<<An atheist is someone who claims not to believe in the existence of God. I laugh at the concept of atheism, as I do not believe in the existence of atheists. What I do believe in, though, is in the existence of people – whatever word describes them – who do not believe in the existence of the person of the devil. These – I believe – really mean it.>> Me.
I was recently texting with a very dear friend of mine, who lives abroad, about certain evil things happening in this decadent world of ours. At some point, I mentioned the devil and recalled something unrelated. In a previous conversation, I told him about a movie I wanted him to watch. He said he was unfamiliar with it, but that he would look it up and watch it. No questions asked. The movie, by the way, was <<The Shack>> (2017), starring Sam Worthington. I remembered this and brought up the subject. He told me he had searched for it and found it, but had not watched it yet. Surely, he felt a little pestered and shot back by asking me to watch one too. I had never ever heard of his either, but, without hesitation, simply replied: “fair enough”. His was <<Revolver>> (2005), starring Jason Statham. In any case, because of how this unfolded, I had a feeling it had something to do with the devil, specifically about – in some way – denying his existence. Curiously and unknown to him, The Shack does exactly that, but from an entirely unexpected angle.
Revolver is a film by Guy Ritchie, the renowned British cinematographic director, producer and writer. However, if you are learning about it just now, not to worry, it is not you. When released, it was a mayor box office flop. The few who were attracted to theaters to see it did not get it. Not even critics, who still rank it as Guy Ritchie’s worst. Bad, considering his résumé includes <<Swept Away>> (2002), starring Madonna, his wife from 2000 to 2008. As for me, I found Revolver very appealing. In between other reasons, because it presents quite the thought-provoking idea. It is about outsmarting your adversaries in all games you play or battles you fight; specifically, about defeating the grandest enemy of all in the greatest war there is. According to the movie, these are our ego and, of course, our life.
The word ego does not even receive any mentions. Except maybe for when a mysterious character, who has kind of a French accent and remains unidentified, refers to another mysterious character, who never even makes an appearance and is named Sam Gold (at first, I thought they were one and the same). He says “The Gold”, with emphasis on the “The” and as if the two words were one, but only pronounces the first half of “Gold”. Phonetically, he says “theego”, sounding like what he really means to say is “the ego”. One of many subliminal clues left along the movie for those searching for them. However, it is unquestionable Revolver is about the ego, because Ritchie gave the fact away. In a later version, after the ending, several modern real life psychoanalysts appear on screen offering explanations that cast away any doubts anyone may still have had about what or who the infamous adversary in the movie is. Our ego, they say, is the only enemy we have. Not only that, according to their seemingly infallible wisdom, all external opponents are nothing but projections of our egos (in relation to this, there is a scene in the movie where the protagonist’s nephew asks him about the “bad guys” and he replies to her that there is no such thing). These experts go as far as to say straightforwardly that the devil does not exist. As it turns out, I was right about my suspicion (but I wonder if there was a bit more to my friend’s retaliatory request, maybe something about my ego, hmmm).
What is the ego? Well, I am no expert or anything remotely close to one, but my eldest daughter is studying psychology and, therefore, have heard enough about the subject as to spark an interest in reading about it. I know that “ego” is the Latin word for “I” and that Sigmund Freud (1856 – 1939) developed the concept more than a century ago, even though he never exactly used that word… in Latin, I mean. Freud, who was Austrian and spoke German, used the term “das ich”, which translates into “I”. So, somehow, we got from there to the universally accepted word “ego”. However, what is important here is that Freud’s Psychoanalytic Theory proposes that the human personality divides into three systems: the “id”, the “ego” and the “superego”. The latter, in turn, splits into two subsystems: the “conscience” and the “ideal self”. The id is the first to appear. In fact, we are born with it. The ego develops later and the superego forms further down the road.
I do not want this to be a psychology essay. Nevertheless, I need to provide some basics on these systems, in order to be able to arrive later where I need to do so.
The id (Latin for “it”) is the chaotic, impulsive, instinctive, primitive and selfish part of our personality. It is illogical, irrational, unrealistic and unreasonable, as well as fantasy prone and wishful by nature. It responds to our basic desires, drives, needs and urges in a direct manner. It wants immediate satisfaction, regardless of the consequences (there is a dialogue in the animated part referring to this). If the id could have its way, it would act upon anger, fear, hunger, libido, thirst and whatnot, right away. A satisfied id results in pleasure; an unsatisfied id in tension. Moreover, the id is the source of all psychic energy.
The ego, on the other hand, is the analytical, cautious, developed, organized and rational side of our personality. It is logical, realistic and reasonable, as well as a decision maker and problem solver in nature. The ego responds to the same things the id does, but in an indirect way. It is concerned with devising socially correct strategies for obtaining satisfaction, since it takes into consideration etiquette, norms and rules in deciding how to behave. Nevertheless, it has no concept of right or wrong, it is willing to try anything that can achieve the desired result as long as it does not bring negative social consequences. Repeatedly thinking through plans of action that result ineffective until finding a solution is the process through which we master our egos. Despite it all, though, we should be mindful of the fact that the ego is often weak relative to the headstrong id.
The superego is in charge of persuading the ego to turn towards moralistic goals – rather than just realistic ones – and to strive for perfection. As mentioned, it consists of two parts: the conscience and the ideal self. The former can punish the ego through feelings of guilt, for example, if it gives in to the demands of the id. The latter is an imaginary picture of how the ego believes it should be, of how to treat others and of how to behave in society.
The id reminds me of my crazy Jack Russel Terrier. The ego reminds me of myself when I walk him on a leash. The superego reminds me of some unknown guy, the other day, who asked me if I was not going to pick up my dog’s poop and gave me one of his bags so I could do so (I know, but I dumbly went out with only one and it was his second time).
While on the subject, it is worth noting that the mind has a conscious and an unconscious side. Freud used to compare the human mind to an iceberg. The large invisible part submerged deep in the water would represent the unconscious part of the mind, while the small visible part sticking out of the water would symbolize the conscious side. The analogy served to illustrate where each system functions. The id lives in the unconscious (which is the reason why the everyday external world has no effect on it). The ego operates in both the conscious and in the unconscious. The superego, also, runs in the conscious and in the unconscious, but penetrates much deeper into the unconscious.
Additionally, before continuing, you might be asking yourself, if the id is the villain, why does the ego receive the bad rap? Ok, here is the deal. The concept of ego has changed quite a bit since Freud originally sketched it out. Apparently, nowadays, it represents all that is wrong with our psyche. The consensus seems to be we need to kill it… Sigmund would be shocked! What happened is Freud’s old tripartite concept of the mind, where the ego is sandwiched in between the influence of the id and the superego, has varied. So no more tiny angelic versions of ourselves, standing on our right shoulder, trying to convince us of doing what is right, while a devilish version on the other side does the opposite. A new bipartite concept took its place, now it is down to simply ego vs conscience. The modern concept of the ego is a fusion between its original concept and the id. The new concept of the conscience is what the entire superego was. In short, the ego, as currently understood, is an aggrandized version of ourselves, one that we project out to the world.
For the sake of where I am trying to land, I will stick with Freud’s way of explaining the (highly complicated) human personality. Consequently, in defense of his theory, I will argue that, even though, the ego can be extremely over analytical and make us see things in a very negative and stressful light, the fact is we need it. We just have to keep it in check with constant doses of awareness. No, the ego is not the “bad guy”. Rather than doing away with it, we need to protect it from becoming victim of the real villain: the id!
So, now that that is out of the way, let me return to what took us around that tour.
Revolver is a movie that hides a lot and that is an understatement. Knowing for sure it is about the ego is, of course, a solid starting point, but it is, pretty much, like knowing where an iceberg is, because one can see its tip. Actually, the addition of those explanations after the ending is to Guy Ritchie what a fishing hook is to an angler. You see, this movie is a game to him, one that he plays (to this day) with the small group of enthusiasts who, regularly, show up trying to figure it out. Thus, I will bite and give it a shot too. Maybe I can pull the sword out of the stone. By the way, it is a two edged sword, as you will see.
After I watched it multiple times, put a lot of thought into it and made my decision as to what it all (ok, not all, I have a life) means to me, I looked around for the interpretations of others, to see where I stood and was astonished to find everyone has been ignoring Freud’s ideas. Yet, this movie was, as I see it, conceived from a Freudian standpoint.
Actually, its main influence may very well be something else: Kabbalah. Ritchie – drawn into the Hollywood Kabbalistic craze by his ex-wife – wrote this film’s story in the way Kabbalists believe the divinely inspired authors wrote the Bible. What I am saying is that this is a bi-level film with an outer and an inner dimension; a visible and a hidden explanation; a standard and an alternate meaning. Ok, I guess you get the point.
If you take an orthodox approach (and why would you not) at trying to understand it, everything in the movie is what it is supposed to be. With respect to Freud, Jake Green (played by Jason Statham) is an individual whose ego and id share the control of his personality. Dorothy Macha (played by Ray Liotta) is an individual whose id is in total control of his personality. Avi and Zach (played by André Benjamin and Vincent Pastore) are individuals with active superegos efficiently balancing out their personalities.
That is all ok… but boring. If you really want to decode this movie, an unorthodox approach is mandatory. The first step is realizing the vast amount of bizarre things that are going on. Avi and Zach’s prison escape makes no sense. The way they are almost invisible or nonexistent to Dorothy Macha and his men makes no sense. Their offer to Jake Green makes no sense. His obedience to them makes no sense. The opinion Sam Gold supposedly has of them makes no sense. The opinion practically everyone seems to have of Sam Gold makes no sense. Even Avi and Zach’s comprehension of Sam Gold, though different to the view the rest have of him, is not of this world. Macha’s behavior is odd; he is not eccentric, he is just off. Everything is off! Twelve dollar bills, anyone?
Ask yourself, when and where do the events narrated in the movie happen? The quantity of contradictory clues and elaborate tricks placed along the story line with the only intention of making it impossible for the viewer to figure this out is overwhelming.
Look closely at things like clothing, furniture, hairstyles, phones (landline and mobile) and TV sets. Pay attention to the different interior designs, the decoration, the fashion, the style. Everything is from distinct periods of the second half of the twentieth century. Most of the cars are from the 70s, but there is a scene with a 1993 Cadillac Sedan Deville. So, if this takes place in the 90s, why are the characters, for example, riding around in twenty-year-old cars? This is not normal considering they are rich gangsters, materialistic people who would surely not be caught dead in an older car, unless it is very valuable, which is not the case here. You can add all of that to the long list of weird things.
A popular trick for finding out where the story of a movie takes place is to check out the license plates on the automobiles, but that will not reveal much here, because they have been purposely blanked out (add that to the list too). Their dimensions, however, do seem to match those of the plates used in the US. Additionally, every single car in the movie is American. Moreover, the currency with which they exclusively conduct their dealings seems to be the US Dollar (regardless of the banknote denomination). Even so, much stronger evidence would be required before we can assume this happens in the USA.
Another useful trick is to check out the business and street signs. In this respect, there is a scene where, on a building’s façade (behind Sorter, as he laments about missing his shots), you can just about make out the words “Bank of America Tower”, but it is accompanied by (what looks like) its Chinese translation. Actually, you can see many Chinese signs around. Therefore, it would have not been wild to theorize the story takes place in the Hong Kong / Macau area, had it not been for a very important detail, you hardly see any Chinese people around, the notable exception being John Lord’s gang.
Furthermore, the front of Avi and Zach’s club says “Paramount City”, the name of a real life city in California. Nonetheless, that is just the club’s name, not only in Revolver, but for real too. In fact, the actual building is a famous landmark on the Isle of Man. So maybe we could simply conclude it happens there and/or in the UK, the two filming sites. I mean is that not how Occam’s razor works? However, that would be being overly simplistic.
On a related note, there is one scene where you can see two cars (American, of course) being driven at the same time on opposing sides of the same two way road, each on its left side (in front of Paramount City). Then again, as if to keep the spectator spinning around the dubiety, there is another scene where a car hits Jake on his left side as he barely starts crossing a road. The driver looks like an alternate, simpler, version of Dorothy Macha; he is driving a 1979 Ford LTD Landau, instead of a Cadillac (a symbol of wealth in the movie), he is wearing a polo shirt and he is displaying an unbotoxed forehead. Interestingly, Dorothy has an American accent, while Jake an English one. Why would an Englishman, about to cross a two-way road, not be expecting a car to be coming from his left? Maybe because he became distracted and forgot in what country he was. Alternatively, why would an American driver not be expecting a pedestrian to suddenly walk in front of his car? Possibly because he got distracted, forgot the country he was in and was wrongly driving on the right side of a two-way road, thus, was not aware of the danger he represented. So the contradictory scenes add to the uncertainty of the setting.
Having said that, there is a scene nearing the end where you can get a very blurry glimpse of the fictional city’s name from the newspapers handed by Paul over to Mr. D; a reference to Samson’s downfall inflicted upon him by his closest enemy. Its name is Delilah Falls.
The reason for all of this is that the plot does not take place in a specific time-period nor in a specific physical location. In addition, the characters are not external nor individual human beings. How is this? Well, because the story line is a metaphor for what is going on inside someone’s mind or psyche! Similar – but far from exactly – to what went on inside Riley’s brain on Disney-Pixar’s <<Inside Out>> (2015). Hence, the actors are not playing persons, but systems or, rather, sub-systems within a person’s mind, as laid out by Freud over a hundred years ago. The main characters, Jake Green, Dorothy Macha, Avi and Zach, respectively, represent the ego, the id, the ideal self and the conscience. What about the rest of the characters? All belong to one of the systems or sub-systems led by one of the main characters.
To recap, the outer story narrates an ugly conflict between antagonistic mafia gangs in some casino city of the world, where the dominant personality system in each one of the gangsters controls each one of them. In literary terms, this would belong to the “realistic fiction” genre. While the inner story narrates the war raging between systems and subsystems inside a human mind. In literary terms, I would be unsure of how to categorize this representation of something real, but abstract, with something realistic, but fictional.
With this new perspective, let us revisit the main characters, one by one:
Dorothy Macha. I begin with him, as it was through him that I started noticing all of this. Go back to my explanation of the id and you will realize it is an exact description of him.
His name provides us with a couple of those subliminal clues I mentioned earlier.
“Dorothy” means “gift of God”, but what kind of a gift is the id? Well, there is a direct correlation between the strength or weakness of people’s efforts to control their ids and their pursuit of happiness. By handing over the wheel to the id, short spurts of satisfaction are possible, but with a caveat, that they are – as stated – temporary in nature and always lead to emptiness (as well as trouble). On the contrary, by learning to control the id, permanent happiness is attainable. Consequently, the id is a gift of “opportunity”.
Moreover, what does “Dorothy” immediately remind us of? It is the first name of the main character in the Oz novels written by L. Frank Baum. Especially, it is the name of the main character in the classic film adaptation of Baum’s novels, The Wizard of Oz (1939), starring Judy Garland. As you may recall, the “wizard” was nothing but a normal man – in that there was nothing exceptional about him – who hid behind a curtain to trick others into believing he had magical powers. Finding pleasure in being recognized as special is something inherent to the human condition and something with which the id is obsessed.
What about “Macha”? Macca is a tag given to people with surnames starting with Mc/Mac. The initials of Mr. Mystery, Mr. Ambiguous & Mr. Clandestine are M.A.C. I will clarify this shortly. Macha is, also, the English form of Maca, the Spanish name of a South American plant, dubbed “the Andean ginseng”. The consumption of its root enhances fertility and sex drive, as well as improves energy and stamina, all of which points towards the id.
Furthermore, Dorothy Macha’s building is an upside down Freudian iceberg, at least, the id’s part of it. In his penthouse, he enjoys two things (among many others, I guess) and both are clues hinting at the id. Firstly, he likes being naked. Remember: we come to this world naked and armed with nothing but a functioning id in our minds. Secondly, he likes UV light. As Freud’s iceberg illustrates, Macha does not have access to sun exposure and, therefore, has to rely on this artificial method to obtain and maintain his (vain) tan.
Which takes me back to the fake wizard hiding behind the curtain and the Maca plant root hidden in the soil, both hinting at the id in the unconscious mind.
Jake Green, the protagonist. Return to my explanation of Freud’s concept of the ego. That is a faithful description of him. He has been finding it hard to resist the id’s power. Until now, he has been lacking the discipline to listen to his superego… that or his superego just recently developed, but that would make him a five year old and I do not wish to go down that route. In any case, for some reason, he has been lacking the only counterweight provided by nature with the capability to effectively balance out the strength of his id.
What about his name? “Green” reminds us of two things. It symbolizes nature or, more so, a healthy environment in nature, possible only by balancing nature’s needs with man’s wants. It, also, symbolizes money, as Mr. Green has a desire for balance and a love of money, but they are immiscible (there is a scene where he is being administered a pair of IV serums, one green and one gold). As for “Jake” it rhymes with “fake” – and “snake” – because the image the ego projects, without the superego’s balance, is not the real self.
Besides, Green is a neutral color, in the sense that it has a medium luminosity. If you take pure blue, pure red and pure yellow, the primary colors in the material world (Madonna pun), blue is the darkest, yellow is the brightest and red is in the center. If you mix blue and yellow, you get green. As a mixed color, pure green can replace pure red in the center. On the other hand, if you take black and white, black is dark and white is bright. Mix them and you get grey. Therefore, grey is in the middle. So green is like grey; and both are like the ego, which is sandwiched in the middle, between the id and the superego’s influence.
Furthermore, there is a scene near the beginning where Dorothy Macha tells Jake Green the following: <<But we both know what you are, don’t we, Jake? You’re a man who needs a master. You’re an employee. So, what’s in it for me? The pleasure of doing an old employee a favor, by reminding him of the position nature chose for him.>>
Before moving on, I would like to avail myself of the opportunity provided by the presentation of that quote example to encourage you to search online for the movie’s script and carefully read it, but only after you have finished reading this. Alternatively, you can just re-watch the movie. Everything is in the characters’ lines. I hope you can see it.
Avi & Zach, the loan sharks. Go to my explication of the superego and its two subsystems, as proposed by Freud, which are the ideal self and the conscience. It describes them well.
One of the most obvious hints is when Jake refers to them as “chess cons”. Shift those two words around and what do you get? You end up with “cons chess” or conscience!
Furthermore, there is a scene where Avi, Zach and Doreen take Jake with them on a mission to steal the cocaine that some of Dorothy Macha and Lord John’s men are transacting for them in a couple of adjacent hotel rooms. During the operation, Avi, Zach, Doreen and Jake disguise themselves as workers by wearing overalls displaying their company’s name: “Li Rosh”, which in Hebrew means, “I am the head” or “I am in control”.
Then, of course, there is the elevator scene, where Jake’s inner voice (or alter ego, if you will) argues to him that Avi and Zach are new to him (referring to the fact that the superego is the last system to appear in a human being’s mind), while he – in contrast – has always been there for him. Bear this in mind for when I reveal who that inner voice is, further on.
Also, if you put their names side by side (like this: “AVIZACH”), move the “A” in “AVI” in front of “ZACH” (like this: “VIZACHA”) and twitch the “VIZ” part a bit to make it form an “M”*, you will see that, with a little bit of imagination, you can shape their combined names into spelling out “MACHA”. Because they represent the superego, the id’s opposing force.
*Viz is a shortened form of the Latin term “videlicet”, meaning, “it is permitted to see”. It replaces the word “namely”, when introducing specifics. Macha’s casino has a large luminous – very visible – “M” sign on its main entrance, in spite of which his men’s nickname for him is Mr. “D”. Yes, because of Dorothy (and there is that reference to that other female name starting with D) and because of an ultimate reason I will leave for later.
Each (and every) character is a subsystem within one of the three systems. The difference is that the ego’s subsystems tend to work well together, the same as the superego’s, but the id’s are prone to fighting each other. The existence of multiple subsystems within each system means that the systems have various ways of manifesting themselves.
Billy (played by Andrew Howard) is part of the ego, French Paul (played by Terence Maynard) is part of the id and Doreen (played by Anjela Lauren Smith) is part of the superego. In addition, as already explained, all characters fit into one system or the other.
Rachel (played by Elana Binysh) is part of the ego. Sorter (played by Mark Strong) is part of the id. They are quite different expressions of those systems. Curiously, Sorter had a situation with his feelings and, for instance, could not stand the idea of his partners hurting Rachel, but Macha could not hurt her either. Paul probably would not have a problem.
Lord John (Tom Wu) and his gang are part of the id. A different manifestation of it. A clue about Lord John hinting to the id (and the unconscious mind) is the red lights in his place, which reminds us of the darkrooms used by analogue photographers to develop film.
There is a scene where Dorothy Macha is completely naked in one of his UV rooms and orders French Paul to go to Lord John’s to formalize the cocaine deal and emphasizes to Paul to keep both eyes on him. Right there, the image switches to a shot of Lord John in his red room sitting right beside an entirely nude girl (Kamay Lau). Apart from hinting to the fact that both gangs belong to the same system, it is a very clever (and sick) trick, as it is extremely tempting to move your eyes away from “The Lord”. By the way, that woman in the nude is the same one he later sends out in a failed attempt to terminate Macha.
Lily Walker (Francesca Annis) and her employees are part of the id. The beautiful elegant girl Walker examines in front of Macha is the same as the sluttish lollipop girl over at Lord’s joint (but wearing a wig and wearing – or not wearing – colored eye contacts, to impede her recognition). Walker’s surname is also a clue. In the Bible, we are all walkers, walking in the light or in the darkness. There is a scene where she asks Macha to walk with her.
Sam Gold is short for Samuel Goldwyn, the film’s distributor within the United States. This could be a private joke against the company, the country or both. Funny, if you ask me.
Sam Gold is the devil. However, an explanation is in order here. Sam Gold is the Jewish and Kabbalist concept of the devil. To them, the devil is not a being, entity or person. To them, the devil is simply the dark side of people. To a Kabbalist with Freudian ideas or a Freudian with Kabbalist beliefs, the devil would be the id and vice versa. Thus, when you consider the inner and outer meanings of Revolver as a whole, you realize that the evil gang members (the id’s subsystems), the wicked voices (inside Jake and, naturally, inside Dorothy) and, of course, Sam Gold are all different versions of this devil. Mr. D is Mr. Dark Side, Mr. Delilah Falls (he owns and runs the city) and – you guessed it – Mr. Devil.
In order to get this movie in post Freudian terminology, we would say: (1) Jake Green is his true self; (2) the evil gang members, the wicked voices and Sam Gold are all projected false versions of Jake’s conceptualized self; (3) Avi and Zach are his conscience.
As for the title, it is ironic that, despite seeing so many firearms throughout the movie, only three of them are revolvers. Jake uses one to shoot an opposing player on a foot (which is how he ends up in jail), Avi uses one to knock Jake out (when Jake tries to turn against him) and, finally, one of Dorothy’s men unsuccessfully tries to use one to defend himself from Sorter (at Billy’s). As for the title’s meaning, two possibilities. We have the revolving credits operation funded by Jake and we have the tornado of revolving clues flying around our efforts to make sense of it all. Meaning the revolver is either Jake or the film itself.
Finally, to anyone disagreeing with my analysis: hey, that is fine, it is just an interpretation (of an ambiguous movie at that), written for fun. To anyone thinking I am on to something, but went overboard on trivialities and dug not deep enough on essentials: please feel free to add or subtract what you will (it is obvious there is tons left to uncover, but I need to move on). Oh and to all the professional psychoanalysts out there: have mercy on me!
Ok and, since Revolver received an afterword, kindly allow me one too:
As a practicing Christian with a duty to help others, I cannot end this without warning you, the reader, about Revolver’s dangerous double-sided message. First, it incites you to look for the devil and challenge him. Then (considering its authors believe him to be nothing but an annoying personality system), it inspires you to take control of “it”. Yet, the devil is a person, a reasoning, intelligent being. His intelligence, unlike God’s, is limited, yes, but he is many times smarter than you are. He is, also, an independent, separate, entity. He is not part of you, as much as no other individual is a part of you. He is not your bad side, such as God is not your good side. God is God, the devil is the devil and you are you. Having said that, his goal is to get inside of you and his entryway is your dark side. Trying to manage this side of you is one thing. Pretending to outwit or control the devil is another.
THE END
Arpad Gordon 