The idea of a vigilante, the Equalizer Trilogy and the brilliance of Denzel Washington

The word Vigilante derives from the root “vigil” – Spanish in origin, meaning to keep watch or be aware. The first time I remember hearing this word was when I was a young boy watching the Charles Bronson film “The Death Wish”, along with my father, on our National Panasonic Video cassette player at our home in Madurai. The movie was a 1975 blockbuster that eventually spawned five more sequels till 1994 with Bronson in the lead role. ( There was one more sequel in 2008 with Bruce Willis reprising the role Bronson played which however didn’t quite manage to even recoup its budget). Anyway, For some reason, the word vigilante stuck. It had a curious twangy pronunciation to it, and I found it odd that “te” was pronounced as ” tae”. I also remember my father explaining to me then that the word meant “seeking personal justice without the police”. The meaning made an awful lot of sense to me because that is precisely what Charles Bronson’s character was doing in the movie. Going around in the dark covered in a long coat with stiff collars pointing upwards, hands in the pockets caressing the metal of a gun hidden there, and mercilessly killing the wild ones threatening the peace along the dark alleys of the community. It was exhilarating to see one man fight such a battle.

This archetype of a lone warrior attempting to make peace with himself and the world he lives in is a recurring and hugely popular motif in cinema. Think Rambo, think Transporter, think John Wick, Think of all superheroes – Peter Parker (spiderman), Clark Kent ( Superman), and numerous other films along these lines. Paul Kersey, the architect played by Bronson in Death Wish leads a double life. During the day, he is a law-abiding citizen, a good parent, and during the night, he roams the streets to clean them of its unruly elements. This double life is the signature of a vigilante. And somehow, the vigilante – violent, cruel, and merciless – strikes a chord in all of us. Whether we like it or not, we sympathize with them, and in quieter moments of reflection, we ironically find justice in their violent retributions. Though we know that society will break down if individuals start taking the law into their own hands, we appreciate the vigilante’s daring and sense of justice. We like the fact that they end up doing the “right” thing by punishing the wrong-doers, something the system we live in doesn’t always guarantee.

A vigilante, like a spiritual seeker, is often a tormented man. He is a normal law-abiding person, who faces a personal trauma that questions his very sense of self; he then goes through a dark period of soul-searching to reconcile his sense of what is right with what he has encountered and eventually emerges convinced of a mission to set things right with crystal clarity. Joseph Campbell, the renowned mythologist describes this condition beautifully: “The hero’s journey always begins with the call. One way or another, a guide must come to say, ‘Look, you’re in Sleepy Land. Wake. Come on a trip. There is a whole aspect of your consciousness, your being, that’s not been touched. So you’re at home here? Well, there’s not enough of you there.’ And so it starts.” In the case of the vigilante the call is an act of violence against him or his family, or a wrong committed in front of eyes, or simply disgust at the way things are. Whatever the reason, the individual questions his own identity and his role in society, and what emerges is a self that is committed to cleaning up the mess. There are moral issues to such a position, but seen from the vigilante’s eyes, it makes perfect sense. He had lived a law-abiding and orderly life before the darkness set in, and now he is resolved to redeem himself, in this case through meting out equal justice.

Antoine Fuqua’s “Equalizer” trilogy is a classic story of vigilantism, with the added attraction of the carefully drawn character of a brooding, intense, meticulous, well-mannered, likable intellectual, and highly skilled vigilante in the form of Robert McCall, an ex-CIA operative. The concept of an equalizer – literally, one who equalizes the injustice he sees around him – was pioneered in a CBS television series between 1986 and 1989. Since then the story has been reprised on television, at least twice along with a few novels that are based on the character. Denzel Washington as Robert McCall shines in the Fuqua trilogy. Take him away from the equation, and the movie could have slipped into one of the routine B-grade action movies that Hollywood is good at churning out. In Washington’s long career, he has never worked on a series or franchisee, and in three Equalizer movies ( 2014, 2018, 2023), he brings a steady intensity and consistency to the role. Fuqua has announced that the third installment will be the last in the series unless Denzel Washington changes his mind. I watched Equalizer 3 in the theater last weekend, and honestly, I am glad this is the last one. I enjoyed the movie and came out in awe of Denzel Washington’s phenomenal art of sustaining a complex and physically demanding character for a decade without compromise, but the movie lacked the depth and coherence of the first two installments. With this one, Fuqua and his team have reached the end of what they could do with the character of Robert McCall.

I remember being blown away when I saw Equalizer 1 a few years ago. Robert McCall is a different kind of vigilante. He is a quiet man, not many friends, and lives a life of routine and habit. He has suffered deep personal losses and wishes to remain anonymous. His home is filled with racks of books, classics in fact. His ex-wife ( now dead) had urged him to read the top hundred works of English literature. He follows her advice. He carries a book to the coffee shop he regularly visits, and orders the same dishes and reads while he eats. His neighbors love him for his kindness and warmth. His only problem is he cannot look away from injustice happening right in front of his eyes. Robert McCall is not interested in wholesale justice, he helps specific individuals in trouble. He is not driven by an ideology to do good or clean up a rotten system. In fact, he turns a blind eye to what goes around, until someone right in front of him is in distress. Helping individuals get justice often pulls him into a wider orbit of violence and mayhem, but that is never his original plan. His only confidante is his ex-boss Susan, with whom he shares a special relationship and whose counsel he values. She understands his special skills, and motivations, and is the only anchor in his otherwise solitary life. Not that McCall listens to her advice, but he likes to validate his actions with her. Equalizer 2 is about Susan and it is the most emotional installment of the three. In all three parts of The Equalizer, the opening scenes are classics; in the first five minutes, the character of Robert McCall is firmly established, usually with some breathtaking action scenes and a lot of blood. Even when McCall kills, there is compassion. He likes to look deep into the eyes of his adversaries and talk to them when life is ebbing away from their bodies. He is not happy killing them, but he has to equalize an injustice; he cannot allow it to go unpunished. However, before he kills, he makes it a point to reason with his adversary, and request that they change their course of action; only when rational options are exhausted does he unleash his terror. McCall also has this curious habit of timing his strikes. He sets the timer on his watch before his attacks and is not happy when his moves take longer than expected. It is in such scenes, that Denzel Washington excels as an actor. It is his eyes that do the talking. I have watched every work that Denzel has ever appeared in, including his debut feature film “Carbon Copy” in 1977. I rate him as one of the finest actors of this generation along with Daniel Day-Lewis and Anthony Hopkins ( just to name two). He chooses his movies carefully and pours himself into the character he lives on screen. It is difficult to find a movie where Denzel hasn’t performed well, even if the film did not do well, or was a critical failure. That is the hallmark of a good method actor. He uses his baritone voice, limpid dark eyes, capacity for meticulous preparation, and the nonchalant swagger that comes naturally to him to great effect. He is a complete actor.

Equalizer 3, which was released on September 1 this year is perhaps the weakest of the three films. I am not surprised because there is only so much one can showcase about a character like Robert McCall. And I am glad that this is the last in the series. One of the reasons Franchisees get boring and lackadaisical in execution is because the creators and the actors start taking the audience for granted, and dish out the same fare each time with minimal cosmetic touches. One must know when to stop doing something, even if it is working well. Equalizer 3 has grossed nearly 150 million dollars, a huge sum for a franchisee. And it could be tempting to attempt a fourth. But Fuqua, the director has pulled the plug and so has Denzel. Rightfully so!!. Even the third was a stretch, and for the first time in the Equalizer series, I looked at my watch to see when the movie was going to end. It was getting predictable and mechanical. Dakota Fanning, who worked with Denzel as a child artist in the 2004 film “Man of Fire”, brings a good twist to the story towards the end, but again for me, this twist was predictable. Denzel is 68 years old, and Ms. Fanning is now 29, but the chemistry hasn’t changed. Maybe, there is a fourth installment by someone other than Antione Fuqua and Denzel with Dakota picking up the threads. Who knows? Vigilante movies are eternally popular with audiences.

In Mani Ratnam’s 1987 masterpiece “Nayagan”, a beautiful regional adaptation of Coppola’s Godfather, towards the end of the film, Velu Nayakar’s ( one of Kamal Haasan’s finest roles) grandson looks up at his Grandfather who is about to be arrested for his violent actions, and asks him: ” Are you a good man or a bad man?”. Nayakar is taken aback by this question, hesitates, and responds ” I don’t know…”. In Equalizer 3, at the beginning of the film, a kind doctor who rescues Robert McCall from death, asks a similar question to his patient ” I hope you are a good man whom we saved?” McCall responds: ” I don’t know”. This is the dilemma of a vigilante. They don’t know which side of the moral boundary they exist in. While their actions do help others in distress, they transgress the law. In Robinhood style, they seek to obtain justice for those who can’t find it elsewhere, and in the process bend and break everything that holds civil society together. Is this right? Can violence be justified in the cause of the good? It is not my intention to debate about this in this essay, but there are no easy answers to this question. It depends on who is asking the question, and the circumstances. Justice is a very nebulous idea, and movies like Equalizer raise interesting questions. One of the reasons we like these movies is because they make us feel good, and empowered, so to speak (viewers generally come out of theaters bloated and full of confidence). Heroism is intoxicating. But like every other intoxication, it has its after-effects.

Pls, watch all three parts of the Equalier series, if you can. This series, in my opinion, is likely to endure the test of time.