Some of Film’s Most Morally Misunderstood Characters
Often Characters Do Not Fit Into Either the Mold of Good or Bad
Do most of us not enjoy the classic fiction motif of good vs bad? Do we not crave worlds where good and bad are clear-cut and easily identified, and characters fit easily into one category or the other? We get enamored with the countless police and mystery detective dramas or courtroom lawyer dramas. We constantly revisit classic films with heroic underdog protagonists like It’s A Wonderful Life exploring the life of George Bailey. Even the Star Wars saga has become a motif of good vs. bad, showing Luke Skywalker aiming to reclaim the fictional galaxy for the good Jedi and help his father Anakin atone for his sins. And who doesn’t revel in the superhero franchises where unexpected people like Peter Parker in Spiderman franchise or Bruce Wayne in the Batman world take on alternate identities to fight crime and corruption.
But often in film(as in other types of fiction), the characters are not easily distinguished as good or bad. Often, these characters become vigilante crime fighters who have no choice but to take the law into their own hands and stretch the traditional moral norms(think Robin Hood or some of those superhero crime fighters). Other times, they are genuinely the most noble of people who just are caught up in unthinkable circumstances or roles(many can argue Jean Valjean in Les Miserables was a saint trying in every way he could to atone for his dark past that seemed to keep haunting him). And so many other times, the characters just do not fit into one category or the other — having many noble and commerable qualities but also many traits that are bad or even especially egregious. Let’s examine a few of the most morally complicated characters from major motion picture greats of the last few decades.
Those Many Troubled Characters from Titanic— Especially a Misunderstood Mother
Just like the horrid contradictions of the ship itself, none of the characters in the 1997 masterpiece Titanic are entirely without blemishes. Rose has a fast tongue and an ever-rebellious demenaor while the free-spirited Jack is shown to gamble, trespass, and steal on occasion. Heck, Jack and Rose are even rather offensive to one another on a few occasions(remember when Rose did not say a word when Cal had Jack falsely arrested?).
But one of the most misunderstood characters from the film is indeed Rose’s mother Ruth Dewitt Bukater. Ruth comes across as a greedy, materialistic, and cold woman who is carelessly throwing her daughter into an ill-fated arranged marriage with Caledon Hockley. But deep down, is Ruth really that much different from her daughter or other women of the period? Is she not doing everything she can to ensure she and her daughter survive after the tragic demise of her husband who lost their family fortune to bad debts?
It seems especially crushing to many viewers when Rose leaves her mother alone on a lifeboat to go and rescue Jack, so that the two will likely never see each other again. After this heartbreaking event, viewers only see Ruth in utter shock as she and others witness the ship sinking from their life boat many feet away. Later, Ruth rests in the arms of the historical great Margaret “Molly” Brown. The storyline suggests that Ruth, Cal, and others — along with the official record — believed Rose Dewitt Bukater went down with the ship while the mysterious Rose Dawson was rescued from the frozen waters as an undocumented third-class passenger. Nothing is ever reported about Ruth afterwards(though fans do offer numerous theories). Did she perhaps find refuge in friend Margaret Brown who may have offered her a home when she was now a widow and mourner of her missing daughter? Maybe she found a suitor of her own, or perhaps she lived out her years as a melancholy seamstress hoping to soon be reunited with those she loved. Whatever her fate, many will certainly agree that this well-intentioned mother who probably had nothing but dreams of cocktail parties, trips abroad, and offering lessons in poise to future grandchildren did not deserve the unimaginably tragic sequence of events that befell her.
Dr. John Hammond In Jurassic Park
The Jurassic Park original(as well as additional franchise films) is not just a sci-fi horror thriller that leaves audiences clutching their seats. The film also contains profound moral and spiritual undertones. In the screen version’s world, Ingen company owner Dr. John Hammond(Richard Attenborough) is the industrial pioneer behind the scientific wonderland Jurassic Park, an upcoming tourist attraction he cannot wait to open. The park is certain to inspire the world with its marvelous dinosaurs brought back from extinction(well, not quite dinosaurs as amphibian DNA makes up much of the creatures’ genetic sequence). Dr. Hammond seems to be a dreamy, idealistic, over-driven capitalist who cares more about his science-fiction wonderland than he does people. As the park starts to fall apart and worst nightmares come to pass with dinosaurs breaking lose with lives lost, Dr. Hammond seems to be still caught up in the fantasy that the horrors are a mere setback and his dream will still come to pass.
In the novel Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton, the character of John Hammond tragically loses his life to the dinosaurs he helped bring back from extinction, unable to get past his own overzealous vision. But filmmakers were more sympathetic to Hammond in the film version. He helps the scientists and his grandchildren rush to safety as he finally realizes his park and dream are in ruins. The ending scene shows the helpless dreamer gazing mournfully at the wondrous ancient mosquito encased in ember, perhaps reminding viewers of one of the film’s central themes that humans should remain humble before the incomprehensible majesty of Nature. In the second film installment, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Dr. Ian Malcolm(Jeff Goldblum) is amazed that Mr. Hammond has transformed from his former idealistic capitalist persona into a naturalist in just a few years. But Hammond’s intentions are golden as he is trying to do anything he can from preventing his nephew from making even worst mistakes that he did. Hammond pushes for multiple scientists to visit the second island to photograph the dinosaurs in their natural state and let them flourish freely from human interference. In later films(starting with Jurassic World in 2015), it is interesting that Ingen has long reestablished a theme park on the island. This directs attention back to Hammond’s complicated legacy. His epic vision of tourists from around the world coming to see real-life majestic and ferocious creatures came true, but it continued to be at the costs of numerous lives and permanent impacts on humanity.
Dr. Octavious — Another Victim of Blind Ambition and Idealism
In the 2004 epic film Spider Man 2, Dr. Otto Octavious (played by Alfred Molina) is a leading world physicist on the brink of building a novel fusion reactor. The scientist is so enthralled by his scientific dream that he is oblivious to key obstacles his new reactor may face. This shortsightedness contributes to a horrid disaster. During a primetown demonstration, Octavious’s initial artificial sun reactor destablizes and kills numerous observers, including Octavious’s wife. The doctor is also injured during the disaster as the robotic arms become fused to his nervous system. The robotic arms take over Octavious, driving him on a criminal mission to obtain more tritium and rebuild the reactor. Many unsuspecting characters lie between Octavious and his experiment, including Mary Jane Watson(Kirsten Dunst) and Spider-Man/Peter Parker(Tobey Maguire).
After multiple horrendous events, including a bank robbery, a kidnapping, and a train heist, Spider-Man is finally able to rescue Mary-Jane Watson and stop Dr. Octavious from unleashing his second failed reactor on the world. To stop the threat, Parker must persuade the troubled Dr. Octavious to destroy the reactor. Octavious’s genuine self is able to regain conscious control of his robotic arms to submerge the reactor and save the city. Although Octavious was tragically consumed by monsters(mainly to circumstances beyond his control), in the end he becomes a real hero.
Throwing In a Kids’ Movie, Sid From Toy Story
You know, we all probably grew up with kids who were sometimes quite mischievious and perhaps sometimes even downright cruel. They may have been the infamous bullies who stole lunch money or young criminal minds who built their first illegal monopoly selling test answers or plagarized book reports. But at the end of the day, they were just kids who needed a helping hand. By nature, kids are just starting out in life and still hardly beginning to craft basic understandings of moral right and wrong. (And remember, even adults are hardly ever beginning to understand such things).
In the amazing epic children’s film Toy Story(1995), the deviant child is Andy’s next door neighbor Sid, feared and loathed by Andy’s toys because of his sadistic version of playtime. The toys’ perception of Sid as a monstrous and brutal antithesis to their kind, loving, and tenderhearted star-child owner Andy is tragically more correct than they could have imagined. When Buzz and Woody find themselves stuck in Sid’s room, they meet a whole cast of toys who have been amputated, maimed, ravaged, and disfigured many times over. When Buzz and Woody must break away from Sid’s cruel lure(before Buzz is blasted into the sky with a power rocket), Woody comes up with a contingency plan that means breaking all of the sacred rules toys must follow.
Even repeat film viewers will probably laugh and smile every time they see Woody and Sid’s other toys reveal their animated nature to frighten Sid. And is it not understandable that if toys were indeed real-life they would defend themselves in such a way? But on the same hand, were the toys’ actions perhaps a little too over-the-top(wouldn’t it be too much to ever have toys blow their cover). Also, remember Sid is just a kid. Young kids have often even been socially conditioned to shoot things with BB guns or launch firework rockets into the air. How would any kid have known that toys were animate? Might the fantasical event of toys deciding to terrify their owners in such a way do more than break the rules? Just how profound would the negative impacts on a child’s mental health be? One thing is clear in the film, Sid’s future trajectory towards juvenile hall may have been better remediated by more attentive parents and a more structured home environment rather than the experienced nightmare that probably left him spending most of his life in therapy.
The Inept Yet Alluring Jerry Lundegaard
Perhaps one of the most cryptic charcaters in recent film is Jerry Lundegaard (William Macy)from the 1996 horror film Fargo. Lundegaard is a well-meaning blockhead who just keeps digging himself into a deeper hole of legal, moral, and spiritual decay. Yet just as actor William Macy was so captivated by the character he played, there is something about Lundegaard that allures viewers.
From the film’s very beginning, viewers will shake their heads at Lundegaard. There, he has justed ventured out to Fargo, North Dakota to meet with two associates(Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare) hired to kidnap his wife(Kristen Rudrud). The plot just goes downhill from there. Jerry drives back to his apparently innocent and wonderful life in the Twin Cities, Minnesota where he is a sales manager at one of his father-in-law’s car dealerships. Viewers learn he is concocting the whole fatal theme to try and siphon $1 million away from his super-rich father-in-law Wade Gustafson(Harve Presnell). Viewers never learn exactly why Jerry needs the money. Apparently he is involved in some high-level fraud or other mess as he also has embezzled hundreds of thousands from an auto-financing firm. Jerry is just so inept at life in general that even his criminal actions are so outrageously misguided.
Lundegaard is so lost morally and spiritually that he cannot even bring himself to put an end to the horrible scheme when things go horrendously wrong(the associate calls to tell Jerry three people have been killed). Viewers may keep hoping with Jerry that everything will somehow turn out okay, but sadly things just keep getting worse. One assessment I will offer for the film is that it is the best ever “you could have it worse” film. Are you facing financial troubles? Well, at least you aren’t as stuck financially as Jerry is to have to steal a million dollars from his wife’s family! Gotten a speeding ticket lately? At least you won’t be marked as an accomplice in a multi-state felony crime spree! Have a bad back? At least you aren’t walking around with a bullet in your face!
Refocusing after some bad humor, it is clear that the film is indeed very dark. But although Jerry seems to be stuck in some deep pit of moral degradation, the film’s moral play is balanced out by protagonist Marge Gunderson(Frances McDormand). Gunderson is a young and brilliant police chief from Brainerd, Minnesota who single-handedly solves the triple-homicide in her small town while in her final trimester of pregnancy. Marge is not afraid to call out Lundegaard’s bluff or chase down the suspect at the cabin so that the victims of such an abysmal criminal plot gone wrong can receive justice. Gunderson even attempts to offer deeper moral and spiritual wisdom that is lost to the suspect but remains with viewers. The film shows Marge going home and resting with her husband Norm, as they reflect on their happy life and remind viewers what genuinely good and noble Midwestern people are typically like.
Back to Life Itself
So we have looked at a few examples of film characters who did not so easily fit the moral persona of either good or bad. So many other film characters could come to mind. Some characters are stars in film franchises spanning generations who viewers come to know and love. Others only have a brief moment on the big screen with hardly enough time for viewers ever to make sense of their complications and often tragic circumstances. And yet other characters are the big-screen alter-egos of real life individuals who left complicated moral legacies. Maybe that is where we find the discussion turns us back to — ourselves(as much as we visit the fiction worlds of film to leave ourselves behind). Such characters remind us about the unbounded complexity of each real-life human and force us to remember that the moral lines between good and bad are not so binary as we like to make them. To remember the wise words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart.”
