Tag Archives: Christianity

Christology in Superman Returns and Man of Steel

In his review of Man of Steel, Wesley Morris quips that Superman “flies for our sins.” Yet, Man of Steel does not offer a Christology based on substitutionary atonement, but rather on moral exemplarism. Superman does not sacrifice his life to save humanity, but rather his heroism is supposed to inspire humanity to live up to his example. In Superman Returns, however, Superman undergoes a symbolic death and resurrection. He sacrifices his life to save humanity, but survives his near-fatal ordeal. Each film has an implicit Christology, as each likens Superman to Jesus in different ways. A “high” Christology emphasizes Jesus’ divinity, whereas a “low” one emphasizes his humanity. Neither film has a purely high or low Christology. Superman Returns has a high Christology by emphasizing Superman’s difference from human beings, but the suggestion that he is the father of Lois’s child emphasizes his similarity to humans. Man of Steel portrays Clark’s ability to blend in with humans and the incredible powers that make him so different. Man of Steel‘s Christology focuses on Superman’s choice to identify with human beings, as the Gospels portray Jesus’ choosing to embrace his Messianic destiny.

Christology and Moral Exemplarism in Man of Steel

Man of Steel establishes numerous parallels between Superman and Jesus. The main events of the film occur when Clark is thirty-three, the same age as Jesus when he was crucified. As God the Father sends God the Son to redeem humanity, so Jor-El sends his son Kal-El to earth. Moreover, “El” is actually one of the Hebrew words for God. The filmmakers emphasize this etymology when Kal-El’s mother, Lara, tells Zod that her son is named “Kal, son of El.” While floating in space above earth, Superman stretches out his arms, resembling Jesus’ pose on the cross. As Jesus was raised by earthly parents–Joseph and Mary–who did not always understand him, so Clark’s human parents, Jonathan and Martha Kent, try their best to raise their superhuman son. Jor-El declares to his wife that their son “will be a god” to the people of earth.

Throughout his youth, Clark conceals his powers, although he does use them to save lives. This is the equivalent of the “Messianic Secret”: in the Gospels, Jesus does not reveal that he is the Son of God for the first thirty years of his life. When Zod demands that humanity turn Kal-El over to him Clark goes to a church seeking guidance. With a stained glass image of Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane behind him, Clark wrestles with the decision to reveal his powers. As Jesus does not reveal his identity until the right moment, so Clark chooses to reveal his powers only when humanity is in danger.

Both Jesus and Kal-El’s births are miraculous. While Jesus was conceived by the Virgin Mary, Kal-El is “Krypton’s first natural birth in centuries.” Jor-El’s consciousness, downloaded into an ancient Kryptonian vessel that had lain dormant on earth for millennia, tells Clark that on Krypton “Every child was designed to fulfill a predetermined role in our society.” Jor-El and Lara, however, believed that this was a mistake: “What if a child dreamed of becoming something other than what society had intended for him or her? What if a child aspired to something greater?” Clark embodies Jor-El’s dream of free choice over rigidly proscribed roles achieved through genetic engineering. Jor-El urges his son to bring hope to humanity: “The symbol of the house of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief in the potential of every person to be a force for good.” Jor-El hopes that his son will inspire humanity to choose good rather than evil. He knows that this will not happen instantaneously. The moral development of humanity will require a process of growth and maturation. Kal-El offers his son this mission: “You will give the people of earth an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you. They will stumble; they will fall. But, in time, they will join you in the sun, Kal. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.”

Superman and Medieval Christology

This closely resembles the logic of the medieval theologian Peter Abelard’s moral influence theory of atonement. Unlike his contemporary Anselm, Abelard did not believe that Jesus’ death on the cross primarily satisfied God’s wrath or redeemed humans from guilt and sin. Abelard did not conceive of the crucifixion as a legal transaction, in which Jesus paid a debt owed by sinners to God. According to Abelard, “what humanity needs is a new motive for action” (Olson 328). Jesus’ heroic self-sacrifice on the cross reveals God’s love for humanity and inspires them to love and obey him in return. For Abelard, the “real atonement takes place within us, not on the cross” (329). As Abelard argued that Jesus’ action showed people how to live in loving obedience to God, so Jor-El believes that Kal-El will become humanity’s great moral exemplar, leading them to new heights of achievement.

As Clark looks down on Lois’s escape pod hurtling toward earth, the holographic projection of Jor-El’s consciousness tells Clark “You can save them all.” Yet, the salvation that Jor-El imagines is not salvation from sin in the traditional sense. This salvation is moral, rather than metaphysical. Jor-El wants Kal-El to save humanity from the mistakes that destroyed Krypton–the squelching of individuality and callous disregard of the environment. The Kryptonians destroyed their planet by recklessly harvesting natural resources, a fate which the film suggests might befall earth if people do not turn toward more sustainable modes of life. Moreover, Zod’s genocidal xenophobia represents an exaggerated version of the racism and ethnic conflict plaguing our world. Zod wants to terra form earth into a new Krypton, sacrificing the human population to recreate his homeworld. Superman can teach humanity to avoid the Kryptonians’ decadence on the one hand and Zod’s fanaticism on the other. He does not offer eternal life, but rather can lead humans to build the perfect society on earth.

Despite these varied ways in which the film highlights the similarities between Jesus and Superman, Jor-El’s vision for his son is not that he sacrifice his life for humanity per se, but that he teach humans how to be better. Man of Steel portrays Superman, not as the Jesus who must die on the cross and be raised from the dead, but as humanity’s ultimate example of goodness. Superman does save the planet from destruction at the hands of the fanatical General Zod, yet the true salvation is the example he sets with his heroism.

Christology in Superman Returns

The implicit Christology of Superman Returns treats Superman as both a moral exemplar and a sacrificial figure. Evoking the Second Coming, the title of Superman Returns sets up the parallel between Jesus and Superman from the beginning. Superman has been absent from earth while traveling to the ruins of Krypton. Irritated with Superman for leaving earth without even saying goodbye, Lois insists that “The world doesn’t need a savior.” Superman counters “You wrote that the world doesn’t need a savior, but every day I hear people crying for one.”

Even Lex Luthor characterizes Superman as a god, albeit a selfish one. Luthor compares himself to Prometheus, who stole fire from Zeus, casting Superman as a selfish Zeus hoarding power instead of sharing it with humanity. Speaking implicitly about Superman, Luthor says, “Gods are selfish beings who fly around in little red capes and don’t share their power with mankind.”

While it does not develop it to the extent that Man of Steel does, Superman Returns includes the idea of moral exemplarism. Jor-El’s disembodied voice intones, “Even though you have been raised as a human being, you are not one of them. They can be a great people, Kal-El, they wish to be. They only lack the light to show the way. For this reason above all, their capacity for good, I have sent them you, my only son.” Jor-El’s word’s reiterate the parallel between him and God the Father, each sending their sons to save humanity. Jor-El speaks of Kal-El as bringing light to show people the way, giving them a moral example.

Unlike in Man of Steel, however, in Superman Returns Superman experiences a symbolic death and resurrection. Superman’s confrontation with Lex Luthor evokes Jesus’ crucifixion. Using crystals stolen from Superman’s Fortress of Solitude, Luthor creates a huge and rapidly growing island off the coast of Metropolis. The island is embedded with kryptonite, and when Superman arrives his power begins to wane. As Jesus was beaten and mocked by Roman soldiers before his crucifixion, so Luthor and his henchmen assault the powerless Superman with impunity. As a centurion pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, so Luthor stabs Superman with a kryptonite shard. Unable to remove the kryptonite lodged in his back, Superman sinks into the water until he is rescued by Lois and her fiancé Richard. Superman then flies into the sky, above the clouds. He basks in the sun, recharging his power.

Superman lifts the massive crystalline rock into the air. He carries it through the atmosphere, even though it is laced with kryptonite and draining his powers, eventually launching it into space. Exhausted by the effort, Superman plummets back to earth with his arms outstretched in the pose of Jesus on the cross. He crashes into the planet’s surface, apparently having sacrificed his life to save humanity. Superman is rushed to a hospital where doctors attempt to revive him. Lois visits the unconscious Superman in the hospital. Superman does not revive, like Sleeping Beauty, with Lois’s kiss, but rather disappears later when no one is watching. His empty hospital bed is like the empty tomb Jesus left behind when he was raised from the dead. As Jesus remained dead for three days, so Superman remains unconscious for a period of time before rising.

Superman Returns characterizes its hero as the earth’s badly needed savior, whereas Man of Steel portrays him as a moral exemplar whose mission goes beyond saving the world from danger to leading humanity into a new era of virtue.

Sources:

Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform. InterVarsity Press, 1999.

The Mercy of Justice in Dogville

Dogville is a meditation on the appropriate response to human cruelty. It explores the ultimate insufficiency of mercy to reform the human heart without the aid of justice. The film is shot on a stage rather like a play. The set, which encompasses the town of Dogville with its various buildings, has no walls. The buildings are marked by outline on the stage, allowing us to see the whole town at once, to see what people are doing in the background at any given moment. The invisibility of the walls also suggests that this film is concerned with piercing through facades, with penetrating to the heart of things. The action is framed by the narrator’s witty, incisive commentary.

Dogville is a small, secluded town onto which a “beautiful fugitive” named Grace stumbles early in the film. Grace is on the run and the ironically named Thomas Edison, Jr., who is not remotely inventive, hides her in the town’s mine while he speaks with the men looking for her. The men chasing Grace are gangsters, and their leader gives Tom his telephone number, telling him that Grace is very precious to him. Tom urges Grace to hide in Dogville, rather than attempt to flee her pursuers by way of the dangerous pass over the mountain.

Tom is an aspiring writer, who never seems to write much of anything, and a self-proclaimed moral authority. He conducts lectures for the town, which he calls Meetings on Moral Rearmament. He fantasizes of writing insightful novels and plays which will scourge and purge the human heart and mine the depths of the human soul. In other words, Tom has no job. He is a pseudo-philosopher, exclusively concerned with ideas, but unable to produce any substantial ones.

When Tom suggests that Grace stay in Dogville, Grace responds, “I’ve got nothing to offer them in return.” This suits Tom perfectly because he wishes to use Grace to illustrate what he believes is the fundamental “problem of the human condition–to receive.” The only thing Tom loves more than holding a meeting is “illustration.” He convinces the reluctant townspeople to allow Grace to stay for a trial period of two weeks.

Although Grace is not exactly warmly welcomed into Dogville, she is “fond of them all, even the folk who had greeted her with reluctance and hostility.” Her initial impression of this place is rosy: “All I see is a beautiful little town in the midst of magnificent mountains.”

To endear herself to the townspeople, Grace offers to help them with their work and chores. This proves more difficult than anticipated, as none of the townspeople want to admit that they need any help; they do not want to relinquish the myth of their self-sufficiency. Once Ma Ginger allows Grace to weed the wild gooseberry bushes, however, the other townspeople soon find things for Grace to do.

Grace is quickly incorporated into the rhythm of the town, going from house to house to help with various tasks. Everyone in the town comes to enjoy her company and appreciate her help, except Chuck. Chuck, a gruff man who works in the orchard, is averse to Grace. Chuck tells Grace, “This town is rotten from the inside out” and “People are the same all over–greedy as animals.” He continues, “Feed ’em enough, they’ll eat ’til they burst.” Chuck’s bleak view of humanity proves more and more accurate as the film progresses. The town’s name, which suggests that its residents are dogs, parallels Chuck’s comparison of human greed to an animal’s unrestrained appetite.

After the two week trial period, a vote is held to decide if Grace will be allowed to stay. She needs an unanimous vote in her favor to remain in Dogville. Various people leave gifts for Grace, anticipating that she will be cast out. Everyone votes for Grace to stay, though this turns out to be more because they have grown accustomed to having her help than out of genuine compassion for her plight. Liz, for instance, admits that she had a selfish motive for voting for Grace to stay, as it was a relief to her to no longer be the one “All the men had eyes for.” Liz has ambivalent feelings toward being the town vixen: while she is initially glad that Grace takes attention away from her, she later comes to resent the newcomer for the same reason. The narrator says, “Grace had bared her throat to the town, and it had responded with a great gift–with friends,” but this friendship turns out to be fleeting.

Grace becomes even more inveigled with the townspeople, as she acts as “eyes for McKay, a mother to Ben, friend for Vera, and brains to Bill.” Grace seems to be making the town a better, happier place, as well. At the Fourth of July picnic, McKay says to Grace, “You’ve made Dogville a wonderful place to live in.”

Grace holds Tom’s hand at the picnic, and tells him that she loves him. Tom’s affection for Grace proves to be less noble than her love for him, however. He says, “I yearn to be even closer, to touch you.” Grace gently refuses Tom’s all but spoken desire to sleep with her. She says, “The thing I love about you is that you don’t demand anything of me.” Yet, Tom only lacks the audacity to demand, not the desire.

This bliss is marred, however, when a policeman arrives to put up a missing person poster of Grace. The townspeople grow even more nervous when the police return a second time to put up a new poster–this time a wanted poster alleging that Grace committed some bank robberies. Although they know Grace could not have robbed those banks since she was in Dogville at the time, the townspeople are still uneasy about harboring her. Some of them indulge in unfounded fears about what the law will do if they find Grace in Dogville. The townspeople are purely selfish: they do not want to help a stranger in need until she demonstrates her usefulness to them, and at the first sign of possible danger to themselves, they wish to abandon Grace.

Tom tells Grace that “From a business perspective, your presence in Dogville has become more costly because it’s more dangerous for them to have you here.” Grace’s wages are cut and, as Tom proposes, she visits each house twice each day, effectively doubling her work. Even after her labor is increased, the townspeople become less satisfied with Grace. While once they had denied that there was any work she could do for them, now they are easily irritated by her mistakes. Mrs. Henson scolds her for breaking one of the glasses she is packing into crates for sale. This is deeply ironic because the Hensons, rather than make their own glasses, actually grind the edges off of cheap glasses to make them look more expensive and to sell them at higher prices. This process, of course, weakens the glasses, and so Grace’s breaking one is hardly surprising. The Hensons are typical residents of Dogville: they are industrious only about helping themselves; they make a living by profiting from trickery.

Grace makes herself vulnerable to Dogville. She comes to the town a fugitive in need, yet it takes only the posting of a wanted poster for the townspeople to turn on her. As the narrator says, she “had laid herself open, and there she dangled from her frail stalk like the apple in the Garden of Eden.”

Off-camera, Chuck tries to kiss Grace in the orchard. As they discuss it afterward, Chuck tells Grace, “I thought of blackmailing you into respecting me.” Grace is forgiving, telling Chuck “I would never hate you, never.” This ominous exchange foreshadows Chucks actions when the police return to Dogville a third time. Grace is watching Chuck and Vera’s children when Chuck comes home. With the police in the street outside, Chuck rapes Grace. Grace implores Chuck to stop, but does not struggle violently. She tries to get away from him, but does not try to maim him. She does not cry for help.

Why does Grace not resist Chuck more forcefully? It is not because she is afraid of being captured by the police. Grace’s behavior in this scene and throughout the film stems from her key character trait–her ability to forgive. Her name is apt because Grace embodies absolute mercy. She forgives every crime committed against her, and shows the greatest leniency to those who wrong her. She is mercy utterly apart from justice, and she rationalizes the wickedness perpetrated against her. As she tells Tom, after confiding that Chuck raped her, “He’s not strong, Tom. He looks strong, but he’s not.” Grace thus explains Chuck’s evil act as the result of his weakness, and forgives him. If this seems impossible for a human being, it is because Grace embodies unbounded mercy.

What is the result of Grace’s mercy on Chuck? Now every time Grace helps Chuck in the orchard, he forces himself on her. This fact reflects the film’s core insight: when wickedness is returned with mercy, and only mercy, it is impossible for the evil-doer to recognize the wickedness of his or her actions. The mercy which Grace extends to Chuck cannot be received as the mercy it is because it appears to be mere acquiescence. Chuck has no reason not to rape Grace a second time after not being punished for raping her the first time. Mercy cannot be received as mercy in a context completely absent of justice.

What about conscience? Why does Chuck’s conscience not fill him with guilt and remorse? The conscience is similar to a muscle: it only grows strong through regular exercise. Not having spent much time exercising, Chuck’s conscience has clearly atrophied. People have an incredibly capacity to ignore their consciences.

Martha sees Grace and Chuck in the orchard and she tells Chuck’s wife, Vera. Vera chooses to believe that Grace seduced her husband, rather than that her husband raped Grace. She believes that “at heart, [Chuck] is loyal, and he’s good” though he is emphatically neither of those things. Vera revenges herself on Grace by destroying Grace’s beloved porcelain figurines. Grace had purchased the figurines with the money she earned by working for the townspeople. Even more sadistically, Vera promises to only destroy two of the seven figurines if Grace can act stoically and withhold her tears. Grace fails to do so, and Vera smashes all seven. As the narrator comments, “The figurines were the offspring of the meeting of the town and [Grace]. They were the proof, in spite of everything, that her suffering had created something of value.”

Grace resolves to leave Dogville. She hides in Ben’s truck, while he makes his regular trip to Georgetown to sell the town’s apples. Although Grace pays Ben ten dollars, which she gets from Tom, once they get out of Dogville he wants a “surcharge” for carrying “dangerous cargo.” Ben is ostensibly worried about being caught by the police, but really is trying to blackmail Grace. Ben says, “I have to take due payment, that’s all,” as if he would be remiss by not coercing her into sleeping with him. Grace softly protests, but allows Ben to have his way with her.

Just when it seems that Grace has been humiliated and victimized as much as possible, just when it seems that she has finally escaped Dogville, Grace awakens back in Dogville. Ben’s betrayal is double–he reneges on his promise to carry Grace away from the town. He claims that Grace hid on his truck. Tom does nothing.

The townspeople believe that Grace stole ten dollars from Tom’s father, Thomas Edison, Sr., although it was Tom who took the money from his father’s medicine cabinet. Afraid that his father would not give it to him, Tom took the money, and then blamed it on Grace. The narrator explains, “Grace chose to remain silent in the face of these new charges.” Grace does not seek to defend herself against the false accusations. She is willing to endure any reproach, any slander, any humiliation. She never seeks reprisal against those who wrong her. What the film inexorably shows, however, is that Grace’s superhuman endurance and constant forgiveness of those who victimize her does not actually help them realize their wickedness. Without punishment or the realistic threat of punishment, the townspeople simply believe they are in the right. They resort to greater and greater evil because they never encounter any deterrence. Mercy only inspires remorse and repentance in a context where justice is a viable possibility.

Grace’s debasement and dehumanization reach their nadir when the townspeople put an iron collar around her neck. A chain extends from the collar to a large weight to restrict Grace’s movement and a bell is attached to the collar to prevent her from sneaking off. Not only is this horrifyingly cruel treatment of a human being, but it would be an absurd punishment even if Grace were guilty of theft, which she is not. This essentially makes Grace the town’s slave. Revealing how deluded the townspeople are about their own wickedness, Tom, Sr. says, “Don’t think of this as punishment, not at all,” and consoles Grace by telling her that they made the chain long enough for her to be able to sleep in her bed, as if forcing her to sleep on the ground would be unthinkable.

At this point, if not well before, all but the most deranged viewer will be filled with rage and grief at the people of Dogville. Their treatment of Grace is as reprehensible as can be imagined. Yet, Grace herself never protests. As the narrator explains, Grace becomes numb, entering “the trance-like state that descends on animals whose lives are threatened . . . like a patient passively letting his disease hold sway.” It is not Grace who is diseased, but the people of Dogville. Rather than perform surgery to remove the town’s tumor, however, Grace allows the disease to continue unabated. And things only get worse for her.

With Grace chained up like an animal, children throw mud into her bed. Even more disturbingly, “Most townspeople of the male sex now visited Grace at night to fulfill their sexual needs. The harassments in bed did not have to be kept so secret any more because they couldn’t really be compared to a sexual act. They were embarrassing in the way it is when a hillbilly has his way with a cow, but no more than that.” Grace is made the common sex slave of the men of the town, who have so dehumanized her as to be unable to recognize the criminality of their abuse. Grace is now treated even worse than an animal.

Even Tom fails to help Grace. Not even this seemingly unbearable level of debasement rouses Tom’s indignation. The narrator explains, “Tom saw everything. It pained him. And the sexual visits were a particularly severe blow. But he supported [Grace] as best he could.” The irony is that Tom’s pain is due to the fact that other men are sleeping with Grace, rather than him. If he truly cared about Grace he would stand watch outside her room, ensuring that no one entered it at night, or publicly decry their actions, or try to free Grace from her chains and abscond with her over the mountains. Yet, Tom, growing more despicable and pathetic in every scene, does nothing.

What does Tom do? Tom really only knows how to do one thing–hold a meeting. Tom wants to hold a meeting during which Grace will tell the townspeople the truth. He compares them to children unwilling to take their medicine, and believes that they will “realize that this web of misunderstanding and injustice has only one victim” and that is Grace.

They hold the meeting, and Grace addresses the group. The film does not relate what Grace says to emphasize how little the townspeople are willing to listen. The failure of Tom’s meeting to appeal to “consciences stowed farther and farther away by their owners every day,” as the narrator says, establishes that one cannot necessarily convince a person that he or she is immoral. People are exceptionally skilled at justifying their actions, no matter how disgusting or hurtful. As Tom tells the townspeople, “I asked you here to listen, but you came only to defend yourselves.” Warped by selfishness and self-deception, people are fully capable of rejecting the truth. No seminar will convince people of their capacity for evil.

Tom leaves the meeting to report to Grace on how it is going. He tells her that the townspeople are not convinced, and declares his loyalty to her–“I’ve chosen, Grace; I’ve chosen you.” He seems to think that such a protestation of fealty–though it has no correlative in his actions–will make Grace swoon with desire for him. Although she is clearly exhausted, Tom tries to get romantic with Grace. He wants to sleep with her, but she only wants them to “meet in freedom.” Tom is a bit annoyed, saying “I’ve just rejected everybody I’ve ever known in your favor. Wouldn’t it be worth compromising just one of your ideals, just a little, to ease my pain. Everybody in this town has had your body but me. We’re the ones supposed to be in love.” Tom’s selfishness is utterly astounding. After all that Grace has endured, Tom has the gall to speak to her about easing his “pain.” His lust for her is so disgusting because he ignores the horror of her treatment. Tom is just as selfish as everyone else. Though he does not force himself on Grace as the other men do, he badly wants to sleep with her. With an incomprehensible lack of compassion, Tom laments the fact that other men have slept with Grace while he has not, instead of grieving the humiliation Grace she experienced. In this scene, Tom manages the insanely selfish feat of interpreting the number of times Grace has been raped as evidence of his own deprivation.

Tom leaves Grace and, after returning to the meeting to consult with the other townspeople, he calls the gangster. Although he told Grace he burned the card with the gangster’s telephone number on it, he did not. After five days of anticipation among the townspeople, the gangsters arrive. Tom locks Grace in her shed, thinking it will look better to the gangsters if it appears that they have captured Grace. The extent of Tom’s disloyalty to Grace is apparent when he disingenuously tells the gangsters, “None of us feel able to accept money for just helping people.”

The gangsters are shocked to find Grace chained up. Grace enters one of the cars to speak with the boss, who turns out to be her father.

Grace and her father engage in a robust discussion rich with theological implications. We discover that the gangsters were not trying to kill Grace, but rather to bring her back to her father. Grace ran away from home because she disapproved of her father’s violent methods. Upon their reunion, Grace’s father critiques her policy of mercy: “You do not pass judgment because you sympathize with them. A deprived childhood, and a homicide really isn’t necessarily a homicide, right? The only thing you can blame is circumstance. Rapists and murderers may be the victims according to you. But I call them dogs, and if they’re lapping up their own vomit, the only way to stop them is with a lash.”

According to Grace’s father, Grace is too sympathetic. She excuses evil with recourse to the circumstances, such as a “deprived childhood,” which condition people to do wrong. While Grace admirably is able to understand that even the most despicable people–rapists and murderers–have typically been victimized themselves, her merely excusing their behavior because she understands it falls short of justice. What Grace fails to realize is that her approach involves more than her own victimization. By refusing to resist the evil directed against her, she allows the townspeople to slip ever more rapidly into wickedness. Grace gives the people of Dogville the opportunity to enact their most shameful desires, desires which were, before her arrival, buried in the subterranean depths of the unconscious. Apparently typical humans at the beginning of the film, the townspeople have degraded themselves–through Grace’s passivity–to the level of dogs by its end.

Grace’s father argues that discipline is the only way to stop a dog from returning to its vomit. Grace’s father’s image of dogs returning to their own vomit evokes 2 Peter 2:22, as well as Chuck’s earlier description of people as being “greedy as animals” who will “eat ’til they burst” if allowed to do so.

Grace is not yet convinced, however, by her father’s arguments. She responds, “But dogs only obey their own nature, so why shouldn’t we forgive them?” Grace touches on the paradox of sin and responsibility in Christian theology: if people are sinful, then how can God hold anyone responsible for doing evil? Is it not unjust for God to hold people to standards they cannot possibly meet? The Old Testament is unequivocal that humanity’s inherited sinful nature does not negate its responsibility for its actions. Deuteronomy 24:16 says, “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.” Yet, such passages condemn the stubborn refusal to repent and turn away from evil. God abhors not those who sin, for he, like Grace, fully understands the chain of victimization and abuse that leads people to do evil, but those who perpetually return to their sins–like a dog to its vomit.

Grace’s father’s reply continues in the vein of comparing people to dogs: “Dogs can be taught many useful things, but not if we forgive them every time they obey their own nature.” A savage, wild dog may be free from the commands of its master, but it is not free from rabies and starvation. Likewise, discipline is required to teach people not to do wrong. This is most obviously true when trying to teach children, but is equally applicable to cultivating virtue in adults. Merely forgiving a person for every evil act, or telling him or her the right thing to do is insufficient because of human selfishness. Dogs do not learn to sit or stay or not to bite people by suggestion; they learn through discipline. People cannot be taught to heed commands other than their own desires unless they are punished for doing wrong. Grace’s father’s position is essentially that of Proverbs 13:24: “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him” (See also Proverbs 22:15).

Grace’s father’s position recalls the prophetic books of the Old Testament. God is most angry with the Israelites when they consistently refuse to heed the rebuke of the prophets: “And you shall say to them, ‘This is the nation that did not obey the voice of the LORD their God, and did not accept discipline; truth has perished; it is cut off from their lips” (Jeremiah 7:28). In Jeremiah 31:18, Israel is compared to a calf, “I have heard Ephraim grieving, ‘You have disciplined me, and I was disciplined, like an untrained calf; bring me back that I may be restored, for you are the LORD my God” (See also Jeremiah 30:11). People need to be trained to be good. This disciplinary logic is taken up in the New Testament, as well: “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Hebrews 12:6). The portrayal of God’s wrath as discipline reflects the doctrine of God’s love for humanity: if God was not loving, he would hardly care what kind of damage people inflict on each other.

Even with the opportunity to return with her father, to share his power and responsibility, Grace initially chooses to remain in Dogville. She believes that “The people who live here are doing their best under very hard circumstances.” Grace even goes so far as to think that she would have acted just as Tom, Chuck, Vera, and the others did toward her were she in their places. The narrator poses the key point as Grace sees it, “How could she ever hate them for what was, at bottom, their weakness?” Grace rightly understands that human nature is imperfect. She realizes that people commit evil deeds out of weakness, whether fear or anger or greed. It takes strength to be virtuous. From her father’s perspective, however, understanding the causality of evil does not excuse it. Grace absolves the townspeople of moral agency, whereas her father insists that people be held accountable for their actions.

Grace pities the townspeople, rather than truly loving them. Since doing evil corrupts the evil-doer as much as it harms the victim, loving them would entail forcibly preventing them from destroying themselves through their wicked actions.

As Grace contemplates the townspeople, she has an epiphany. The narrator explains, “If she had acted like them, she could not have defended a single one of her actions, and could not have condemned them harshly enough. No, what they had done was not good enough.” Grace ultimately decides that “If there’s any town this world would be better off without, then this is it.” She joins her father and has the gangsters execute the townspeople and set fire to the town.

Grace instructs them to shoot Vera’s children in front of her, refraining only if Vera can withhold her tears. She thus reciprocates Vera’s treatment of her: as Vera destroyed Grace’s figurines, promising to stop at two if Grace refrained from crying, so Grace gives Vera a taste of her own medicine. As Vera destroyed Grace’s seven figurines, so the gangsters kill Vera’s seven children.

As he watches Dogville burn around him, Tom tells Grace, “I was scared, Grace. I used you and I’m sorry.” Yet, Tom’s apology, and his lack of genuine remorse, is utterly inadequate to the magnitude of his betrayal. As always, he rationalizes his own failures and pursues a policy of protecting his own interests. Even after seeing all of his peers shot to death, Tom does not register the horror of what he has done to Grace. Tom is too proud to admit to being wrong, which leads to his self-deception. This prevents him from noticing his own flaws, which makes contrition and repentance impossible.

Grace shoots Tom in the head herself.

Why does Grace destroy Dogville completely? Why not imprison the townspeople or force them to do hard labor? Why are the men, women, and children alike put to death? The film shows exhaustively that everyone in Dogville is guilty of abusing Grace: the men rape her; the women verbally abuse her and condone their husbands’ behavior; even the children, particularly Vera’s son, Jason, mistreat her. Everyone must be killed, not only because they deserve death for their crimes, but also because if punishment is always withheld, then mercy ceases to be mercy. If people can imagine no possibility other than forgiveness, then active forgiveness becomes passive acquiescence.  

The narrator gives another reason why Dogville must be destroyed: “And if one had the power to put it to rights, it was one’s duty to do so. For the sake of other towns. For the sake of humanity. And, not least, for the sake of the human being that was Grace herself.” People learn by example.

Dogville reveals that justice and mercy are interdependent: justice is merciful because it prevents people from sinking deeper into corruption; mercy cannot be perceived or received as the grace that it is in a context absent of justice.

Nihilism, the Death Drive, and the Joker in The Dark Knight

In On Evil, Terry Eagleton argues that Freud’s concept of the death drive can be synthesized with traditional theological accounts of evil, particularly those of Augustine and Aquinas, to define evil in terms of death and annihilation. As portrayed in The Dark Knight, the Joker perfectly embodies this theory of evil. The Joker embodies nihilism, chaos, and fear because he has no ordinary motive, such as wealth, power, or revenge. He destroys others for no other reason than his perverse enjoyment.

Nihilism and the Death Drive

At the end of his introduction, Eagleton says, “evil is indeed all about death–but about the death of the evildoer as much as that of those he annihilates” (18). The Joker is obsessed with death, both his own and that of others. During the bank robbery with which The Dark Knight opens, the Joker nonchalantly shoots one of the men he hired to perform the heist. In fact, he gives each member of his crew the order to kill another of the thieves once his role in the robbery is complete. Throughout the film, the Joker kills police officers and gangsters alike, and arranges the assassinations of a judge, the police commissioner, and, of course, Rachel, the mutual love interest of Batman and Harvey Dent.

Beyond his destruction of other human lives, the Joker exemplifies the drive toward his own annihilation. According to Eagleton’s reading of Freud, the death drive is the idea that “human beings unconsciously desire their own destruction. At the core of the self is a drive to absolute nothingness” (108). The Joker exemplifies this kind of nihilism. At Gotham General Hospital, he gives Harvey Dent a gun and presses it against his own head–had Harvey’s coin landed on the other side, he would have pulled the trigger. At the climax of the car chase, the Joker and Batman advance toward each other–Batman on the Bat-cycle and the Joker on foot. Although the Joker has a gun, he does not shoot at Batman. As Batman races toward him, the Joker mutters to himself, “Come on. Come on. I want you to do it. I want you to do it. Come on. Come on hit me. Hit me. Hit me!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGisF2GgKHM

Eagleton says, “The evil are in pain” (103). Three times the Joker asks, “Wanna know how I got these scars?” He tells two different stories–and would have told a third had Batman not interrupted him–about the origin of his gruesome trademark. Neither anecdote the Joker shares about his scars is true, but they both point to the foundational truth that he is a profoundly maimed individual or, as the Joker riffs on a famous Nietzsche quote, “Whatever doesn’t kill you simply makes you stranger.” The Joker’s humanity has been brutally warped by the abuse and suffering–whatever form it actually took–he has undergone.

Eagleton argues that evil, in contrast to the more common wickedness or immorality, is “supremely pointless” (84). Evil has no utilitarian goal; it is irrationally unconcerned with money, sex, and power. It is wicked to kill someone for money, but it is truly evil to kill someone for no reason at all, for the enjoyment of it. Eagleton calls this “obscene enjoyment” (100) as it is the sado-masochistic element of evil. Hence the Joker puts the “laughter” into “slaughter” as is emphasized on the side of his eighteen-wheeler.

Augustine’s Privation Theory of Evil

The classic description of the pointlessness of evil comes from Augustine’s Confessions. Augustine describes stealing pears as the nadir of his sinfulness because he stole them not for the sake of eating them–he threw them away afterward–but simply for the enjoyment of the sinful act of theft itself.

Augustine’s views of evil developed partially in opposition to Manichean dualism. The Manichees believed that the universe was the battleground of Good and Evil, which were equal but opposite cosmic forces. Evil, thus, was its own substance, independent from Good. In the words of Peter Brown’s landmark biography of Augustine, Augustine of Hippo, the Manichees believed that “God was good, totally innocent” and “so convinced were they that evil could not come from a good God, that they believed that it came from an invasion of the good” by a “hostile force of evil, equal in power, eternal, totally separate” (47). For a time, Augustine identified as a Manichee, but once Manichean beliefs proved hollow to him, he abandoned them.

According to Augustine’s later views, as well as those of Aquinas, evil is a “deficiency of being” and a “lack, negation, defectiveness, deprivation” (125) as Eagleton summarizes. Like darkness is a lack of light and hunger is a deprivation of food, evil is fundamentally an absence of the Good. God is the source of all being, all existence; evil is a corruption of the Good, with no independent existence of its own. As the Joker illustrates, the greater the deprivation of the Good, the more twisted and destructive one becomes.

The Joker, the Nazis, and Logistics

The irony of the pointlessness of evil is that the most evil figures, from the Joker to the Nazis, are often capable of incredibly rational thought and organization. Eagleton argues that one of the “most grotesque features of the Nazi death camps was the way in which sober, meticulous, utilitarian measures were pressed into the service of an operation which had no practical point at all” (96-97). The extermination of Jews during the Holocaust had no utilitarian function (in fact, it was anti-utilitarian, as German resources necessary for combating the Allies were wasted killing Jews) but was carried out in the most efficient, utilitarian way.

The same is true for the Joker, who is a logistical genius. Although his murders have no practical purpose other than inspiring panic, he plans them with incredible forethought and the greatest attention to detail. He makes his getaway from the bank in a school bus amidst a line of other school buses; he disguises himself as a nurse to infiltrate Gotham General; he arranges for a burning firetruck to block the path of the police convoy and force it down onto Lower 5th (a.k.a Lower Wacker in Chicago). Knowing that the police will be watching for snipers during the commissioner’s funeral procession, he sets a timer on a window shade overlooking the parade route, so that it flashes open to distract the cops, while he shoots at the mayor from the ground (again in disguise, this time as an officer). He surgically implants a bomb in a criminal’s stomach so that he can detonate it via a cell phone and make his escape from prison. Using masks and fake guns, he dresses hostages up like his own men, while giving his thugs doctors’ lab coats to wear to confuse the police. If he were not a few clowns short of a circus, the Joker could certainly work as the Chief Operating Officer of a major corporation.

In planning a strategy to stop the Joker, Bruce tells Alfred “Criminals aren’t complicated, Alfred. We just need to figure out what he’s after.” Bruce is correct that most criminals seeks something rational, like money, power, or revenge, but the Joker is no ordinary criminal. As Alfred tells Bruce, “Some men aren’t looking for anything logical . . . some men just want to watch the word burn.” In contrast to Gotham’s mobsters, who seek wealth and power, the Joker seeks simply to annihilate everything and everyone. Thus, toward the end of the film, the Joker sets fire to an enormous stack of money and proclaims his superiority over the mob, “All you care about is money. This town deserves a better class of criminal.” The Joker acknowledges that he is a man of simple taste–“dynamite, gunpowder, and gasoline”–those things which burn best. His motto is “everything burns,” which suggests that life is meaningless–the basic claim of nihilism. The Joker’s nihilism is self-fulfilling: if he can cause Gotham to descend into chaos, then he was right all along.

It is out of his own inner lack that the Joker’s violence springs. It is the absence, the “terrible non-being” at his core that drives the Joker to destroy everything around him. Eagleton contends that the “obscene enjoyment of annihilating the Other becomes the only way of convincing yourself that you still exist” (100). The Joker turns his inner feeling of nihilism outward.

Eagleton further argues that in the evil person, the death drive is “turned outward so as to wreak its insatiable spitefulness on a fellow human being. Yet this furious violence involves a kind of lack–an unbearable sense of non-being, which must, so to speak, be taken out on the other” (127). This is why the Joker has “nothing in his pockets but knives and lint,” why he frequently kills even the thugs who work for him, and why he blows up a major hospital.

The characteristics of the evil which the Joker represents is what makes him so difficult for Batman to defeat. In the interrogation scene, which may be the most wrenching moment in the film because it shows Batman at his most vulnerable and humiliated, the Joker mocks Batman, even as Batman slams his fist into the Joker’s head, by saying, “You have nothing to threaten me with. You have nothing to do with all your strength.” Unlike any other villain, Batman ultimately cannot defeat the Joker through force because the Joker cannot be deterred by pain–he relishes it. Because of his nihilism, the Joker does not fear anything. Through a combination of technology, determination, and physical toughness, Batman can crush most opponents into submission, but the Joker will never stop.

Christopher Nolan has given evil a new face for this generation in the Joker. Yet, the evil which the Joker embodies has important precedents in both history and fiction, from Nazism to Shakespeare’s Iago in Othello and the Witches in Macbeth. Iago’s nihilism springs from his irrational desire to engineer Othello’s destruction, while the Witches relish the chaos that results when they give Macbeth their prophecy. In his drive to annihilate Gotham City, the Joker seeks to make the world look like the gaping wound in his own soul.

Sources:

Terry Eagleton. On Evil. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010.

Peter Brown. Augustine of Hippo. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.

Watchmen and the Divine Watchmaker

In Watchmen, Jon Osterman a.k.a. Dr. Manhattan is Alan Moore’s critique of the idea of a personal God. Far more so than in the film version, the original graphic novel frequently compares Dr. Manhattan to God, yet the overarching effect of this comparison is to suggest that even if God does exist he would be incapable of saving humanity from itself. Dr. Manhattan has various god-like characteristics: he knows the future; his power is unlimited; he can be in two or more places at once; he does not age and apparently will not die; he can rearrange atoms and it is suggested that he can even create life. There is even a panel, toward the end of Watchmen chapter XII, with Dr. Manhattan walking on water. What can we call a being like this other than a god? Yet, despite all of his power, Dr. Manhattan is incapable of ending the misery and suffering of humanity upon which Moore’s dystopian landscape focuses so intently. Dr. Manhattan’s character arc implies that even if God were walking around on earth, literally glowing with unimaginable power, he would still be unable to save the world.

Moore explicitly connects Dr. Manhattan to God in the final panel of Watchmen chapter III. After leaving Earth for Mars, Dr. Manhattan sits on a rock, which looks a bit like a throne, on the red planet. The epigraph for the chapter, from Genesis 18:25, is written below the image: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” The biblical context of the verse is Abraham’s “negotiation” with God about the impending judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. When God reveals to Abraham that he will destroy these cities for their wickedness, Abraham beseeches God to spare them for the sake of the righteous, including Abraham’s own nephew Lot. Abraham says, “Far be it from you to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death with the wicked, so that the righteous fare as the wicked! Far be that from you! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” Using this verse as the chapter’s epigraph, Moore puts Dr. Manhattan in the position of God, as judge over humanity, yet, Dr. Manhattan refuses such a role, leaving Earth for Mars when humans weary him.

Deism in Watchmen

Moore consistently uses Deist imagery to characterize Dr. Manhattan. Deism conceives of God as the Divine Watchmaker: he created the world with the care of a watchmaker designing a beautiful watch, but once it was finished, he merely sat back and admired it for a moment before moving on to other things. According to Deism, God created an orderly world that functions on its own (governed by the laws of nature), but he is not personally involved in the vicissitudes of human life. Deism partly resulted from Sir Isaac Newton’s discovery of universal laws of motion. Unlike earlier medieval models of the cosmos, the Newtonian universe is mechanistic, like a finely tuned clock. Once God set it in motion, it simply ticks indefinitely. Before he was transformed into Dr. Manhattan by a lab experiment gone awry, Jon Osterman was a physicist. He becomes a physicist because his father, a watchmaker, insists that he not pursue “an obsolete trade.” Jon, however, is fascinated by the internal mechanism of watches. He enjoys taking them apart and putting them back together again. Even before gaining god-like powers, Jon has the detached temperament of the Deist God, content to toy with the gears of a pocket watch.

Ironically, though others believe him to be a god, Dr. Manhattan is an atheist. After leaving Earth for the solitude of Mars, he muses, “Perhaps the world is not made. Perhaps nothing is made. Perhaps it simply is, has been, will always be there . . . A clock without a craftsman.” In the 19th century, the argument from design was used to support belief in God. If the universe is so intricately crafted, like a fine clock, then surely there must be a clockmaker? Dr. Manhattan, however, accepts the beauty of the universe without assuming that it was created by a divine being. He doubts both the Deist myth of of a divine watchmaker and the Christian claim that the world was created by the Father through the Son in the power of the Holy Spirit.

At his father’s urging, Jon studies atomic physics. Jon is transformed into Dr. Manhattan when he is accidentally locked into the “intrinsic field” test chamber. The watchmaker motif continues as Jon enters the chamber to retrieve a watch he had fixed for fellow scientist and girlfriend Janey Slater. It appears that Jon is utterly disintegrated, but instead he is transformed into the invincible Dr. Manhattan. Jon learns to reassemble his body as he learned to reassemble the pieces of his father’s pocket watch: “Really, it’s just a question of reassembling the components in the correct sequence.” First, Jon appears as a floating nervous system. Then, a circulatory system. After that, he puts together a “partially muscled skeleton” before he finally reappears in a body that looks essentially human other than the blue glow. The panel depicting Jon’s reappearance in Watchmen chapter IV is reminiscent of Raphael’s depiction of the Transfiguration of Jesus. Dr. Manhattan, floating above the terrified scientists, is surrounded by a halo of light. In the biblical scene, Jesus goes up a mountain with his three closest disciples, Peter, James, and John. Jesus “was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light” (Matthew 17:1). This is a “proleptic disclosure” of Jesus’ coming post-resurrection glory. It is a foreshadowing of Jesus as he will be when he returns to claim his place on David’s throne in the New Jerusalem, and of the Jesus whom John witnesses, “one like a son of man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash around his chest. The hairs of his head were white, like white wool, like snow. His eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined in a furnace, and his voice was like the roar of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, from his mouth came a sharp two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining in full strength” (Revelation 1:13-16). In his transformation into Dr. Manhattan, Jon Osterman’s body is permanently transfigured with the same kind of radiant light as Jesus in the Gospel narratives: “Their bleached faces stare up at me, pale and insubstantial in the sudden flare of ultraviolet. Sunburn in November.” Dr. Manhattan, however, does not aspire to be humanity’s savior.

Dr. Manhattan as a Divine Figure

Immediately after Jon’s transformation, people begin to think of him as a god. The Viet Cong who surrender to Dr. Manhattan feel terror “balanced by an almost religious awe.” Janey says, “They say you can do anything, Jon. They say you’re like God now.” Jon replies, “I don’t think there is a God, Janey. If there is, I’m not him.” Jon has no desire to play the role of God, to eradicate evil or create a just society. He soon reveals his defining character trait–detachment. He is so detached that he does not bother to inform his father that he is still alive, after the military notified Mr. Osterman of his son’s “accidental disintegration.” Dr. Manhattan becomes the willing servant of the U.S. government, fighting crime and turning the tide in Vietnam, yet he does so with profound indifference. He says, “The morality of my activities escapes me.” He bears so little empathy that, when he and Laurie return from Mars, he hardly notices that the streets of New York are littered with corpses. Adrian Veidt has killed half of the city’s population, yet far from grieving or even feeling sorrow, Dr. Manhattan is elated that he is temporarily incapable of seeing the future (it is obscured by “tachyon” particles). The opening panels of Watchmen chapter XII show him to be utterly oblivious to the atrocities around him.

The film version of Watchmen depicts Dr. Manhattan as simply not caring that much about humanity, failing to convey that he is incapable of acting decisively to alter the future. Janey is bewildered and outraged, for instance, when Dr. Manhattan does not intervene to save President Kennedy from assassination. Dr. Manhattan explains to Janey, “I can’t prevent the future. To me, it’s already happening.” It is not, as in the film, that Dr. Manhattan is extremely apathetic, but that he actually cannot change the future. This is a direct critique of the Christian concept of Providence, in which God superintends all of human history (“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose” Romans 8:28). Dr. Manhattan cannot change the future because he experiences past, present, and future all at once. On Mars, Dr. Manhattan explains to Laurie, “Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time.” The film portrays Dr. Manhattan as a human being who has can see the future but does nothing about it, but the graphic novel attempts to imagine how God must feel, seeing all events–past, present and future–unfolding simultaneously. Dr. Manhattan explains his determinism to Laurie, “Everything is preordained.” When she accuses him of being a “puppet following a script,” he replies, “We’re all puppets, Laurie. I’m just a puppet who can see the strings.” The terror of Moore’s dystopian world is not super-villains or nuclear war, but the idea that not even God may be free to save humanity from destruction.

Throughout Watchmen, Moore emphasizes Dr. Manhattan’s utter inability to alter the future in his encounters with the Comedian. Edward Blake a.k.a. the Comedian is half masked superhero half mercenary, fighting for the U.S. in Vietnam. The Comedian intrigues Dr. Manhattan because he is the most “deliberately amoral” human he has ever met. Jon appreciates the Comedian’s amorality because, in his detachment from human life, he has become fully amoral. Whereas the Comedian believes that there can be no meaningful morality in such a bloody, ugly world, Dr. Manhattan is amoral because he sees past, present, and future all at once. Moral frameworks are absurd to Dr. Manhattan because he realizes that everything is predetermined, that choice is an illusion. The Comedian understands the “madness, the pointless butchery” at the heart of the human condition, as exemplified by the war in Vietnam, and he responds with gleeful, violent rage. Dr. Manhattan, too, understands the evil that afflicts human nature, but his perception of time prevents him from feeling any emotion about it at all. Hence, he fights on behalf of the U.S. military, securing a victory over the Viet Cong.

The Comedian impregnates a Vietnamese woman, and when the war ends she urges him to take responsibility for her and their child. When he refuses, the woman slashes his face with a broken glass bottle. The Comedian shoots her without hesitation. Dr. Manhattan observes the whole thing, and even seems upset by it, but does not intervene. In one of his few displays of something approaching compassion, Dr. Manhattan says to the Comedian, “Blake, she was pregnant. You gunned her down.” The Comedian, of course, does not care; he is more annoyed by the wound to his face than the fact that he just murdered his lover and unborn child. Blake replies, “Y’know what? You watched me. You coulda changed the gun into steam or the bullets into mercury or the bottle into snowflakes! You coulda teleported either of us to goddamn Australia . . . but you didn’t lift a finger.” Dr. Manhattan is the powerless, all-powerful: he is not bound by any human weakness, yet because of his perception of time he is unable to help even the most innocent victims. Dr. Manhattan’s character suggests that if God exists, then he is, at best, merely a silent, pitying witness of human suffering and, at worst, utterly indifferent to our plight. The Comedian’s final indictment of Dr. Manhattan is “You don’t really give a damn about human beings.” The Deist God truly does not care about humanity. He enjoys the orderly world which he has created, but then moves on, perhaps to create another one.

Dr. Manhattan does come to a belated appreciation of life when Laurie realizes that the Comedian is her father. He realizes that the probability of Laurie’s existing is astronomically small: it not only required a genetic chain generations long, but also Laurie’s mother loving a man who had once tried to rape her. Only when Dr. Manhattan sees life as a “thermodynamic miracle” does he regain enough interest in humanity to return to Earth. Yet, this is not divine love, but rather the fascination of a scientist. Dr. Manhattan is compelled by the sublime, particularly in the very large, like the chasms and mountains of the Martian landscape, and in the very small, like the mysterious patterns of atoms: “I’ve walked across the sun. I’ve seen events so tiny and so fast they hardly can be said to have occurred at all.” Despite his transformation, Dr. Manhattan retains Jon Osterman’s love of exploring how the universe works. Nevertheless, in neither the graphic novel nor the film version of Watchmen is this enough to compel Dr. Manhattan to remain on earth.

Violence, Justice, and Sacrifice Part 2: Gran Torino

In Unforgiven, Clint Eastwood offers a critique of the classic Western myth of the lone gunslinger. Reflecting on the inescapable cycle of violence in which the gunslinger participates, he de-romanticizes the films through which he earned his fame, such as The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. With Gran Torino, Eastwood deepens this critique of vigilante justice and endless cycles of violence by offering self-sacrifice as the true path to justice.

Gran Torino features several important parallels to Unforgiven: a victimized woman, a reckless youth seeking murder, and Eastwood playing a grizzled veteran of many battles who has lost the taste for blood. Whereas in Unforgiven the protagonist is drawn back into the cycle of violence, Gran Torino offers a vision of ending the cycle of violence through self-sacrifice.

As with Unforgiven Eastwood starred in and directed Gran Torino. He plays Walt Kowalski, a Korean War veteran and auto worker who finds his neighborhood taken over by Hmong immigrants from southeast Asia. He is the epitome of toughness, work ethic, and racial prejudice. The film opens with the funeral of Walt’s wife, introducing Walt’s curmudgeonly nature, irritation with his shallow and materialistic sons and grandchildren, and his contempt for the priest of his local Catholic parish.

At the beginning of the film, Walt is antagonistic toward the well-intentioned, but obnoxious priest’s attempts to get him to return to church and go to confession. He dismisses the priest as an “over-educated, 27-year-old virgin, who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them eternity.” Walt believes religion is a sham, admitting that he only went to church because of his wife. Walt is particularly unimpressed with the priest’s eulogy for his wife, which consists mostly of cliche reflections about how death is bittersweet. Initially, Walt seems an unlikely candidate to ask himself What Would Jesus Do?

The film introduces its central themes of violence, justice, and sacrifice through Walt’s Hmong neighbor, Thao, and his thug cousin. Thao’s cousin and the rest of his gang try to recruit Thao. As an initiation into the gang, Thao is supposed to steal Walt’s 1972 Gran Torino. Walt hears a noise in his garage, however, and goes to investigate. With his gun pointed at Thao, Walt slips; Thao flees.

Later, the thugs return to “offer” Thao a second chance to join their gang. They try to drag Thao into their car, while Thao’s mother, sister, and grandmother try to stop them. The ensuing commotion brings Walt outside with his gun pointed in the thugs’ faces. “Get off my lawn,” Walt growls. The thugs back down and the entire Hmong community considers Walt a hero for saving Thao. Walt, of course, was acting out of selfish motives–he simply wanted the foreigners off his lawn. Eastwood develops Walt’s character throughout the film, however, so that by its end he grows to love the Hmong neighbors he previously despised.

Walt is equally successful the next time that he uses the threat of violence. He happens to see Thao’s sister, Sue, being hassled by three guys. He tells them, “Ever notice how you come across somebody once in a while you shouldn’t of fucked with. That’s me,” and then scares them off by first pointing his finger at them like a gun, and then drawing a real pistol and aiming it at them. He then takes Sue home. This initiates a genuine friendship between the gruff Walt and the vibrant, quick-witted Sue.

Thao’s mother wants her son to make amends to Walt for trying to steal his car. Thao begins to work for Walt, but his penance becomes an apprenticeship. Walt teaches Thao how to use tools and make various home repairs. Acting as a surrogate father, Walt helps Thao toughen up and learn valuable skills.

The Hmong gang will not relinquish their claim on Thao. When Walt discovers they have given Thao a cigarette burn, he again uses violence and intimidation to stop them. Walt follows the thugs to their home and attacks one of them. After beating him up, he tells him to stay away from Thao. Walt further threatens the thug saying, “Got it? I’ll take that as a ‘yes’ because if I have to come back here it’s gonna get fuckin’ ugly.” Unlike earlier in the film, however, this show of force proves insufficient to eliminate the threat posed by the gang.

The gang retaliates first by shooting up the front of Thao’s house. Not content with vandalism, the gang beats and rapes Sue, to whom they are related by blood. The first two times Walt was able to scare off the thugs with his gun and fierce attitude, but now he has run up against the futility of trying to fight violence with violence, as it only adds “deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars” as Dr. King said.

Much like in Unforgiven, the unthinkable offense–that which the hero cannot refrain from retaliating against–has happened. In Unforgiven, when Will Munny’s friend Ned is killed, he slaughters those responsible–and several others who were hardly involved just for good measure. Gran Torino sets up the expectation that Walt will do the same to avenge Sue. Walt has given the thugs a fair chance, and now it’s time for him to blow them all away like they deserve, or so the old cowboy myth goes.

After Sue is abused, Walt tells the priest, “Thao and Sue are never gonna find peace in this world as long as that gang is around.” The problem with evil is that it never stops. It never sleeps. It never relents. No matter how many times Walt threatens the gang, they will never stop their predations. The priest worries that Walt will adopt the role of the avenger and kill the thugs. He says to Walt, “If I was Thao I guess I’d want vengeance. I’d want to stand shoulder to shoulder with you and kill those guys.” That is exactly what Thao wants. He is outraged by the way his cousin and the other thugs abused his sister, and wants revenge. Thao says, “Don’t let me down, Walt, not you” and “Thinking time is over. Now is the time to kick the shit out of those pricks.” Walt is more circumspect, however. He says to Thao, “Mr. Tough Guy out for blood all of a sudden–you know nothin’ about it.”

Having killed over a dozen people in Korea, some of them only teenagers, and having seen many of his fellow soldiers killed, Walt knows the grim reality of death. He refuses to undertake killing lightly. In fact, he refuses to undertake it at all.

Walt shows Thao the Silver Star he received in Korea. He earned the award by being the only member of his regiment to survive a deadly mission. Thao asks Walt what it was like to kill a man. Walt responds, “You don’t want to know.” A few minutes later, however, he elaborates, saying that killing is “goddamn awful.” He tells Thao that the only thing worse than killing a teenage boy who has been forced into war is receiving a medal for doing so. He locks Thao in his basement to protect the kid from getting himself killed. While Thao screams at Walt to let him out, Walt tells him that killing leaves a stain on the soul and “I’ve got blood on my hands; I’m soiled.”

Walt leaves to face the thugs alone, much like in Unforgiven. Like in the classic Western, the unflappable Walt stares down a shooting gallery of foes. He mocks his enemies, saying “Go ahead and pull those pistols like miniature cowboys.” Unlike the thugs, who relish the role of outlaws, Walt refuses to take on the role of the cowboy, of the lone gunslinger. In parallel to an earlier scene, Walt points his finger at the thugs as if it is a gun. When he reaches into his coat for his lighter, they open fire. Walt does not defend himself against the barrage of bullets; he falls to the ground with his arms spread apart in the sign of the cross. Walt’s last words are “Hail, Mary, full of grace” because in the act of following Christ’s example of laying down his life for his friends (John 15:13), he affirms the faith he previously rejected as superstition.

The climax of Gran Torino might easily shock long-time Eastwood fans. You mean he isn’t gonna get up and blow them all away? You mean he wasn’t wearing a bullet-proof vest? You mean he’s really dead? Walt discovers that self-sacrifice is the true path to justice. The thugs are arrested for murder; Thao and Sue are safe; the film ends with the priest giving Walt’s eulogy as it opened with the funeral of Walt’s wife. If Unforgiven dramatizes the falsehoods of the myth of the classic Western, then Gran Torino offers an alternative to seeking vengeance through violence.