Uwe Boll’s film is often interpreted as xenophobic or fascist, but its most disturbing core lies elsewhere: not a longing for order, but a call for its dissolution by Andrea Monti – lecturer in privacy, digital identity and cybersecurity at Sapienza University of Rome – Initially published in Italian by Formiche.net
*Citizen Vigilante* is a film written, produced and directed by the controversial German director Uwe Boll, shot in Croatia on a very low budget. In a well-known film database, it is classified as B-Action, One-Person Army Action, Action, Crime and Thriller, and summarised as follows: “A man takes the law into his own hands by hunting down criminals. His vigilante crusade turns him into a social media star but pits him against the city’s police chief.”
This description could not be further from the subject matter and screenplay of a film which, regardless of its less-than-brilliant cinematic execution, is provoking polarised reactions.
A political statement disguised as an action film
To some, it has appeared as a sort of xenophobic and fascist political manifesto; to others, as a sort of ‘call to arms’ against the invasion of Islamic migrants. In the director’s own words, however, *Citizen Vigilante* is intended to serve as a “warning” about what is allegedly happening, particularly in Germany – where the film is not being released – due to the lack of state control over immigrants, and Islamic immigrants in particular.
The result is that, thanks in part to Elon Musk sharing it on his X profile, the film has gained unexpected popularity, prompting some reflection on its ideological stance.
Why the label of ‘fascism’ is insufficient
As mentioned, *Citizen Vigilante* has been hastily branded as fascist, but in reality this is incorrect because the film instead embodies a nihilistic ethos, in which what matters is neither (restoring) order nor exercising authority. Let someone else worry about that, because what matters — as the protagonist states on at least a couple of occasions — is that the rights of the individual, and in particular the right to wealth, are not sacrificed. Thus, unlike an authoritarian vision, which calls for the establishment of a new social and political order, the film’s vision proposes no ‘aftermath’ to the uprising, nor does it put forward a ‘strongman’ to lead the change.
Chaos as a programme
The protagonist is a sociopathic billionaire who, unlike Hollywood vigilantes, operates within the system, seeking to ‘fix’ its flaws without ever stepping outside the system itself. Boll’s vigilante, by contrast, simply wants to trigger total disorder by ensuring that the people rise up against the ‘invaders’ but also against the authorities who welcome them rather than repelling them. It is telling, in this regard, that – in a style reminiscent of the dark years of ‘red terrorism’ – the film regards even the servants of the state as legitimate targets, going so far as to kill judges accused of being too lenient towards rapists and violent criminals, and showing no mercy towards the police officers tasked with arresting the protagonist.
The vigilante, the state and the internal enemy
This hyper-liberalist framework does not make the film any better, nor does it reassure those reflecting on its implications; yet the distinction from fascism is fundamental to understanding the potential impact of *Citizen Vigilante*.
In fact, the most significant – and worrying, from the point of view of public order – aspect is that the same message is conveyed no fewer than three times: ‘I’m doing this to show you how it’s done, so that you can do it too.’ This is reinforced by the barrage of social media posts and ‘likes’ that the director inserts as interludes to demonstrate how the vigilante’s actions have sparked interest in the most diverse corners of the West.
Private violence as a replicable model
Unlike other films of this genre, therefore, *Citizen Vigilante* does not portray violence as an individual act carried out by a person driven by personal motives, or as a tool of class struggle, but presents it with a pedagogical intent, in the form of actions to be learnt and repeated entirely independently in order to dispense justice.
This role of catalyst for widespread social violence, embodied by the protagonist, seems to have escaped the attention of critics and analysts; nor does the possibility appear to have been considered that the film’s aesthetic — from the choice of actors, through the acting and cinematography, right down to the direction itself — might have been the result of a deliberate choice to not provoke a suspension of disbelief.
The aesthetics of news reporting
In other words, the audience was not meant to feel as though they were watching a film, but rather as though they were direct witnesses to the events unfolding one after the other, as if they were watching a news programme or found themselves in the midst of one of the scenes.
It is precisely this style – which does not confuse but rather blends reality and fiction – that represents the film’s most compelling effect. Faced with the scene of the knife attack from behind, the viewer might lose their bearings and be unsure whether they are watching a film or a news report, much as might happen when confronted with recent scenes of attacks on migrants.
When the work transcends the author’s intentions
The fact remains that, even if the director’s intentions were to denounce what he considers to be a critical situation rather than to fuel social unrest, *Citizen Vigilante* has taken on a meaning of its own.
Everyone is free to interpret it in the way they feel best aligns with their own political convictions, but the strongest message remains that of permanent, horizontal social conflict — in the sense that the state has been reduced from a guarantor of order to a contributor to disorder — as a paradoxical rule of coexistence, or rather, of survival, for those who remain standing.