The profound 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple has inspired me to ruminate on many matters, but none as much as its prime villain, Jack O'Connell's Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal. Is he just bad to the bone, cut as it were from the sardonic, Alex DeLarge cloth, with unveiled, child molester Sir Jimmy Savile insinuated through his garish guise?
I'll tell you this, my dear droogies, I do believe the character crosses both antagonists, and even to a respectable degree, Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva of the Bond spree, Skyfall. One may recall, Silva was a righteous, M16 agent, but due to a cyanide mishap became his ruthless antithesis, all to turn the unpalatable palatable.
In the world of 28 Years Later, Sir Lord Jimmy Crystal is the son of a vicar, who resided next to a church (the one featured in 28 Days Later). The poor lad's mind became bent from apocalyptic events, and so he embraced what he perceived to be the winning side when God (in Crystal's estimation) abandoned the world, but still, the jaded "gent" seems too cognitive for such a contrived dismissal. I do believe that he more than implies this to Ralph Fiennes' Dr. Ian Kelson, Crystal's ersatz Old Nick.
It could be that Sir Jim uses his Satanic pledge as an enticing initiator. His deceitful draw is similar to Charles Manson's, far more than Alex DeLarge's, the latter conducting "real horror show" antics with no tangible, social agenda. (Alex's rampages are for pure pleasure, and perhaps they could be taken as Satanic due to their sadistic ferocity, but they're still absent of clear, high-level cause.) Sure, Crystal does, indeed, behave like DeLarge, but leans on ethereal baggage for his pitch.
Yep, I'm thinking Crystal's spiritual spiel is just window dressing, a cloak akin to Savile's charitable wins. Does it matter, then, that Jimmy-boy borrows Anton LeVey's gimmick? Let's face it: It's not the garnish, but rather one's deeds that define one's character. Kelson may be an atheist, but his actions distinguish him as moral. Savile, on the contrary, was raised Catholic, but like a hypocritical priest, his pedophilia devoured his virtuous coil. Again, in the end, it's one's acts that define one.
To a lesser extent, this curious slant continues through the story's referenced Telletubbies, so admired by Crystal's witless minions, and as one may recall, the flashy Telletubbies' behind-the-scenes undercurrent was grimy. (With this in mind, it makes one wonder why Crystal and his Fingers didn't emulate Sesame Street's Elmo, as well. The allusion would have kicked big time, making even Crystal's wily, Sing 2 namesake pale in comparison, but then perhaps it was always a lack of hardened, on-the-books confirmation that kept Elmo's operator off the hook.)
Anyway, getting back to my point. Crystal's badge of bad is grounded in unempathetic choice. He's rather like a kid who was once bullied and then goes on to bully others, even though he should know better. This, of course, re-loops to the prior proclamation that Crystal's religion is a propagandist pledge to puppetize the young, much like any radical, political party would. And even if the impressionable take the bait, they ought to know better, and therefore, they, too, are just as bad.
On that basis, the outward Crystal is but a pompous cover for temporal consequence, emulated by those of the same ilk. It's the ulterior motive to torture and kill that counts and resonates, and because of this (and this alone), our defiled vicar's son surfaces as one of cinema's most irredeemable fiends.
No comments:
Post a Comment