Change Your Image
briandyson10
Reviews
Antigoni (1961)
The virtues of one versus the virtues of another
Antigone begins with a battle just having ended in Thebes. Polynieces has rebelled against his brother Eteocles after he refused to renounce the throne as he had agreed to do so. Thebes then comes under the control of Creon who rules that Eteocles is to have an honorable burial while Polynieces is to remain above ground. Creon saw Polynieces as a traitor of the town and undeserving of an honorable burial. Antigone, sister of Polynieces and Eteocles, decides to defy Creon's orders and bury her brother. As a result, she is sentenced by Creon to live the remainder of her days confined in a cave. Haemon, Creon's son, tries desperately to change his father's opinion but is unable to do so.
Once Antigone is placed in the cave she makes the decision to hang herself. Haemon, going against his father's orders, opens the cave and finds the woman he loves dead. Haemon immediately returns home to confront his father and attempts to kill him. When he realizes this is futile, he decides to kill himself instead. Once Eurydice, the wife of Creon, learns of the death of her son she too commits suicide. In the end, Creon is alone due to the fact that he was unwilling to reconsider his punishment.
This movie raises the question of whether or not the virtues of one are more important than the virtues of others. Antigone was trying to ensure that her brother received an honorable burial so that he could proceed to the afterlife; she had an obligation to do this because he was her brother. Creon, on the other hand, made the edict and felt as though he must adhere to it because if he did not his subjects would think that he was weak and that they could do as they pleased. The movie, in my opinion, shows the need for reason and compassion when dictating laws that others must follow; one must consider the virtues of others while at the same time maintaining the peace and keeping order.
L'enfant sauvage (1970)
Hobbes vs. Rousseau
After watching L'Infant Sauvage I noticed a connection between the plot and the philosophical beliefs of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in particular, their respective ideas concerning the state of nature. Hobbes believed that humans in the state of nature were solitary, animalistic beings that were concerned solely on self-preservation by any means necessary. Men were equal only in their ability to kill one another, either through superior intellect or physical capabilities. In contrast, Rousseau spoke of the inherent sense of compassion and the susceptibility of humans to interact socially.
In the case of Victor, the "savage" boy found in the woods of Aveyron, France, the theories of human development, social interactions, and primitive tendencies could be tested and observed. When Victor was originally found, he was naked and completely unaware of modern technology and the social structures of the time. He relied on his senses alone to survive and behaved in an animalistic manner. In reference to these two philosophical theories, where did Victor fall?
Victor did display "savage" characteristics; however, he only seemed to be violent in the sense that he was defending himself, adhering to the concept of self-preservation. Dr. Itard tried relentlessly to develop Victor's comprehension and verbal reasoning skills. He attempted to teach Victor to read and to speak. Unfortunately, at the end of the movie, in my opinion, it seems as though the progress Victor made was more of memorization and less of application. He memorized letters and pictures of items and was able to distinguish them from others; however, he was never able to perform any critical thinking exercises and never got further in the stages of speech than the ability to say the word 'milk'. As far as social skills are concerned, very little compassion was seen between Victor and Dr. Itard. Victor showed emotion when he achieved certain goals and was awarded with water or milk; however, I do not believe those emotions were directed towards Dr. Itard as much as they were just results of reaping the benefits of performing a requested task. The end of the movie did not discuss Victor's later years, but ends with Dr. Itard coming to the realization that not much more could be done to educate Victor.
In the end, I'm not sure if the life of Victor depicted in the film is conclusive evidence for either theories of the state of nature. Victor was not completely war-like and he didn't seem to have any compelling internal motive or a need to socialize.
Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989)
Guilt based on consequences
"Crimes and Misdemeanors" contains two main ethical dilemmas. Both involve adultery, and in the case of one, led to murder. In the case of Judah, his lover threatened to confront his wife about his wrongdoing and states that she intends on divulging information regarding his questionable financial decisions that could land him in serious trouble.
Meanwhile, a struggling filmmaker named Cliff takes a movie job at the request of his despised brother-in-law. He makes it blatantly clear that his marriage is in shambles and quickly falls in love with a fellow coworker while working on the film.
The plot thickens when Judah makes the decision to have his lover murdered and the woman that Cliff is interested in takes a job in London and moves to England. Judah is stricken with guilt and remorse while Cliff seems to have hope that the relationship with his former coworker will develop further upon her arrival back to the United States.
The movie ends with Judah telling Cliff a possible movie plot at a wedding that they both were attending. He tells of a wealthy murderer who gets away with his crime and slowly loses a sense of guilt and remorse as he finds a renewed sense of love in his wife and his family. He is of course talking about himself.
Was Judah morally and ethically responsible for her death? Should he feel bad? The movie leads us to believe otherwise. I get the impression that Woody Allen believes that we base guilt on the presence of punishment following the crime. Judah lived comfortably, without punishment or consequences. Cliff's crime of adultery, on the other hand, led to a broken heart as his lover returned from London married to his soon to be ex-wife's brother.
Although the film was very good, in my opinion, I felt as though the split storyline between the two main characters was hard to follow at times because it wasn't obvious what the connection between the two might have been until the very end.