[LIGHT VS SHADOW] The nature of Good and Evil in film

[randomh3r0]

The nature of good and evil in film:

 

(caution, this discussion will discuss plots and concepts in movies, an d could contain spoilers. Please keep this in mind when reading, and if posting a spoiler please be courteous and mark it so!)

 

This is a broad topic, and as such I decided to break it into three main categories:

 

Good vs. Evil in Fantasy

 

Good vs. Evil in realistic films

 

Good vs. Evil within the human race

 

These categories may seem like strange designations at first, but let me explain: Good vs. Evil in fantasy works typically allow for an “ultimate evil”, or evil embodied in one being. Good and evil in more realistic films, such as action/suspense, usually has to do with the ill intentions of a single or group of antagonists. Good and evil within the human race is identified by films that focus on changing humanity: the antagonist or group of “bad guys” seeks to control or change humanity, often with good or not so “evil” intent, and the “hero” seeks to overcome this and protect humans.

 

Good vs. Evil in Fantasy

 

For me, this is the easiest category to identify. You typically have two very distinct factions of beings, some fighting for good, and some fighting for self-proclaimed evil. The Lord of the Rings trilogy, while based on books, supports this perfectly: You have Sauron, “The Dark Lord”, and his army of evil orcs, goblins and such, seeking to destroy men and dominate all life. As humans, we see this as evil, and good or “the light” fights this to protect mankind. Star Wars is another example, with the evil Sith Lords controlling an empire to exterminate anyone who challenges them. The interesting thing to me, however, is this still shares an underlying theme with the other two categories... but more on that later.

 

Good vs. Evil in realistic films

 

This category is slightly more difficult to truly label “good vs evil”. First, the category itself is based on films that follow plots and settings, technology, events that could feasibly happen. Think movies like Gone in 60 Seconds, The Bourne Trilogy, even James Bond. There are far-fetched aspects, but in general the films are created to be based on realistic principles.

The interesting thing about this category is that occasionally you feel compelled to side with characters that aren’t always doing “good”. I cited Gone in 60 Seconds for this exact reason: A crew of car thieves seeks to steal 50 cars in one night, and these are the good guys? As the film develops, we see it’s to save the life of the protagonist’s brother, and they are “criminals with a heart of gold”, with a more bad-bad guy in the movie.

Is there something about good and evil in a realistic setting that blurs the lines of our morals, and potentially allows us to do “a little evil to do a greater good”? (Kingdom of Heaven) In my opinion this can happen frequently. I’ll cite another movie title, Serenity (based on the series Firefly) that also brings me to the next category....

 

Good vs. Evil within the human race.

 

First, I mentioned Serenity because our “heroes” are a crew that typically does dishonest work to get by, but again, have hearts of gold, and sacrifice much to do the greater good.

What this category deals with more, however, is the plot that an antagonist seeks to change humans... thus making us more docile, easier to rule, what have you. This is the plot of Serenity, with the

Alliance attempting to change humans on a terraformed planet that ends up killing most of them, and creating the Reavers out of the rest. The crew then fights to reveal this and stop them.

 

 

 

Another good example is Equilibrium, with the plot being that humans decide war and everything bad about humans is due to our emotions, and seek to bring peace by eliminating emotion. The hero’s quest then begins when he ceases taking the medication that removes emotion, and helps to fight to bring back emotion to the world: being the thing that truly makes us human. In this case, it could be argued that the “bad guys” were attempting to do good, to help, but were misguided or sacrificed too much to attain this goal.

The main villain even reveals that he has ceased the medication as well, asking if Preston can still kill him knowing that. Even the controller ended up still wanting to feel.

 

 

 

Where all three categories overlap, in my opinion, is the idea of freedom. Whether it’s a dark lord seeking to enslave the world, a government seeking to eradicate war through medication, or a government’s secret project to build the ultimate human weapon (Bourne) who then fights to just get away from this government, the key to all three is: freedom.

 

As humans, it’s in our very nature to desire the freedom to make mistakes, to do good, to fight for our causes and to feel our emotions. The threat of removing this from the human experience seems to be the one core, resounding idea that disturbs us the most, and is hence labeled as “evil”.

 

I have more thoughts on this, but this should be enough to get the conversation going.

 

What do you think?

[Davrick]

I thought I would share a clip of one of my favorite movies. I do think this can be applied to each of your categories.

 

 

While I don't think a lot of people are evil really, this clip does bring up a good point. Indifference in people can be in some situations just as bad or worse than someone who is committing evil acts because they are allowing these acts to continue.

[randomh3r0]

Before the clip even loaded I knew this would be Boondock Saints :)

 

It's one of the films that deals heavily with this subject, while providing a blatant moral dilemma (on the part of the agent).

 

Do you agree their actions were for a greater good, even if the religious aspect is removed, or pure vigilantism?

[Davrick]

Well yes and no. I think they could have possibly done things in a different way, however they were doing good in their own way.

 

Have you seen the second movie?

[randomh3r0]

I have indeed. It didn't have the same raw emotion and appeal to me that the first did, but I still love it because of the characters.

 

So, does anyone else have any points to raise, dispute or whatnot? Further thoughts, Davrick?

 

For anyone reading the thread, there could very well be points involved for participation...

[Netbattler11]

Haven't seen Boondock Saints, unfortunately.

 

One of my favorite Good v. Evil is LotR. Epic in scale, clear-cut lines, and no quarter for either side.

 

Are books allowed in here too or just movies?

[randomh3r0]

Well, the discussion is film. For films based on books, you can reference the book, but lets keep it to movies.

 

So what's your thoughts on the nature if the struggle in LoTR then?

[Niniel]

I rarely watch films but I guess I can discuss LotR since I have read it. :)

 

Like most fantasy there are a clear line between good and evil. There are some characters that get so fascinated by the ring and it´s powers that they turn from the good side in different ways.

 

Boromir - only want to save Minas Tirith. He is not evil but can´t see the bigger picture. His goal is to beat Sauron by using his own powers against him.

 

Saruman - goes even further. His attempts to fight Sauron makes him evil himself. He forgets his mission and only wants power for himself. Maybe a parallel in WoT would be Aridhol. The king listened to Mordeth and tried to fight the shadow in a way that gave birth to Mashadar.

 

Both have good intentions in the beginning but they become power hungry. That kind of power is a part of the evil. Gandal and Aragon stands for the opposite. They does not forget their mission and managed to resist the temptation.

 

Maybe it´s a classical Christian view of good and evil? Satan is trying to tempt you all the time and the good is to resist it.

[randomh3r0]

I think you hit on a strong idea here Tina. Does a society still based largely in religious factions view the nature of good and evil differently?

I don't think the Satan parallel works with LoTR myself, because the Ring has a will of its own, and corrupts those who carry or use it.

The pity shown to Gollum comes from the idea that the ring made him no longer wholly responsible for who he was.

If Satan is real, it's still presented on Christianity that he seeks to deceive us, but were still ultimately the ones who make the choice. (These are just my opinions)

But in works of fantasy, we see evils incarnations seeking to destroy us or govern our free will, not merely deceive. Films that tend to depict an actual devil, like Constantine for instance, show him bargaining for souls, not launching frontal assaults on the world.

I think a movie that showed satan as he's depicted biblically would be terrifying

[Davrick]

Have any of you read the Sword of Truth series? They could be added to this discussion...well kinda I don't really count Legend of the Seeker to be all that great of a representation of the books.

[randomh3r0]

I did actually, the first three books I think. I somewhat enjoyed the first season of LoTS, but felt it was far too formulaic to truly capture the books.

 

That being said, I never got fully into it, and am not sure why. I guess I have different ideas on what "magic" should be like in fantasy, and it kinda missed the mark for me. There were some great concepts though.

[Davrick]

I say you should give them a second chance. They are really good. They are my second favorite book series next to WoT.

[randomh3r0]

It'll definitely have to wait until after WoT concludes :)

 

I've been reading and re-reading WoT since i was in 6th grade, about 17 years ago. I really haven't been able to fully commit to a new series since beginning it, because I don't know how it ends. By the time I read it, call it 18 of my 29 years will have been spent in a state of the unknown with how this amazing work concludes... AMoL holds a truly bittersweet end for me.

 

Once that's done, i should be able to dive better into other words... Sword of Truth, I told Marsh I'd try Mistborn, and I'd like to re-read LoTR and the Silmarillon just to full understand Tolkien more.

 

Anyway, since books have breached the subject so much, go ahead and share your thoughts on the nature of Good and Evil there... keeping it limited to the Fantasy Genre for now, please :)

[SirTownsend]

The Good the Bad and the Ugly

 

This movie messes around with Good and Evil. One character (Angel Eyes) is evil, but the other two characters are questionable. They go and get the one guy wanted, then The Man with no Name (seriously thats his offical title he has no name, but we'll call him blondie since thats what the other characters call him.) brings in this guy, gathers the reward money and saves the guy before he's hanged. This is how they get their profit. When it comes to the gold that all three men are trying to find, which is what the movie is about, Blondie does it in a non greedy way, he respects everyone he meets in the process. The other guy is just greedy and stupid, and Angel eyes will kill anyone to get the money. Thats why I liked this movie, it shows how money can affect people differently. Some will kill to get it, some are just crazed with greedy desires, and others want it but are calmer about it. Angel eyes is evil, The other guy is a good guy, just when he wants something he'll steal and threaten to get it. And Bolndie does things that are against the law but he's more of a good guy. They are all outlaws but not all evil per say.

[randomh3r0]

An interesting take. I think it's more easy for us to relate to movies where even the protagonists aren't perfect: even have dark sides. It shows an attainable humanity during the heroism.

[Niniel]

I agree. I haven´t seen The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. But generally, characters that have internal conflicts are more interesting to read about/see on film. That is one of the reasons that Rand is one of my favourites.

[Turin Turambar]

The flawed hero is one of the great hooks of all fiction. Books, film, TV. Two that I have heard about but not actually seen the shows are Dexter. A show about a serial killer that helps capture other killers if I understand correctly. Another is the pilot in the recent film Flight. My understanding is he is a pilot that had a(some- drink the night before flying a commercial airliner. He saved everyone by performing with tremendous skill.

 

If you have seen these shows would you say these characters have redeemed themselves?

[randomh3r0]

I haven't seen enough of either to really comment, but there are two shows really popular in my area that I've seen a fair amount of with similar ideas: Weeds and Breaking Bad. Both focus on a parent of a family who turns to drug dealing as a way to provide for their family in rough circumstances: one is diagnosed with cancer, and wants to leave his family something. The other is widowed and can't make it on her own.

The acts themselves are bad, in my own morality, even though the intention is inherently good. Both characters also have stipulations: no sales to kids, they don't use drugs themselves, etc. But in the end, these characters don't find redemption, to me, because their intentions are fairly self-seeking in the grand scheme of things: they probably hurt other families through their deeds and only care to save themselves and their own.

Dexter kills other killers, people that the law might let slide, but again, the actions of a vigilante are ultimately self-serving their own concept of righteousness. I think that ultimately a true hero must serve the greater good with a reasonable obedience of the law, or their methods and results might end up hurting more than helping.

Just my two cents on that.