Hot Fuzz Identity Analysis

Identity in Hot Fuzz (dir. Edgar Wright)

The first three or so times one watches Edgar Wright’s Hot Fuzz, it may not seem to be a movie that argues much of anything besides that one should perhaps employ a bit more caution when visiting seemingly sleepy English villages in the countryside. However, throughout the next couple of watches, when one has finally begun to understand the layers upon layers of clever jokes, it becomes a movie that grapples with the issue of retaining one’s personal identity in the face of deep ethical and moral issues, albeit it does this much less seriously than most other movies in the business of questioning identity. Ultimately, Hot Fuzz argues for psychological continuity in terms of personal identity by highlighting

There are three main factions within the psychological continuity theory, the first is that self is determined by memories and the continuity of self is determined by the fact that most memories are retained through a person 's life. The second is that a continuous stream of consciousness is the determining factor of self. However, both of these have flaws: memories can be forgotten and false memories are not a uncommon occurrence, and the stream of consciousness is broken during sleep. The last theory, and the one that Hot Fuzz advocates for, is that self-identity is determined by “long-standing psychological characteristics (e.g., personality, dispositions, worldview [as well as value system and long term desires])” (Litch 82). This is a more sound argument in the context of continuity since these “sorts of attributes that generally change very slowly over time” (Litch 69). However, it can be harder to differentiate between individuals using this argument since people are more likely to share the same value system for instance than the exact same memories. Nevertheless, with his use of strong characterization and exploration of ethics in Hot Fuzz, Wright certainly argues that this is still a viable argument for the continuity of

Angel is pragmatic, straightforward, and a strict rule follower; he corrects other police officers when they do not use the code mandated vocabulary, he is very set in his routines, and even his name, Angel, suggests that he is morally just. The black-and-whiteness of Angel’s world is further supported when he explains why he wanted to become a police officers. He says, “I had to prove to myself that the law was proper, and righteous, and for the good of humankind,” (Wright) and explains it as a clear sense of “right and wrong.” He goes even further when he explains to schoolchildren what being a police officer entails, saying that it is “the exercising of unquestionable moral authority” (Wright). Both of examples show that Angel has a very clear sense of what is moral and what is not, which is why it comes as such a shock (at least the first few times watching the movie) that Angel, in response to the moral corruptness underlying the town’s title of “Village of the Year” is to pick up a gun and turn the situation into a stereotypical cop action film, especially since he had been so proud of not having picked up a gun in two years. However, it is less surprising when one considers what he says right before shooting at the reverend: “I may not be a man of God, Reverend, but I know right and I know wrong and I