Sicario (2015) - M5.8/E8

This was a very thought provoking movie.  One that can bring up some tense conversations from people on different sides of the political spectrum.   In essence, the government crosses some moral lines in order to maximize the saving of lives.  Is it ever OK to make such compromises?

While drawn from the train of science fiction and fantasy, two examples come to mind. In the book Ender's Game, the need to brutally and finally punish your enemies so that they can't seek out revenge on you is repeatedly brought up.  The following are some of the deepest lines of the novel and is an exchange that occurs between Ender and Valentine in chapter 13 of the book:

Ender: "In the moment when I truly understand my enemy, understand him well enough to defeat him, then in that very moment I also love him. I think it's impossible to really understand somebody, what they want, what they believe, and not love them the way they love themselves. And then, in that very moment when I love them -"
Valentine: "You beat them." For a moment she was not afraid of his understanding.
Ender: "No, you don't understand. I destroy them. I make it impossible for them to ever hurt me again. I grind them and grind them until they don't exist."

Ender kills multiple boys and almost causes the genocide of an alien race.  The guilt he has to bear is insufferable. Is it OK to go so far too ensure the safety of oneself or one's family? One's country? Are the psychological, spiritual consequences worth it?

In Batman, we constantly see Batman's dilemma with confronting the Joker. If he's really such a violent criminal, shouldn't it be OK if Batman kills him?  Isn't he being irresponsible and contributing the deaths of so many by simply turning him over to the authorities?  The constant response is that if he did kill the Joker, how would he be any different from any criminals he has vowed to bring justice on?  Any different from the man who took his parents away from him?  The difference between willing to take someone's life for pleasure or to end it to ensure the lives of countless innocents that would otherwise die? There is a line that shouldn't be crossed, and it may be different for different individuals (a seemingly scapegoat statement). Otherwise, the world would be out of balance.

Was it for the benefit of the world that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed? Did it end up saving more lives in the end to end it so dramatically and brutally? Would doing so again send a similar message to similar, present-day antagonistic groups?  I don't know. I wish it were as easy as saying it's never worth it.  In the Bible, God commanded the demolishing of cities for the good of his people. Yet, on a smaller, family scale, beyond stern and occasional corporal punishment (hopefully infrequent and under control) for an out of control child, sometimes a parent has to wait out the craziness in love and patience. Granted not everyone should be treated as one's child, but it's worth thinking about, if anything, to keep us humane.

[Spoilers may follow...]

It's too easy to cross a line in the heat of emotion and give up your humanity.  In the end, the revenge killing of the man's family was wrong, but the overall operation would supposedly save so many lives.  Undoubtedly someone else would step in and re-initiate or continue the crimes committed by the drug lord.  But as also mentioned, this will continue (in part) as long as Americans use and crave illegal drugs.

Watched on VidAngel filtering out only f-words and blasphemy and it was still followable.  There are some graphic scenes of violence that could be filtered out without disturbing the storyline too much.

Rashomon (1950) - M9.7/E7

I'm sure I had read the name of this movie before, with it being part of the Criterion Collection, on the IMDb top 250, and other top movie lists, but for some reason it seems the first time I had paid any attention to it was when it showed up on my Leonard Maltin day-to-day calendar sometime this past year. My brother-in-law mentioned he had seen it and enjoyed it, so I put it on reserve at the library. After sitting by the TV for almost 6 weeks, we finally sat down to watch Rashomon so that we could turn it back in without being fined. I'm glad we did.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was the first Asian foreign film I had seen and loved it along with Hero, Curse of the Golden Flower, and others. This film will be added to that list of enjoyed movies. While a simple storyline (basically an event and then witnesses reporting what was seen), the way that the story unfolds from the various witnesses is very thought provoking. In addition to a good story, the filming was very impressive (even to someone who doesn't know a whole lot about filming)! It was helpful to watch an intro to the film after having watched it, where the speaker talks about the talent of Kurosawa's filming direction.

I was particularly moved by one of the end scenes where the woodcutter and commoner are arguing over stealing from a baby that has oddly appeared out of nowhere. The woodcutter reprimands the commoner for taking the amulet and kimono from the baby, but is in turn chastised for stealing the dagger from the scene of the crime that he was a witness for, "a bandit calling another a bandit." It's very enlightening to realize that many times what we despise in others is nothing more than traits we have ourselves and resent ourselves for having.

This scene brings up another interesting question with regards to when stealing might be considered OK. It might be considered OK (though not lawful) to steal when your family is starving and you find a valuable dagger to sell to obtain food. The thief should not be excused from the demands of the law, justice must be satisfied (to keep order in society). Stealing from a baby, just because it won’t miss what is taken or know any better, is wrong if it’s only for greed. There are a million different circumstances where this logic is probably flawed or doesn’t work. Laws exist to protect society, and imperfect as they maybe, there may be appropriate times to break the law, so long as you are not putting your soul in danger. This is far from a lesson in ethics, any additional discussion is welcome in the comments.

Wikipedia does a decent job summarizing the last scene of the movie that was equally poignant and more hopeful:

"These deceptions and lies shake the priest's faith in humanity. He is brought back to his senses when the woodcutter reaches for the baby in the priest's arms. The priest is suspicious at first, but the woodcutter explains that he intends to take care of the baby along with his own children, of whom he already has six. This simple revelation recasts the woodcutter's story and the subsequent theft of the dagger in a new light. The priest gives the baby to the woodcutter, saying that the woodcutter has given him reason to continue having hope in humanity. The film closes on the woodcutter, walking home with the baby. The rain has stopped and the clouds have opened revealing the sun in contrast to the beginning where it was overcast."

If you're not biased against black and white films or films that have subtitles (unless you speak Japanese), this is a good movie to watch if you're not in the mood to be solely entertained.

The Next Three Days (2010) - M4.3/E6

I was told this would be a movie with an interesting moral dilemma, and though we are shown that the main character contemplates this dilemma, the dilemma shouldn't have existed in the first place.  This was a pretty intense thriller, more suspenseful than action packed, and worth a watch on Netflix if you subscribe to their streaming service.

A happily married couple's family is torn apart when random, coincidental events make it appear that the wife brutally murdered her boss. The husband, knowing she is innocent, resolves to do whatever it takes to get her out of prison.  He first exhausts all legal means and realizes that there is nothing that can be done to free her.  He then resorts to breaking her out of prison and undertakes some serious preparations to do so.  This is where the supposed dilemma exists.

John Brennan (faithful husband) forces himself to be willing to do whatever it takes to get his wife out of prison, and ends up falsifying medical records and killing people and committing arson (though those involved were drug dealers).  Initially he is extremely hesitant to commit these illegal acts, but forces himself into the mindset to follow through with his plan.  During the process, his relationship with his son and wife (even though in prison) is  stretched pretty thin and he almost loses his wife during the break out.

Is it really a measure of a husband's love for his wife to go to any end in order to rectify something wrongly attributed to her?  If my wife were innocently put in jail, I, too, would exhaust my legal resources; and if the law could do nothing to help her, what happened next would be in God's hands.  Being a firm believer in Divine intervention, I believe God would be able to help both me (my family) and my wife through such a trial of faith, and if He felt it necessary, could even change the hearts and minds of those falsely accusing her so that she would eventually be let out (though this would not be very likely).  Our relationship could continue to grow, and one day we would be reunited.

This may sound trite given that I've never been (nor will likely ever be) put in this situation; but I honestly believe that adherence to God's law and faith in God and His Son Jesus Christ is the most anyone can do to receive the maximum assistance in the most dire of situations in which we may find ourselves.

Batman: Under the Red Hood (2010)

Entertainment Rating: 4/5

It’s hard not to compare any Batman movie to Christopher Nolan’s masterpieces, even if they are animated. This one had a good amount of action and a pretty cool storyline with it, providing just the right twists to it to keep you guessing.

Moral Rating: 4/5

[Spoiler Alert]

The last scene really sold the movie for me. Robin has the Joker at gun point, furious that Batman didn’t go after the Joker and kill him after he had killed Robin. Batman sagaciously responds that if he were to have killed the Joker, he would have become just like him. Robin then gives Batman the ultimatum that he (Robin) is going to kill the Joker, and that Batman will have to shoot him (Robin) if he doesn’t the Joker dead. Batman drops his weapon and walks away. What a cool scene. The resolve and conviction to do what is right, even in the face of seemingly impossible circumstances, is what we need in order to win the fight against evil. While Batman’s methods for enforcing justice are often questionable, his position against evil is not.

State of Play

Synopsis

An old-school newspaper reporter (Russell Crowe) investigates the murder of a young woman who was involved in an affair with a U.S. Senator (Ben Affleck), who is also his friend.

Entertainment Value - B

Like the Informant! I had a hard time getting drawn into this film. Russell Crowe does a good job as a journalist, but he's kind of an unbelievable character in that he's up against all kinds of trained people trying to keep the Senator from falling, and his only weapon he wields is a pen. Maybe this is symbolic because a sub theme of the movie is the difficulty the newspaper industry is having with online news sources, and the juxtaposition of Crowe and these renegades underscores it.

Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 3

[Spoiler]

Very similar message as The Informant! A senator's (Ben Affleck) problems start with an extramarital affair, worse things happen, and he can't get out of it. The more the senator tries to cover up what happened the deeper entwined he becomes in his web of deceit.

A lot of ethical issues come up in the newspaper's investigation of the murder and evidence they gain and withhold from the authorities in order to make some big headlines.  Is it OK to skirt the law in this case, to help the truth get out faster?  Or to make sure you get recognized for the reporting of it?

24: Season 1

Synopsis

A Senator who is close to making it into the White House is the target of an assassination attempt. CTU Agent Jack Bauer's family is kidnapped and he must try to rescue them as well as stop the assination. Meanwhile, an affair that he had frequently comes back to haunt him.

Entertainment Value - A

One of the most intense shows I have ever seen. I got so tense in every episode that I would actually start shaking! The experience is very much like reading a book, except for the added visual stimulus. The acting in it was better than most movies I've seen; and to keep you intrigued and guessing from beginning to end is a sign of great talent.

Moral Value - Failure to Communicate? - 3

We also just finished watching season 2, so I'll tie in some of the messages that came from it as well, since they overlap a bit.

Jack Bauer is nothing less than a modern day super hero. He is very similar to Batman in that he is mortal, but can fight off almost anyone/thing, and puts himself above the law. Jack is constantly at odds with his superiors and co-workers with regards to how he obtains the information he gets (mostly because there is no other way and the catastrophe at hand would multiply in scale if he doesn't do whatever it takes - torture, murder, etc. - to win.)

Which brings up an interesting question, is "whatever it takes" ever okay? I think there is a higher law to follow when man's laws are obviously flawed. It helps to have the kind of superiors that will cover up everything you do to keep you in their employ, but this power could easily go abused. For this reason, these type of extreme actions (e.g., torture) are probably best prohibited, but if the person going against it has the courage and initiative to, the outcome will more than likely prove if he was right or wrong.

Senator Palmer is the most awesome character I can think of. In the face of so many people telling him to not do what's 100% right he defies them by sticking to his morals. Though he loses a lot of people he loves, he's able to rest assured that he has done what is right and has not compromised his morals.

Some specific moral dilemmas presented include:

• Jack being faced with having to kill someone in order to protect his family...never plans on doing it, but cuts it close several times


• Jack's going against superior orders when he knew something was right, willing to get chastised for something that will bring about a greater good.