
Denis Villeneuve’s film Sicario focuses on the ambiguity of right and wrong in the war on drugs. The film follows FBI agent Kate Macer as she’s assigned to a task force to combat drug cartels in Mexico where she meets Alejandro, an analyst hired by the government for his knowledge of the cartels. As the film progresses, Alejandro’s hidden past and ulterior motives are exposed revealing the actual objective of the task force. Throughout the film, Villeneuve builds a sense of doubt in the audience’s minds. He manipulates the viewer’s uncertainty to topple America’s projected outer shell of innocence and heroism to display its inner murky violent core. Villeneuve is not stating that the US is guilty of all the atrocities of the war on drugs, but rather wants to remove the viewers predisposed sense of American bravado to create a sense of uncertainty in America’s methods and if there even can be a “winner” in its war. Villeneuve accomplishes this by creating negative associations with the American flag, communicating through colors, and utilizing a stormy setting to create ambivalence over the actions of the US government leaving his viewers susceptible to embracing his message.

Villeneuve first creates doubt by associating the American flag with senseless brutality. While is a common image in the film, Villeneuve puts special emphasis on it before, during, and after scenes of irrational violence. This is most evident in the scene when the group returns from Juarez. In this scene, Kate is arguing with her team leader over the ethics of their mission. Villeneuve chooses to capture this by using a wide angle long shot with everything a muted color except Kate and the American flag. The flag resides at the top of the shot above all of the agents to symbolize the government holding the power and being in control of the actions of the task force. The scene gains added significance from the prior and subsequent shots. The prior scene is a shootout at the US-Mexico border where fifteen hitman, one of which being a corrupt mexican federal officer, were killed. This shootout happened with no regard for the hundreds of innocent civilians around. The scene after is Alejandro torturing a prisoner into disclosing crucial information. Villeneuve deliberately injects this brief argument between the two shots of ruthless violence to implant a negative connotation of the American flag in the minds of the viewer. He employs this to combat the audiences predisposed belief of American heroism and integrity. This causes uncertainty of who the good guys are, if there are any. The lack of certainty leaves the viewers susceptible to doubt America’s actions in similar scenes later in the film. 

In multiple other violent scenes, Villeneuve takes a more subtle approach of incorporating the American flag. The majority of these have the same rationale as showing the actual flag, to further the association between the US and senseless brutality. However, Villeneuve utilizes this strategy again at the climax of the film not only representing US brutality, but to also portray a different motif, choice. In the final few scenes, Alejandro finally reaches the home of leader of the targeted cartel, Fausto Alarcon, and holding him and his family at gunpoint after killing his guards. Villeneuve deliberately shows Alarcon, his wife, and their children each wearing a different color of the American flag before Alejandro slaughters them. The flag is incorporated here to further signify that the US had power over their decision to kill Alarcon and strengthens the association between unethical immoral and savage actions and the United States’ actions. Villeneuve amplifies the viewer’s disdain by depicting the massacre occurring while the family is eating dinner. He emphasizes the fear in Alarcon’s wife and children by repeatedly showing close ups of their terrified faces. However, he’s not attempting to convince his audience Alarcon is an innocent victim, rather he’s using the setting and close ups to create sympathy to combine with the viewer’s anger to subsequently cause them to realize America has the power to lessen unnecessary atrocities, furthermore striking down the US’s projected innocence.        

Villeneuve communicates through color a second time by having Alejandro’s assault gear be all black. At the end of the movie the team raids a drug tunnel to sneak Alejandro through and find the cartel leader. Alejandro’s outfit is all black with a black hooded ski mask creating an allusion to the grim reaper. This is fitting since every character not part of the team that appears from this point on is killed, a large majority by Alejandro. Villeneuve uses this allusion to symbolize the US aligning with death and embracing it as the solution to subtly portray the CIA as the hands of death. He employs this to exploit the doubt he’s planted in his viewer’s minds, subsequently causing them to foster the belief that this violence is unnecessary and senseless. This bolsters the ammunition in his fight to overcome the audience predisposed bias of American heroism and innocence.

A final rhetorical device Villeneuve utilizes is the stormy setting. At the beginning when America is relatively innocent, it’s sunny. However, as the movie progresses and America’s involvement deepens, the setting becomes increasingly stormy, becoming a violent thunderstorm by the end. Villeneuve blantly and directly correlates this with the escalating violence of the team. He uses it to symbolize the growth of the small initial involvement that eventually becomes out of control and violent. He wants his audience to relate this to the US involvement as a whole. By using the thunderstorm instead of telling his audience his commentary, it allows Villeneuve to subtly guide them towards reaching the conclusion on their own.

Villeneuve attempts to challenge the America’s innocence in the war on drugs by creating negative connotations with the American flag, making allusions to the grim reaper, and comparing their involvement to a growing violent thunderstorm. He uses these strategies to fight his viewer’s pre-existing beliefs about the morality of the US. He subsequently creates uncertainty over good and bad in murderous environment. While he doesn’t believe the US is at fault, he wants his audience to know America’s hands aren’t clean.              
