Transcription
Home Alone was the origin of the “kids rule” 90's, that Nickelodeon, parents just don't understand corporations pretending to be kids claptrap of Blank Check and Baby's Day Out and a million other pretenders to the Home Alone Throne. Remember when Wednesday Addams just merced her entire summer camp? [F*** you, I won't do what you tell me.] She just straight up burned 'em alive? I mean, I assume they survived, much in the same way that no matter what Kevin McAllister did to the Wet Bandits, their bodies would absorb the pain and physical trauma and bounce back up like looney tunes characters.
But at its heart, Home Alone, which is a great movie, don't @ me, is a story of family, of Christmas, and of the insulated world of white, upper middle-class suburbia and the socially conservative revenge fantasy of trespassers getting legally shot to death with no consequences due to the incredible reach of castle doctrine.
In the United States, castle doctrine designates that a person's home as a kind of safe zone for the homeowner or renter in which they can employ force – even lethal force – on anyone they deem an intruder and trespasser. Regardless of whether said intruder poses any legitimate threat, if the homeowner says they felt threatened by someone on their property, the “threat” can be eliminated by any means necessary. [“I'm gonna give you ten seconds to get off my property before I pump your guts full of lead.”] Castle doctrine extends itself so far that you can walk on to someone's property and into their garage to talk to them – completely unarmed – and the homeowner can kill the unarmed person in the garage without legal consequences. This infamously happened in Montana. The homeowner was not threatened, but he used castle doctrine as an excuse to legally kill the victim. See, the homeowner had a grudge against him for allegedly sleeping with his wife. Castle doctrine completely protected him from prosecution.
Many states in the US have strengthened these conditions by creating a Stand Your Ground law, which is effectively castle doctrine for anywhere else outside your home. If you claim you were threatened, sometimes even if you started the conflict by, say, arming yourself with a gun and tracking down an unarmed teenager who wasn't doing anything wrong, you probably won't be convicted of anything. You might even use that notoriety to become an even bigger piece of s**t, the likes of which are told only in campfire stories to children. The conditions of the Stand Your Ground law depends on the state and the wording of the law, but they all operate in a similar fashion.
Now, some places in the US don't operate on strict castle doctrine or strict stand your ground. This is commonly called Duty to Retreat, and it works like this: you can still defend yourself if your life is definitely in danger, but if there is a reasonable opportunity to avoid killing someone, then you can't just decide to kill them anyway. This seems like the most reasonable way the law should work, but in the US, only a couple places operate this way. The states in the purple operate under both castle doctrine and stand your ground laws, so, you know, most of the country, the states in blue operate under both castle doctrine and stand your ground laws – even in your car, the pink states operate under castle doctrine and stand your ground at least in practice, and the peach states have castle doctrine but not stand your ground. There are only two places in the United States of America that operate under the significantly more reasonable duty to retreat: Vermont and Washington DC. So, only one state and the District of Columbia.
Castle doctrine on paper might be about your safety, but it is so broad and far-reaching that it can be exploited, such as the case in Montana. Castle doctrine and stand your ground laws exist partly due to the socially conservative, violent culture of the country. Everyone wants to be a murder-hero – the man with the thick beard and dark sunglasses who drives around in a massive truck with tinted windows – not only prepared to defend himself with lethal force but hoping to defend himself with lethal force. The man who walks into a restaurant or pharmacy with their guns exposed, hoping people with comment on them, hoping to start a conflict. The truth is, nobody buys anything without the intention of using it, and that includes lethal weapons. Another reason these laws exist is because the US places a great deal of value on personal property, even at the expense of human life. Castle doctrine can easily be exploited if your stuff is in danger, not just yourself. You can say that you felt threatened even if the only thing being threatened is your personal property. Is your stereo more valuable than a human life? To this guy, apparently so. And that brings us back to Home Alone. Ah-ha! I knew we'd get back there.
So. Home Alone, which is a great movie, don't @ me, really plays up that revenge fantasy. A revenge fantasy is the desire to be mildly wronged so that one can exact a disproportional response for violent satisfaction. Kevin McAllister is accidentally left home when his family goes on vacation to Paris over Christmas. Harry and Marv, collectively The Wet Bandits, are cat burglars who rob from the rich. They're the bad guys, I guess. Kevin becomes aware of the Wet Bandits' plan to rob his house at 9 o'clock and creates a series of traps to defend his rich family's property.
Before tackling the legality of this and the ethics of what Kevin is planning, can we just acknowledge that the McAllisters are bougie as hell? The movie places their home somewhere around Chicago, but clearly they live in the suburbs in a giant house with three floors and a basement. In fact, even in this wealthy neighborhood, the Wet Bandits remark how the McAllister home is the real prize, with Harry getting an almost sexual thrill out of plotting to rob them. [“Ever since I laid eyes on it, I wanted it.”] The McAllister family treats the working class pizza delivery driver like scum, by the way. First they ignore him, and then once Kevin is alone, he stiffs him on the tip and then absolutely terrorizes him by pretending someone is firing lethal rounds at him. He's just trying to make a living, you privileged butthole. The pizza delivery driver is stuck in a job in which he needs to serve the more fortunate, and Kevin's reaction to this is to treat him like garbage. You are a working class hero. You did nothing to deserve this. Kevin's never-seen uncle is so rich that he can fly them all to Paris – 14 of them – at Christmas. That must cost a small fortune. Then in Home Alone 2, in case you thought only Kevin's never-seen uncle is rich, Kevin's father flies the whole clan to Florida. I'm sorry, but who takes a tropical vacation for Christmas? Bougie, suburban white people, that's who. I won't get into the ethics of whether it's OK to steal from the rich, although obviously I think it's fine, obviously that's what I'm advocat--
So, castle doctrine states that in order to protect yourself from bodily harm or death, you have the right to inflict bodily harm or death on anyone who trespasses on your property. Kevin devises a series of traps to protect himself from the Wet Bandits. But here's the thing. Kevin doesn't need to do any of this to protect himself. This is not a situation in which Kevin is sleeping in his bed, hears a strange sound coming from the kitchen, grabs a weapon just to be safe, sees an intruder and then it all goes sideways. No. Kevin knows the Wet Bandits are coming. He even knows when the Wet Bandits are coming. He overhears them plotting. Shortly before the big slapstick portion of the movie, Kevin goes to church. He's safe there. In fact, he's safe anywhere besides his home. He could have remained at the church, completely safe, and if he so desired, he could have contacted the pigs to catch the Wet Bandits in the act. If he's worried about being fingered for the toothbrush crime, he doesn't have to meet with the authorities, only call them. That's what Duty to Retreat is all about. The Wet Bandits pose no physical threat to Kevin because he's in the church. The Wet Bandits aren't going to the church. They don't know he's there. They're going to the McAllister house. In a Duty to Retreat state, that is what you're expected to do. If you don't have to kill someone, then you shouldn't kill someone. If you're not in mortal danger, then you can't kill someone. The idea that Kevin is acting in self-defense – protecting himself from bodily harm – goes out the window since he's aware that the wet bandits are coming and chooses to run back to his home to inflict potentially lethal harm to the Wet Bandits. Kevin could have easily avoided any potential danger but chose not to. He's not protecting himself. He's protecting his stuff. His Christmas presents, his rich parents' silverware, et cetera.
Now you might be thinking that Kevin has a “right” to protect said property. I don't know, maybe, but he could have just as easily protected his family's property by contacting the authorities, or if he doesn't trust the cops – and who would? – he could have told Old Man Marley what was happening. The old man could have alerted the community, I mean, they are in a church full of people, and the community could have acted on behalf of Kevin. Here's the thing. Kevin could have de-escalated the situation, but because this takes place in Illinois, which enforces castle doctrine, Kevin can probably do all of this legally. This is not an argument that what Kevin is doing is illegal. This is an argument that what Kevin is doing is unnecessary and a product of a violent culture and violent laws. One could make the argument that setting lethal traps is a legal gray area and there is legal precedent that might get this kind of home defense in hot water, but I won't be getting into all that here. I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a humble citizen who thinks we should kill less people. That should not be a controversial statement, but it apparently is.
Now, because this movie is rated PG, Kevin's lethal traps will somehow miraculously not kill the Wet Bandits, but let's be real here. These are lethal traps. This is how castle doctrine works. There is a threat to the home, and regardless of how unreasonable it might seem to defend it with an escalation of violence, the courts will almost certainly side with the homeowner. Capitalism gives more power to people with more money – so more means in which to defend oneself in court and more means in which to influence the law. Any threat to that money is treated as equivalent to a threat to one's life, which is how castle doctrine stays on the books and how Kevin can do whatever he wants. Castle doctrine allows Kevin to burn these men alive for what begins as a non-violent crime. He permanently scars Harry's hand like he's Major Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark.
To summarize, castle doctrine on paper is about protection, but in practice, it allows for intruders to be killed regardless of their perceived threat level and that theft of belongings or even trespassing are justification enough for death. By the way, I say the Wet Bandits' home invasion “begins” as a non-violent crime, but in fairness, once the Wet Bandits have enough of Kevin's traps, Harry threatens to bite off Kevin's fingers one at a time, which is in another stratosphere of lunacy. He's, like, I'm gonna do it one at a time. Not all at once, like he wants to savor it? What is even Harry's deal? In the end, Kevin calls the police, suggesting he could have done this the whole time, and the cops do what they do best: control the poor. I mean, protect and serve. I do enjoy the fact that the police in the movie are always either incompetent, late or are actually criminals in disguise. That amuses me.
At the end of the day, people with bunkers full of guns and doomsday cans of peaches will say that because the Wet Bandits trespassed on the McAllister home, regardless of the fact that their intent was theft and at least not initially violence, then they “deserve” to die. It's their “fault” – but maybe this is just me, but I'm not comfortable saying people “deserve to die” – that seems extremely dismissive of human life, even if said lives are two admittedly crummy people. I mean, let's be honest, by Home Alone 2, any argument that the Wet Bandits are proletariat heroes goes out the window. Like, in the first movie, we don't know their story, maybe they're robbing these bougie houses to feed their families. This should be obvious, but crimes of an economic nature generally happen for economic reasons. That turns out to be not to case by Home Alone 2. They're just straight-up cartoon villains who steal from the poor. The filmmakers make them a lot darker by Home Alone 2. The Wet Bandits have no backstory, no motivation. They're just the personification of crime to suburbanites and conservatives, and as the 90's rolled on and the US became more and more paranoid about crime, the Wet Bandits were exaggerated even further – from mere cat burglars in the suburbs in Home Alone 1 to despicable monsters in Home Alone 2. The Home Alone movies give us a picture of crime so bizarrely, cartoonishly exaggerated that it's easy to say “Hey, screw those guys. Give 'em the chair.” But this cartoon world isn't the real world – it's just what the movie wants you to see: cat burglars as irredeemable villains who go from zero to child murder very quickly.
In the real world, I just don't think lethal violence should be employed in so broad a scenario as a guy walking toward a garage. I've been the victim of crimes before. Someone tried to break into my apartment once back when I lived in Baltimore. Another time – and this is true – someone took a package off my doorstep, which was going to be a Christmas present. I had an actual Home Alone 2 Wet Bandit experience. The package was recovered, but you know what? Even if it hadn't, I still don't think I should be able to kill that guy to get my package back.
Speaking of Home Alone 2, what the heck is up with Home Alone 2? Kevin is accidentally separated from his family again and has a New York vacation by defrauding a fancy hotel. I would say, cool, stick it to the man, but this is just the rich robbing the rich. So, I'm not sure who I'm supposed to be rooting for here. I wanna root for Tim Curry, but that's just by default. Kevin bumps into the Wet Bandits, who admittedly try to kill him. Kevin learns Harry and Marv are gonna rob a toy store and takes it upon himself to stop them by luring them to an empty home under renovation where he has set up some new traps. Kevin does not live in this home in New York. It belongs to his never-seen uncle, the same man who hosted them in Paris. Kevin has no real claim to the home, and even if he could argue that it belongs to his extended family, the Wet Bandits have no design on it. Kevin lures them to this building. Castle doctrine may not come into play here. It doesn't even a stand your ground state. It takes place in New York, which has castle doctrine laws but not stand your ground. And that's bad news for Kevin because his traps are so much more deadly this time around. Kevin throws bricks at Marv's head – over and over again – and Marv just takes it like a champ. Like, this should have killed him many times over, but I guess he has Homer Simpson's disease where he can't even be knocked out. Good for him, I guess, a solid condition to have if you're in a life of crime.
If I could just take a detour to the different but still related topic of how the poor are portrayed in Home Alone 2, that's a yikes. That's a big yikes, right? So, in Home Alone 2, Kevin is briefly forced to live among the poor after he's been caught defrauding this hotel. Oh, God. Donald Trump. Why are you connected to everything that's bad? Anyway, he can't stay at the hotel anymore, so he more or less lives in the park for a while, and every encounter with someone is like meeting an eldritch abomination. Kevin stumbles upon a homeless person who laughs maniacally at him like he's planning on eating his fingers or something – you know, that common thing? And then Kevin is propositioned by two sex workers, and what? No. That...no. Way to dehumanize sex workers, Home Alone 2. I mean, I realize this was made last century, but still. They basically make a mildly indecent come-on and then laugh at him. Kevin then encounters a humble cab driver who is visually framed like a demon. I get that we're seeing this from a child's perspective, but it's also the audience's perspective now, right? The worst instance of this is when Kevin befriends the pigeon lady, who is somehow both the heart of the film and is never given a name. The Pigeon Lady's origin story for why she's homeless is that she had a bad relationship once...and now she doesn't trust people. No reference to our stratified economic system or income equality. Nope. Just...she just had one bad breakup. The implication here is that the pigeon lady is homeless...by choice. According to the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, the top four causes of homelessness among families in the United States are lack of affordable housing, unemployment, poverty, and low wages, in that order. The same report found that the top four causes of homelessness among unaccompanied individuals – like the pigeon lady, for example -- were lack of affordable housing, unemployment, poverty, and lack of mental health services. So, this should be obvious, but people are homeless for economic reasons. That's right! I'm making this about capitalism! Our current economic system purposefully stratifies people into economic classes and both allows and encourages the hoarding of wealth. People like the pigeon lady are homeless because Kevin's family and guys like this aren't taxed enough to provide mental health services. Because aforementioned low wages are the result of a lack of collective power and collective ownership. But sure, Home Alone 2, the pigeon lady just needs a new attitude and a pep talk from Kevin McAllister, and then she can just “decide” to not be homeless because she individually has power over our global economic system.
To summarize, if Home Alone were real, I would sympathize with Kevin because, you know, he's a child, and the wet bandits are not to be trusted, but Kevin and his antagonistic relationship with the wet bandits hits a little too close to home because of the incredible rights granted to homeowners to kill anyone who trespasses on their property. Home Alone is a very conservative, white, middle-class film about an amorphous crime threat trespassing in a neighborhood where they don't belong and how justified and virtuous the suburban families are for violently defending themselves against these outsiders. It's still a really good movie – don't @ me – but it's also...a kind of family-friendly revenge fantasy. Merry Christmas. It's November!