Geoff EganWhy is Good and Evil never explained in Film?
April 11th 2008 01:11
A staple in fiction, but predominantly in fantasy and sci fi, is the concept of good and evil. The idea that there are two dichotomous factions, one representing all that is pure and good, and one on the side of darkness and evil has a long history in all forms of fiction, film included. Works like Star Wars, Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings all demonstrate the concept of light battling the encroaching darkness.
I never really liked this idea. I always thought that such a black and white view of the world ignores the many shades of grey moral ambiguity that the real world was made up of. And from that observations about world we live in became hard to take realistically. However, a couple of, non-movie, works have recently had me looking at this dichotomy in a different light.
A couple of years ago the video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and its sequel The Sith Lords discussed why people follow the Sith in a way that the movies never did. Throughout the films the evil Sith were merely the yang to the virtuous Jedi’s yin. They wanted global domination and power, nothing more, nothing less. HoweverStar Wars: Knights of the Old Republic discussed why people become Sith. Why? Because of emotion, how can you take care of your family and friends as a Jedi when you are forbidden to feel strong emotions like love? The Jedi, while upholding virtue, where unfeeling machines of justice, where the Sith were the passionate and charismatic. The final difference was really in their end goals, the Sith were essentially selfish, they used their power to better themselves (even when helping their loved ones it may have been at the expense of others) where as the Jedi acted out of altruism, and a wish to help others at all costs.
Which brings me to The Night Watch. This is a Russian fantasy book, written at the end of the Cold War, which makes it interesting in itself, about a group of magically powered people (ala Harry Potter) unknown to the rest of the world. These ‘Others’, as they are called, are divided into two groups: the Light, and the Dark. As is explained throughout the book, the main difference between the two is that the Light help others, whereas the Dark use their powers to help themselves. The many moral questions that this brings up is discussed throughout the book (should a Light One stop a Dark One even when the Dark One is doing nothing? Knowing full well that s/he will hurt humans in the future? But at what cost? What about the Dark One’s loved ones? What about retribution from the Dark?).
It’s a similar system to that of the Sith/Jedi; and too a degree it made me think about the Cold War system as a whole. Two opposing sides, virtually equal in power, unable to act in ways they see as right due to fear of retribution from the other.
This kind of depth of analysis isn’t something seen in movies. While a single conversation may make you question such a basic concept of good and evil in a book, it’s always just taken for granted in film. Sauron was just a rampant expansionist dictator attempting to crush his opposition. No moral questions were raised (it’s been a long time since I’ve read the book, does anyone know if they were raised in that?) Voldemort was just plain evil, no reasoning was given. The Wicked Witches of The Wizard of Oz were the evil opposites of the Good Witches. Most comic villains are given some reason for their evil, but it is never properly outlined in films. At least not like the comics do.
Essentially for some reason, unbeknown to me, films seem to fail in justifying the good/evil dichotomy that they have so easily taken from print. Is there a feeling that a film going audience will take this for granted? Much of the source material for these films gives reasons for good and evil, yet as film goers we are often left in the dark.
P.S. I know The Night Watch is also a movie, but I don’t want to watch it until I’ve read the books. Get off my back
I never really liked this idea. I always thought that such a black and white view of the world ignores the many shades of grey moral ambiguity that the real world was made up of. And from that observations about world we live in became hard to take realistically. However, a couple of, non-movie, works have recently had me looking at this dichotomy in a different light.
A couple of years ago the video game Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic and its sequel The Sith Lords discussed why people follow the Sith in a way that the movies never did. Throughout the films the evil Sith were merely the yang to the virtuous Jedi’s yin. They wanted global domination and power, nothing more, nothing less. HoweverStar Wars: Knights of the Old Republic discussed why people become Sith. Why? Because of emotion, how can you take care of your family and friends as a Jedi when you are forbidden to feel strong emotions like love? The Jedi, while upholding virtue, where unfeeling machines of justice, where the Sith were the passionate and charismatic. The final difference was really in their end goals, the Sith were essentially selfish, they used their power to better themselves (even when helping their loved ones it may have been at the expense of others) where as the Jedi acted out of altruism, and a wish to help others at all costs.
Which brings me to The Night Watch. This is a Russian fantasy book, written at the end of the Cold War, which makes it interesting in itself, about a group of magically powered people (ala Harry Potter) unknown to the rest of the world. These ‘Others’, as they are called, are divided into two groups: the Light, and the Dark. As is explained throughout the book, the main difference between the two is that the Light help others, whereas the Dark use their powers to help themselves. The many moral questions that this brings up is discussed throughout the book (should a Light One stop a Dark One even when the Dark One is doing nothing? Knowing full well that s/he will hurt humans in the future? But at what cost? What about the Dark One’s loved ones? What about retribution from the Dark?).
It’s a similar system to that of the Sith/Jedi; and too a degree it made me think about the Cold War system as a whole. Two opposing sides, virtually equal in power, unable to act in ways they see as right due to fear of retribution from the other.
This kind of depth of analysis isn’t something seen in movies. While a single conversation may make you question such a basic concept of good and evil in a book, it’s always just taken for granted in film. Sauron was just a rampant expansionist dictator attempting to crush his opposition. No moral questions were raised (it’s been a long time since I’ve read the book, does anyone know if they were raised in that?) Voldemort was just plain evil, no reasoning was given. The Wicked Witches of The Wizard of Oz were the evil opposites of the Good Witches. Most comic villains are given some reason for their evil, but it is never properly outlined in films. At least not like the comics do.
Essentially for some reason, unbeknown to me, films seem to fail in justifying the good/evil dichotomy that they have so easily taken from print. Is there a feeling that a film going audience will take this for granted? Much of the source material for these films gives reasons for good and evil, yet as film goers we are often left in the dark.
P.S. I know The Night Watch is also a movie, but I don’t want to watch it until I’ve read the books. Get off my back
| 96 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
I mean, look at Le Samourai or Dirty Harry.... are those characters good?
Great article though... I also played both KOTOR - I love the mechanic of making choices that determine who you'll side with, but, unfortunately, games still don't offer enough temptation!
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Comment by www.thedissector.com
ps...star wars, harry potter etc ignore some 'real' aspects of life - your 'grey' bits, but you have to keep in mind: they aren't real! They are fantasy, escapism from real, not a reflection of!
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
If you need to explain the basics of ethics then logical you may have already used an hour.
Presumed stance:
The film maker presumes the audience does not like certain things and deems others are evil. Why explore if stealing is wrong when the film is about catching thieves. Start with the presumption that it is wrong and we already saving us a lot of boring video.
The Melodrama method of film making:
The conflict is out side the hero and must be battled.
There are only three conflict:
Man against man
Man against nature
Man against self.
Man against man are easier to make.
Comment by S.L. Bradish
Comment by Geoff Egan
Cinema XYZ
Noise Fanatic
I agree time constraints are a big issue, and in hindsight The Night Watch does have like a third of the book on ambiguity, but Knights of the Old Republic brought up issues with casual off hand remarks that didn't have a big impact on the story.
I just think its a part of story telling that gets left out of film. Which sucks because as Cibbuano said its the characters that cross boudaries that rock.
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Now I tend to relish exploring the grey moralities of life, the fact that someone bad can do good and vice versa intrigues me.
Great post Geoff!