DirectorBen Wheatley’sKill Listis not a film you may watch once. The first viewing will inevitably become too dizzying to appreciate the power of the film, especially since we naturally attempt to rationalize and interpret what is on the screen.Kill Listis difficult to interpret, and not in a cop-out lazy way, but in a deliberately conceived series of events that we are supposed to feel, not interpret. From frequently making reality and the imagination indistinguishable from each other to featuring an ending that evokes a plethora ofincomplete rational interpretations, it is impossible to pinpoint a line of logic that is retained throughout the film. Instead, it revels in its ambiguity. The ambiguity is deliberately delivered, ensuring that the rush of feeling provoked while viewing it is of heightened significance, ultimately creating a symphony of emotions that are far more powerful than any stream of logic could provide.
Nearly a year after a botched job, a hitman takes a new assignment with the promise of a big payoff for three killings. What starts off as an easy task soon unravels, sending the killer into the heart of darkness.
What Is Ben Wheatley’s ‘Kill List’ About?
The beginning of the film seems fairly rational, following anex-military man who is struggling to secure a joband is facing immense pressure from his wife to cut back on spending and return to his hitman career. Jay (Neil Maskell) is severely traumatized from his job in Kyiv, which is never fully addressed in the film, later hinting that perhaps he had veered off the titular kill list assigned to him, leaving him in trouble, alongside his hitman buddy Gal (Michael Smiley). Though the first 20 minutes drags on a bit, setting up Jay’s family dynamics and slowly pushing him towards accepting another job, there is a distinct quality of logic and normalcy that pervades it. This normalcy is briefly disrupted byJay deciding to cook up a dead rabbit found on the family lawn(possibly hunted down by the cat), but is illustrated as a strange quirk Jay has rather than anything ominous.
Kill Listthen follows a logical progression and organized framework as Jay and Gal decide to take up another job, systematically checking off each target on their kill list. The film is also divided into sections based on the list, boasting a huge title screen describing the occupation of each subsequent target. Despite this consistent structure, the actual events of the film begin to spiral into a series of ambiguous decisions and bizarre remarks, markedly starting from the deal with the client (Struan Roger). As they sign the contract, theclient abruptly takes Jay’s hand and slashes his palm with a knife, binding their agreement with blood and foreshadowing thecult later in the film. Furthermore, every target on their list, some more unsavory than others,all smile at and thank Jay for taking their lives. During the first viewing, this is the point where you will inevitably begin to theorize the “plot twist” ending, seeking for a rational basis for these strange behaviors.
‘Kill List’ Pushes the Boundaries of Reality
As these strange events unfold,Kill Listalso subtly begins to blur reality in a more overt way, namely through Jay’s dreams. Once Jay decides to take this job, his trauma in Kyiv begins manifesting as eerie nightmares.Kill Listfilms these dreams as virtually indistinguishable from reality, as we never see him actually go to sleep nor is there any change in editing or cinematography that demarcates these scenes as a manifestation of his troubled psyche. The content is also remarkably realistic, from his wife Shel (MyAnna Buring,also inThe Witcher) arguing with him to Gal’s ex-girlfriend Fiona (Emma Fryer) creepily waving at him through his window. We only realize it is a dream through the sudden jolt of Jay waking up, also jolting us out of our stupor while we witness these mundane yet creepy interactions. As viewers armed with logic, it keeps us on our toes, searching for signs of reality or nightmares to interpret the hidden meaning of these seemingly meaningless nightmares.
Already the film hints at its unknowable aspect, warning us that rationality has no place here while pushing the boundaries of reality. From the lack of explanation around Jay’s trauma in Kyiv to avoiding telling us what is real or not,Kill Listrenders facts insignificant and unnecessary for this viewing, deftly leering at our craving for internal logic in a film. This only increases as the film’s pacing reaches a fever dream status, assaulting us withultra-graphic violenceand horrifying emotions. Jay begins unraveling as he reaches each target, the turning point being “The Librarian” (Mark Kempner), a librarian who distributes child pornography, thrusting Jay into a frenzy of manic violence. It alsocatalyzes Jay to once again veer off-script and hunt down the producer of these atrocities, where each descent into darkness evokes a fever dream pace and messy cinematography.
‘Kill List’ Has Many Potential Meanings
The film’s ability to elicit confusion is compounded by its polysemy, particularly in its ending. So, if you haven’t watchedKill Listyet, go watch it on Shudder now and come back for these slight spoilers. Now that you are back with a huge gaping hole of bafflement in your heart, it is likely you are trying to rationalize thebizarre events of the horrificending,only to come up with conflicting interpretations that are either filled with plot holes or are underwhelming. It is specifically Shel’s maniacal laughter when she and her son are cut down by her husband during this strange cult ritual that becomes the source of confusion. As the burlap sack falls from her face and her toothy laugh emerges from her bloodied lips, it completely stumps any viewer who is watching this through a logical lens.
There are multiple ways we can interpret this. The most underwhelming is thatShel had just reached her breaking point and was completely hysterical and deliriousat that point. Yet this starkly contrasts her earlier calm and cold demeanor while she was steadily shooting the cult members that invaded her cottage. Alternatively,Shel could have been part of the cult,and elicited the same gratefulness and euphoric joy of being killed by Jay that the others had. This is further supported by Shel encouraging Jay to take the hitman job that slowly chips away at his psyche to mold him into theperfect cult leader in aHereditarysort of way, yet doesn’t explain why Shel shot down the cult members once Jay was abducted. (Why not simply rejoin the ranks?) Another interpretation hints at paganism, asFiona draws the cult symbols in their house,apparently did some “weird shit” to Gal when they were intimate, and also randomly befriends Shel, who was at first ambivalent towards her. This supernatural interpretation is also referenced in th bulky title texts, filled with quasi-ritualistic names like “The Librarian,” or “The Hunchback.”
15 Movies That Will Make You Afraid of Your Neighbors
Horror is just behind a white picket fence.
From potential paganism to Shel simply being disoriented and psychologically battered, the film doesn’t follow any internal logic, nor does it imply a satisfying explanation for the events of the finale. As such,the significant aspect is not why Shel laughs, but how it feels when she does. With the standstill image of Jay looming over her, we find ourselves writhing in a palpable mixture of ambiguity, horror, awe, and repulsion.Kill Listmasterfully guides us to this revelation of emotions, orchestrating a symphony of shifting emotions that becomes the basis of the story, far more critical and powerful than the events themselves. Really, the strange plot points simply become a vehicle for this in the most direct way possible, with itsonly purpose to evoke a reactionrather than to create a cohesive narrative we follow along with. The emotions become the tale rather than being a secondary tool used to make us connect with the film: slight boredom, piqued interest, perplexity, nervousness, and the swirling mix at the end that cements our own descent into madness.
‘Kill List’ Is Supposed To Be Ambiguous
Kill Listis crafted to be as intangible as Jay’s nightmares are, perfectly described byJohn Keats’ “negative capability,” where anartist is confident enough to reside in uncertainties rather than reach for fact or science. If the film and its power itself has convinced you that it is supposed to be ambiguous, Wheatley confirms that it was his intent in aninterview withComplex. He explains how “a lot of people enjoy that teasing out of information” from a film, leading to how he wanted his film to reflect the ambiguities of life. Interestingly,the original script contained full explanations for everything we see on screen, and during post-production, scenes were weeded out to make the film “kind of skeletal enough that people will understand it,” yet still be confused by it. The intentional dreamlike quality also contributed to the film’s ambiguity, making it a film for the people, removed from the creator’s intentions, an idea explained in the literary theory of “The Death of the Author.”
Just like how many ofDavid Lynch’s movies lend themselves to multiple viewings, Wheatley’s piece demands multiple viewings for us to solidify our own individual interpretations of it that are based on our own experiences and emotional response to the film. This quality drives home the fact thatKill Listis not about the film’s content but rather our reaction to it,making it a uniquely personal experience. So to fully grasp the power of the film, with its shifting reality, polysemic capabilities and confidence in uncertainty, a second viewing, free from the desire for logic, is necessary and rewarding.
