Stereotyping and Hidden Power in The Usual Suspects

Introduction: Stereotyping as the Film's Central Theme

There are many different aspects of life, culture, society, and history embedded in the 1996 film The Usual Suspects; however, one of the more prominent themes deals with the notion of stereotyping. In this respect, the film illustrates a sociological issue more prominently than other concerns — though there are certainly cultural ramifications that can be construed from these issues as well. One of the chief points of brilliance in the film's portrayal of stereotyping stems from the fact that it presents this issue in an extremely subtle way, which demands that the audience reconcile these points intellectually. It serves as an alternative to the conventions typically employed in cinema, where movies often highlight racial, religious, sex, or national bias in a predictable fashion. Instead, this film deals with a profound subject — central to the nature of humanity itself — by focusing on the perceived nature of criminals, a perception that is challenged by the stereotypes selected in the depiction of the criminal elements in society.

Verbal Kent and the Inversion of Criminal Stereotypes

The primary means by which the film illustrates the role of stereotyping is by having the seemingly frailest character, Verbal Kent, surprisingly turn out to be nothing less than a shrewd, cold-hearted criminal mastermind. However, this character embodies none of these characteristics throughout most of the film, and Kent's true nature is not revealed until the final scenes. The weakest character is perceived as Kent, who is portrayed as crippled, soft-spoken, somewhat odd, and largely marginalized — but who ultimately becomes the proverbial "power behind the throne" in the plot's final twist. It is this surprise climax that has earned the film its notoriety as one of the best cerebral thrillers of all time.

Dean Keaton and the Reformed Criminal

The film also examines criminal stereotypes in other ways. For example, Kent is allied with four other criminals, each of whom appears more powerful, ruthless, or vindictive than the others. One in particular — the de facto leader of the group, Dean Keaton — seems to epitomize the characteristics of the stereotypical criminal mastermind. Yet in the end, he turns out to be the story's most sympathetic figure: a man who has genuinely reformed his previous criminal tendencies and is trying desperately to reestablish himself within society. The other characters also appear more ruthless and criminal in nature than the relatively docile Kent, yet these stereotypes are likewise challenged in order to demonstrate that true criminality is not necessarily what one might assume.

The Plot Twist and Its Sociological Implications

The Usual Suspects is particularly thought-provoking in its ending, which features a major plot twist in which the viewer — and the primary law enforcement officer questioning Kent — suddenly realizes that Kent was the criminal mastermind, using deception all along to cover his tracks. The thought-provoking nature of this ending results from a series of dynamic reversals.

Throughout the film, Kent has been telling the law enforcement officer that the criminal mastermind behind a recent massacre in the San Pedro harbor is an international drug lord known as Keyser Söze. Söze's connections and power are of legendary, almost mythical status, spanning the world at the highest levels. Even the mere mention of this character's name visibly terrifies those familiar with it, and they change the subject at the first opportunity. The truly striking aspect of the film's surprise ending emerges when it is revealed that Kent is a fictitious persona that Söze invented in order to deceive everyone around him — including the audience. Kent seemingly possesses none of the traits people would associate with a figure like Söze; compared to the fearsome drug lord, Kent appears fearful, meek, and even foolish at times.

All of those negative attributes are, in reality, an elaborate deception that enables Söze to move through society unnoticed. The implications at this point of revelation are enormous. The powerful and terrifying characters portrayed in the story immediately appear no more threatening than the weakest ones. In fact, their power is deliberately used to blend in with the rest of society. Deception is their key advantage, and society as a whole has no idea what is actually happening or who is controlling it. The cinematic elements through which this conclusion is revealed are equally dramatic: the officer flashes back to different points in Kent's lengthy lie, his cup of coffee slowly drops to the floor and shatters as he reaches his epiphany. Each shard seemingly represents a different piece of Kent's fabricated story, as the camera intersperses fragments of dialogue and images that aided Kent's deception.

Conclusion: The Cultural Impact of The Usual Suspects

The effect of this film on society manifests in several ways. It could help justify the credibility of conspiracy theories by providing an illustration of hidden complexities that might lie behind the curtain of power. The belief that people and power structures exist so far beyond the limitations of civil society can shatter the illusion of law and order, leaving audiences to wonder whether such forces are "hiding in plain sight," their power resting entirely in their anonymity.

Ultimately, The Usual Suspects is a film that rewards careful thought. Its portrayal of stereotyping is not heavy-handed or didactic but instead operates as a carefully constructed intellectual trap — one that the audience only recognizes once it has already been caught. In doing so, it raises enduring questions about how we read people, how we construct narratives of power and criminality, and how easily our assumptions can be turned against us.

References

Brown, F. W., & Moshavi, D. (2005). Transformational leadership and emotional intelligence: A potential pathway for an increased understanding of interpersonal influence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(7), 867–871.