Change Your Image
mk01678
Reviews
Antigoni (1961)
Review deals with moral dilemmas in Antigone
The plot of Antigone is about the city of Thebes having just come under new rule after the death of Oedipus, along with his two sons, Polynices and Eteocles. The city's new ruler, King Creon, is plotted against a citizen mourning her brother's death, Antigone. After the death of both of her brothers, Creon states that only Eteocles shall be given a proper burial because he died defending his city. On the other hand Polynices got together an army to fight against Thebes and died an enemy of the state. Antigone has the internal dilemma of choosing to obey her king or to obey the divine ruling of the Gods, and to honor her brother with a burial. The moral dilemmas presented in this film can be related to those in Plato's works, Euthyphro and Republic. The main question brought about it what is right or just? Antigone must question is the justice in her brother's burial a greater justice than Creon's rule? Euthyphro would argue yes, it would be justified to bury her brother in a religious fashion for he was a believer and its what the Gods would want, therefore, it is just and pious. In Plato's republic, Thraseymachus argues that just is the will of the stronger. He believes that a ruler must be obeyed. Thus in his perspective Antigone would have gone against what was right and just by going against her ruler, her king, Creon. The problem that we as the viewers must question then is how can you decide which justice is the greater one? Antigone apparently sees going against the will of the gods a s a greater injustice for she buries her brother despite Creon's demands. It is then King Creon who is placed in a difficult situation when his punishment to Antigone, his son's soon to be bride, causes her to hang herself and thus he tears apart the family. Though he once stated that a rule with exceptions is a weak rule, one can argue that the rules of morality must have exceptions, so are they therefore weak? Or are they stronger because they can be molded to fit any question. I saw the min questioned posed in the film as which injustice was greater, thus presenting each character with their own internal argument.
Memorable parts of the film having to do with morality: "How hard is it for a mind to be changed by force?"- King Creon "Reason is man's most precious gift, and by the will of nature, the tone of his reasoning is determined by his moral code."- Antigone, the movie
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
This review deals with moral dilemmas found in Crimes and Misdemeanors
In Crimes and Misdemeanor, Judah, an optometrist is having trouble getting his mistress of 2 years to keep quiet about their affair. He seeks the help of his brother who suggest that she can be taken care of if Judah examines his conscience and sees that he can live with such a thing. According to his brother, Judah really has no other option and so goes through with the plan. After the murder is executed, Judah realizes that maybe he cannot handle the regret and guilt that pounds through his head all day long. Similarly another main character with a somewhat disconnected plot deals with his own small infidelities while he suffers through a marriage that is obviously not fulfilling his needs or his soon to be ex wife's. One of the quotes from Judah in the movie that really strikes the viewer with a puzzling question of morality is "What good is the law if it prevents me from justice?" It poses the second question, is it okay to murder someone if you are not caught? It seems an absurd question to ask but it really is valid if you think in the context of the movie.
Utilitarianists, such as Mill, argue that the main purpose in life is happiness. Not so much individual happiness, but happiness for the most possible number of people and in a sense of net gain of happiness. Judah may become happier through the death of his mistress, but when you think in terms of net gain of happiness in the whole you must consider what his mistresses loss adds to the sum. Simplified, Judah may be happier now, but what about his mistress and her family, it doesn't add up.
When looked at from Immanuel Kant's point of view the murder and the lying that precedes it are both inexcusable. In his explanations, it is never okay to lie, or promise under false pretenses, because it then become hard to trust promisers and thus making promises becomes obsolete. In terms of murder if we all killed each other, or ourselves, there would be no one left, thus it also cannot be made a universal law, and is therefore, not moral.
L'enfant sauvage (1970)
This review deal with moral dilemmas found in The Wild Child
L'Infant Sauvage, or The Wild Child, is the story of a young boy found in the woods in the 18th century and a French doctor's attempt to introduce him to civilization. The wild boy, later named Victor, was in what the philosophers Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau would call one's "state of nature". The boy was abandoned in the woods for around 8 years or so and grew up without any form of socialization, therefore no societal boundaries, or "chains", as Rousseau would speak of. The boy originally lived in a state of nature where he had free will and lived by the motivating factor of self- preservation. When he was taken from his environment and brought to Dr.Itard, it was as if he joined (unwillingly) a Hobbesian society where all his rights were taken away but he was offered protection. The main things Dr. Itard wished to study were what kind of qualities the boy possessed without society's influence, such as compassion, sense of language, and ability to judge justice (or right from wrong). The boy had mostly animalistic instincts such as the ability to return to where he knew he would be provided food, such as after his one attempt to run away. These instincts also showed during his lessons and observations with Dr.Itard, he seemed more keen on memorization of something rather than actually learning it. It was however tested if the boy new the idea of justice when Dr.Itard punished him for something he did not do incorrectly and victor did seem to question why this was being done. Overall the boy was not successful in ever talking though he did seem to become accustomed to human ways such as wearing clothes. The question still lingers in the film if it was right to force our civilized lifestyle upon him or is a good life one that is lived with accordance to happiness and therefore humans brought Victor or the Wild Boy out of this state.