Vengeance (2022)

“SURPRISINGLY FRESH FOR ITS AGE”

Vengeance (2022; synopsis; trailer; cast & crew; rating) is a surprisingly fresh entry, for a movie that so thoroughly and intentionally belongs to, and wants to address, the moment to which it belongs (our current age, that is). The movie was written, directed, and stars B.J. Novak, most known from acting and writing on The Office. Now, what this particular piece of information would have augured for Vengeance is unclear, given that The Office used a number of writers (and writer-actors), each with their own tastes and sensitivities. My initial expectation, nonetheless, was that B.J. Novak would be a creature of his time – and, knowing the subject of the movie, that did give me some pause, when pondering whether to watch this solo effort. But, with encouragement from Rotten Tomatoes’ aggregate audience score (which I find to be a much better guide to whether one should look into a movie, or not, than the critics’ score), I did sit down to watch it, and I did not regret it. 

What I discovered was indeed a product of its time, but also, unexpectedly, a surprisingly fresh product, which, while talking about the ideological clichés and prejudices of the day, manages to not talk about them on their own terms. In other words, while dealing with said clichés, it is nimble enough to not give itself completely over to them. And this is no mean feat! – and hence the aforementioned freshness. But what do I mean by all this?

Well, one of the ways to deal with the “ideological detritus” of the day, is to take one of the “ideological sides,” and use it to attack (undermine, critique, deconstruct) the “other side.” However, even if accurate in its critique, this would only be a job half-done, and a hypocritical one, as well – given that one’s own “side” would be equally vulnerable to a similar critique from “the other side.” So this is simply a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Yet another way to navigate said ideological detritus is, while being caught in this binary ideological framework, to have the “heroic” courage and (ahem!) “magnanimousness” to show that, notwithstanding their pervasive wrongness and stubborn evil, those on “the other side” are still human.

Fortunately, B.J. Novak takes neither of these paths – at least, not as far as I can tell. While not ignoring the trappings of ideology, but actually living amidst and with them, and even being partially their creature (a creature of his time), Novak is light-footed enough to hop about them, while not allowing himself or the movie to be weighed down by this garbage. And I think that this light-footedness (which has a lot to do with the aforesaid sensation of “freshness”) comes from the satirical, self-deprecating, and (in a positive sense) postmodern and ironic tone and perspective cultivated by both the author of the movie (B.J. Novak), and by its main protagonist (played by B.J. Novak).

Key here is the self-deprecating tone. Why? Because this movie seems to have a strong autobiographical core – if not in terms of the story, then of reflecting the author’s own existential quest. Being self-critical and self-deprecating, then, is key to building an effective relationship (that includes both similarity and distance) between the author and the main character. This is especially necessary for the genre of satire (to which this movie belongs), and for a satirist like B.J. Novak. What we have here, then, is an author of his time, who is depicting (and acting out!) the struggles of a character also of his age; and what we get in the end is a story about the character, and also about the author (and yet the two stories are not identical, nor are they completely distinct).

Another key to the “freshness” of the movie is the fact that its guiding light (or point of reference) is not one or the other of the dominant ideological frameworks (and it wouldn’t matter which one), but the author’s (and the character’s) search for what one might call “existential truth.” Again, this goes to the core of what humor actually is – namely a revelation of the absurd that results from the clash between appearances (e.g. lies, ideology) and (existential) truth (see The Firemen’s Ball). That’s what the court jesters revealed (the emperor has no clothes!), and that’s what any true humorist does. I don’t know if Novak did this consciously; however, a true artist always tries to be truthful to his craft, and in his craft – so a humorist trying to be truly what he is, will inevitably be led in the direction of the truth (yet he also has to allow himself to be led that way).

One should also note that it’s a dangerous dance, the one in which Novak seems to be engaged: of being thoroughly immersed in his age (and at its densest, in Hollywood!), swimming right through the treacherous currents of immediacy – while also trying to not be completely “of” the age and of the moment, in order not to betray one’s craft, and/or one’s existential quest. We can only wish him luck with this endeavor, with this high-wire act – while retaining a healthy skepticism as to its long-term chances of success (survival). (And this skepticism does not come from undervaluing, in any way, his talents or his good intentions; but even the best sailors would succumb to a continuous exposure to the raging storm.)

All this is to say that popular culture, especially as it emerges from what we call “Hollywood,” is currently in a dire state, being suffocated by ideological strictures of the kind last seen under the ideological regimes of the past century. The typical “opposition” that tends to emerge in such a situation usually comes from the opposite ideological end (and thus is not essentially different from the ideology it contests). And yet, at first sight (or as a first step), even that is good, because at least it creates options – or the appearance thereof. However, from a long-term perspective, ideological strictures, whether of the “left” or of the “right” (whatever those terms might mean), will always be the enemies of the artistic endeavor (and of the existential truth reflected through art).

This being the current state of affairs, most cultural products that appear to thoroughly belong to “the age” – and, even worse, to intentionally talk about the age – will inevitably raise the suspicions of the wise member of the audience. But, although such suspicions turn out to be true, more often than not, they can also impede us in stumbling upon some rare gems, upon the exceptions to the rule (i.e. products of the age that transcend, or bypass, in one way of the other, the ideological narrowmindedness of the field). As already mentioned, the “audience score” on Rotten Tomatoes can be a useful tool in helping us bypass – or confirm – those initial suspicions; at least, as an initial guide in that regard. And one of the reasons why this aggregate vox populi score seems to work might be that people (in their aggregate, at least) are inherently and intrinsically attracted to the truth – even if they would not be able to explain or justify this feeling. And thus I think that one of the reasons why Vengeance received a high audience score on RT, is because the public inherently sensed the “freshness” of the product – and liked what it found. And thus I am very glad that I followed vox populi‘s original guidance, and that I did sit down to watch this slightly dark satire about a guy who is thoroughly in and of his age, but who also struggles to remain truthful to his age-less self.