of the violence, but in order to protect themselves from it they are maintaining a delicate facade. The film acknowledges this only briefly through the leader of the gang, who states that he doesn't want to harm supporters of the Purge, or his "own kind."

But are the family really what they say they are? They have made their vast wealth by promoting the security systems that homeowners are using to keep themselves safe on Purge night. A successful tactic, as reports at the end of the movie state sales for gun and security have increased dramatically. Profiteering from violence and misery is akin to selling guns to a warlard you don't believe in, but you do it to stay on the right side of the fence when things go sour. Not wanting to sacrifice the stranger but unwittingly supporting the Purge through sales doesn't give the family a right to preach morality, when their actions prove they are very far removed from it.

Hatred created by exploitation

These are actions that have bred hatred and envy in their own wealthy neighbours. Tensions between old money and nouvelle riche have never been simple- Think back to The Titanic and the way that Molly Brown was treated differently because she wasn't from a legacy. Even among upper class society there is still a divide.

The family have further widened this divide by exploiting an event that they don't actively participate in and seem to look down on, particularly when discussing their neighbours Purge parties. The neighbours are clearly very aware of the families hypocrisy, that they aren't active supporters of the Purge yet are making money from it. Unlike the invaders, they see the family for what they really are, viewing them as scum akin to the invaders aversion to the homeless man, and are willing to enact revenge.

It would be interesting to see the point of view from the people in this economy who cannot afford such decadent home security; Would they also feel such wrath against the people who are further enforcing their misery by making them victims of crime culture, or would they offer the same sort of support as the homeless man?

The stranger, once in the family home, doesn't take any action against them unless it is self defence. From the moment he enters the house, his motivation is to hide. If the above sentiment was felt among all people, and not just the wealthy, surely he would also be tempted to enact rage against the people who has marginalised those who don't have any money into a "toy" box. But he doesn't. In fact, he supports the family and aids them towards the end of the movie.

The death of patriotism?

This stranger seems to be the only one with a true sense of morality throughout the film, and he serves the purpose as it's anchor. His only intention is to survive. If he is a soldier as suspected, it's likely he's seen the effects of war enough to last a lifetime and has no intention to participate and continue the carnage in order to satisfy his own carnal desires. Chances are, being a homeless man living on the street, patriotism has gone right out the window.

The family claim to patriotic by supporting the Purge, but this turns out to be a lie. The neighbours don't show any particular inclination towards patriotism, only their constitutional right to commit murder. The only ones even claiming to be patriotic are the villains, the masked preppy gang banging down the families front door.

With this death of the original constitution and the original founding fathers, being patriotic and supporting your country doesn't appear to be a priority in contrast to now. Is this the impact that a Purge creates? By removing any reference to global conflict, any elections or other political parties, American's in this world have nothing to rally around, nothing to support, and nothing to feel proud of. They're not cheering for the >1% unemployment rate or the decrease in crime levels. They're just exisiting. Lying in wait of another Purge day where they may or may not be victim of their own hubris, much like the main family in the movie.

Family dynamic

And what a family they are.

It's obvious from the outset that this particular family aren't close. The son uses a robot to communicate and see what's happening in his house rather than actively participate. The daughter cares more about her boyfriend than she does the rest of her family, not showing any concern for her father when her boyfriend attempts to shoot him. The mother seems to spend more time keeping up appearances than she does spending time with her family. The father is distant. He's a successful businessman, the things he has don't come without sacrifice. In this case, it's his family.

They don't communicate well, leaving it to the last minute to make any kind of decision. His thoughts and opinions aren't respected, even towards the end when he has a plan of action in place. His wife undermines him in front of their children, forcing her false morality down his throat and making him feel ashamed of himself. This man who has been a solid provider, enabling them to have a comfortable life, and one who is so determined to protect his wife and children at all costs, whereas she does not.

Their priorities are all over the place, and they don't seem to have any core family values that unite them. In times of trouble, they are consistently separated, unable to rely on or trust one another. It all appears to boil down to an avoidable arrogance: Arrogance that they will be safe because they are wealthy enough to afford security; Arrogance that they won't be participating in the Purge because they want peace; Arrogance that the divided parental unit cannot teach them valuable lessons and that being self- sufficient is apparently a gift, not taught; Arrogance that doing what appears to be the right thing does not have consequences.

Arrogance continues to breed more arrogance, starting at the very top.

The government for creating this apparent notion that their nation has achieved something that no other government could before, trickling down to innocent families and pulling apart the very foundations of human nature.

The Purge serves well to highlight the dangers of what a government can do by pulling a re-built society and putting it back together again, creating a nation of ignorant privilege with no visible sense of purpose, or those characteristics that make us inherently human.

What are your thoughts? Less us know in the comments below.