For this 1977 horror, the dynamic or the theme of concern is the censorship of a betrayal of a rightful betrayal.
A rightful betrayal is an erroneous perfection. A censorship of a betrayal is the mere absence of a betrayal Ė so whatís being dealt with is in fact the perfection of an incorrect perfection.
The perfection of an incorrect perfection is the absurdity of a correct absurdity. And then the absurdity of a correct absurdity is just the absurdity of perfection.
The logic can continue, with the absurdity of perfection, but it doesnít have to: the logic can instead continue with the perfection of an incorrect perfection, and just try to find a different way forward. To humour the latter, the perfection of an incorrect perfection can be altered into the perfection of absurdity. So which is better Ė the perfection of absurdity or the absurdity of perfection?
The perfection of absurdity is the helping of a weakness Ė the absurdity of perfection is a damnation of visual evolution. At first glance, both appear to be equal, but of course, itís bound to be the case that one side has more merit over the other side.
Helping a weakness vs. the pure absence of superiority. In strict logical terms, itís the latter concept that commands more weight. However, the 1977 movie The Sentinel is very likely not interested in actual logic, or at least is very likely to have the perspective that strict logic is not an inherently virtuous concept.
To differentiate the two opposing sides, letís attempt to deconstruct them. To help a weakness means to destroy an evolution. The pure absence of evolution is the inability to help. So itís the basic absence of intervention against the gratification of intervention.
With the gratification of intervention being the intervention of gratification, and with the opposite of the absence of intervention being the intervention of absence, the better interpretation and diagnosis of The Sentinel is the value of a type of intervention as opposed to no intervention Ė itís better to be saved by a type of something as opposed to not needing to be saved at all.
In the Michael Winner film, the true objective, and the true meaning of morality is that violence is worth existing because if reality experiences violence it means then that reality gets to obtain a visual image Ė an image that can save reality (and by extension violence).
An image that saves violence is an act of violence that canít hurt an image Ė a violence that canít hurt an image is a violence that can hurt nothing.
A violence that hurts nothing is nothing that can save violence Ė nothing that saves violence is nothing that hurts nothing. Nothing that hurts nothing is something that saves something Ė something that saves something is saving being nothing.
Saving being nothing is nothing being destruction Ė violence isnít possible, and yet help is possible.
Reality can have it both ways: it can experience safety, but not have to put up with the cause of safety.
In case it isnít already apparent, I have a kind of infatuation with Cristina Raines (and I have to reference Raines herself, as opposed to Alison Parker, for the same reason that I had to reference Talitha Bateman and not Janice in the article about wanting to be a guardian to her); itís been just over 40 years since the release of The Sentinel, which puts the film at exactly the same age as Star Wars Ė can it be more than a joke, if I now turn The Sentinel into something which bookends the very famous and epic space saga?
Itís needless to point out, but Iíll say it anyway: I hope to meet Cristina Raines one day, and specifically so I can tell her in person the exact way that Iíve perceived my perception of The Sentinel