"Why did she keep making targets?"
Because what she wanted was an all out segregated society, really.
Ousting the mayor is as easy as filing an HR complaint. The fact she formulated the whole plan is a huge teller about something much deeper that's hinted at in the whole society the movie spends its introductory segment showing.
Democracies are easily corruptible when people are pushed into a fearful environment. Not unlike, well, pretty much every dictatorship established itself, due to some demagogues becoming popular, or reviving a slight resentment into a flaming scary environment. Just read any Goebbels speech, he uses 'terror' and 'fear' so much you'd think this was a post 9/11 Rush Limbaugh on the podium. It's a simple display of people exploiting how a society can be easily simplified into having a victim/agressor build to it.
You don't need a Master's in political sciences to see the simplicity with which this same logic is not only applied into the film villain's acts, but in today's standards.
But the point is, it's not a 'solitary artificial villain' here. The villain represents a culmination of the bubbling resentment about predator/prey relations that are CONSTANTLY HINTED AT throughout the whole film. You can't suddenly say it's 'tacked on' like that. The theming that allows the viewer to accept the villain without suspension of disbelief is shown to us, multiple times throughout the movie's acts.
So no, the fact that you overlook that element of the social and political subtext just so you could squeeze some sort of 'duality' about your movie's interpretation is sloppy at best. It hasn't 'succeeded and failed' at doing same thing. This isn't a Schroedinger's Cat of a film.
"Why did she keep making targets?"
Because what she wanted was an all out segregated society, really.
Ousting the mayor is as easy as filing an HR complaint. The fact she formulated the whole plan is a huge teller about something much deeper that's hinted at in the whole society the movie spends its introductory segment showing.
Democracies are easily corruptible when people are pushed into a fearful environment. Not unlike, well, pretty much every dictatorship established itself, due to some demagogues becoming popular, or reviving a slight resentment into a flaming scary environment. Just read any Goebbels speech, he uses 'terror' and 'fear' so much you'd think this was a post 9/11 Rush Limbaugh on the podium. It's a simple display of people exploiting how a society can be easily simplified into having a victim/agressor build to it.
You don't need a Master's in political sciences to see the simplicity with which this same logic is not only applied into the film villain's acts, but in today's standards.
But the point is, it's not a 'solitary artificial villain' here. The villain represents a culmination of the bubbling resentment about predator/prey relations that are CONSTANTLY HINTED AT throughout the whole film. You can't suddenly say it's 'tacked on' like that. The theming that allows the viewer to accept the villain without suspension of disbelief is shown to us, multiple times throughout the movie's acts.
So no, the fact that you overlook that element of the social and political subtext just so you could squeeze some sort of 'duality' about your movie's interpretation is sloppy at best. It hasn't 'succeeded and failed' at doing same thing. This isn't a Schroedinger's Cat of a film.