MAOIST.WS
Maoist Information Web Site
Maoist movie reviews
"Taken" (2008)
Taken
Directed by Pierre Morel
Starring Liam Neeson
Europa Corp., M6 Films, Grive Productions, All Pictures Media,
Papillon Productions, Wintergreen Productions
Rated PG-13
91/93 minutes
2008
Reviewed May 2009
Most of this movie is action and psychology, not substance, so let's
try to keep this short.
Reminscent of a Nancy Grace show, "Taken" raises that Amerikan male
paternalism means rescuing one white girl by killing or beating the
shit out of countless exotic-looking non-white men (I lost track of
how many), instead of dealing with the underlying causes of sex slave
trafficking: imperialism, borders, and the eroticization of power.
They came from "the East," and there is an issue about what language
they speak. Were it not for the movie's making a point of
representing sex slave traffickers as hypocritical Muslims, MIWS
wouldn't have too much to complain about. Then again, maybe "Taken"
raises Islam to get Westerners to examine what they are already
doing, as if to say, "Do you really want to do this, even if some
Muslims do that and your wildest racist hallucinations are true?"
Liam Neeson's retired government agent character, Bryan Mills, stops
at nothing to bring his kidnapped traveling daughter (Maggie Grace)
back, even if it might cause pointless disturbance to other people's
lives. Mills' old life involved international travel, Hezbollah,
"Langley," air strikes, satellite phones, and killing people.
"Taken" has a message about the state, that it will tolerate some
things as long as too many people don't go missing, property such as
buildings isn't destroyed, and people eating lunch downtown aren't
bothered. There is truth in this. To make this strategically relevant
to readers, revolutionaries can expect only limited protection from
the state even if they don't break laws. People like Mills breaking
laws can go on unchecked until someone else needs a favor or bills
have to be paid. Mills' French counterpart, whom most Amerikans will
perceive as corrupt, is more the rule, not the exception. The Liberal
utopia claimed or imagined by Liberals is impossible with large
militaries and spy agencies, by Liberals' own theory.
There is an ex-spy problem involved. Even if people retire or
otherwise leave their agency (or stop being foreign agents for the
CIA), by training they may bring spy methods to areas where spy
methods don't belong. Mills' has old CIA-type contacts in foreign
countries, and his barbecue buddies seem to be intelligence
operatives still. They want to entice him to return to a life of
adventure. Mills hasn't forgotten his combat training. Retired agent
(probably a CIA field officer) Mills literally has a case with spy
equipment that he has on-hand for some reason, but ex-spies who bring
baggage back to non-spy life can cause crazy shit to happen. In the
United $tates, which has tens of thousands of spies, there is a
situation where spies and ex-spies who have both above-average
knowledge of politics and a concentration of problems can come into
contact with people involved in politics who are not similarly
trained and aware. The question arises generally what should society
do with ex-spies. An incorrect response would be for people without
state power to think they can employ ex-spies. Spies/ex-spies and
others should be kept apart.
There is a comment in "Taken" about "personal" and "just business."
Mills' personal life regarding his daughter's birthdays has gotten in
the way of his CIA shit, and his CIA shit has gotten in the way of
his personal life. Implying corruption, the ending of "Taken" makes
the two seem harmonious in a way that goes beyond portraying a CIA
career as personally rewarding for idealistic or adrenaline-related
reasons.
Recalling discussions of working motherhood that ignore international
oppression issues and what Third World female workers with children
do, "Taken" asks: Can't a man have a joyful family life and be James
Bond, too? It is ironic how "Taken" touches on the topic of working
parents, though it still glamorizes spy life. Despite children's
oppression, this writer is all for First Worlders' staying away from
spy life to parent children, and for that matter I would not make an
issue out of discrimination against females in the CIA either.
"Taken" seems to have something to say about torture, but it isn't
clear what besides putting torture, and illegal killings and
assaults, in the viewer's face. It increasingly appears as if people
in the United $tates are unwilling to spend the political capital to
end torture, and no segment of the population is rising up to stop
it. Torture continues to exist as an issue for reasons other than
ending it, such as elections and to create the appearance that there
is an issue that will make Amerikans become progressive. Liberal
democracy isn't supposed to have torture, but it isn't supposed to
have other things that have existed for a long time in allegedly
liberal-democratic countries. The torture in "Taken" makes Neeson's
character more complex, but people will still sympathize with him.
Seemingly complicating the topic of sex slave trafficking, "Taken"
introduces traveling First World females as trafficking victims
replacing Third World trafficking victims. There is a border issue
still, because the traffickers in "Taken" themselves are migrants,
taking risks to make money in the First World.
"Taken" interestingly seems to link romance culture to sex
trafficking. Amanda, one of the two girls kidnapped, wanted to have
sex with the attractive spotter who targets them for kidnapping. This
is little more than a plot point, though. The friends' rock band
groupie trip is interrupted, but despite another complication "Taken"
glamorizes pop music stardom. Contemplating the Amanda character
further, this writer thought about how privileged First World females
want both the freedom to have sex with people they don't know and the
ability to do so without various risks, but that is another topic.
Regarding paternalism, "Taken" presents a story of sexual trafficking
of First World females that might scare First World females into
limiting their movements. Euro-Amerikan females are not so much the
victim as migrants and Third World people, who experience repression,
are. Indeed, invoking white male paternalism can be a way of
advancing white female interests in international contexts. Within
First World nations, paternalism is more a problem for children,
including male children, than female adults. "Taken" may encourage
foggy ideas, and even contribute to the sexualization of youth, as
Mills' daughter, Kim, is seventeen and about to leave home for
college, and at any age would be a "child" to the parent trying to
rescue her. Amanda is two years older.
Highly valued as a virgin, Kim is auctioned to millionaires, one of
whom is a non-white referred to as "Excellence" and "sheikh" in
subtitles. In the real world, the gender aristocracy, which includes
a privileged majority of First World female adults, seeks an alliance
with the labor aristocracy for a greater share of imperialist
super-profit and to close borders. The gender aristocracy unites with
the imperialists by attacking the Third World bourgeoisie.
There is a low-key competition with Mill's ex-wife Lenore's husband
and a more in-your-face one with Lenore (Famke Janssen), but there
could be a limerent or even incestuous sexual fantasy of rescue in
"Taken," which solely follows Mills' perspective after Kim is
abducted. The man who is going to have sex with Kim is unattractive,
a disgusting toad type. A divorced father not living with his child,
Kim's father is trying to build a relationship with Kim after being
absent as an international spy and seeks reciprocation of his
feelings. It seems as though physical attractiveness should have
nothing to do with someone's protecting a family member, yet for some
reason it does. Alternatively, "Taken" could be suggesting that sex
slave trafficking is more tolerable when females and attractive males
have sex with the slaves. Ideas such as that get in the way of
delinking attraction from power. This is the 21st century. The
unattractive male no longer can be a symbol of patriarchy in sex as
it could be in a patriarchal society without romance culture. There
is now a patriarchal society with romance culture, and certain
generalizations and symbols no longer are correct or work.