One of my favorite Alfred Hitchcock movies has always been Rope. It’s the story of two young men who commit the perfect murder, as inspired by their philosophy professor’s ideas about morality as a human construct. They believe the intellectually superior man not only should not only ignore basic moral laws, but kill those of lesser “contributions” to society. To prove it, they murder their friend David, then invite their professor to a dinner party served off David’s coffin, as an unspoken invitation for him to solve the murder and praise them for their genius.
Many people focus on different aspects of the film, but what has always interested me most is the argument that morality does not exist. The professor, Rupert, played by James Stewart, comes to see through their actions that his theory of morality as a construct is a farce. He does not truly believe what he claims to believe, in the sense that his own “deep inner self would never allow me to commit the actions you have committed.” In the end, he discovers he has a moral conscience separate from his logic.
Put in plain terms, the film proves that actions speak louder than words. Though Rupert helped create these two murderers, that was never his intention or within his abilities as a human being. Rupert cannot, it seems, escape his own morality when it comes right down to actual murder.

I know someone a good deal like Rupert, who has argued against morals in the past, using the same argument—morality is a human construct intended to keep human beings in line; there are no morals apart from what humans “decided” was moral, and we should not feel bound to live by them. I have not seen this person behaving in the manner he espouses… yet. His actions do not match his beliefs, though he would find plenty of arguments to get around that fact while maintaining that he’s actually not living within society’s “moral construct.”
That forces me to think about society and how often we “profess” but do not “act” on our professed beliefs. And thank God we do not, because when we do… we wind up with extremists. Think about it. There are those people who claim certain beliefs or a particular faith—choose one, all of them have unappealing elements that we might consider “immoral”—who are good, moral citizens. And then there are the ones who truly believe whatever they say, and act on it. What is the result? They kill people in their god’s name. They blow up buildings. They shoot abortion doctors. They violate underage girls. They blow up laboratories where they test on animals.
Why? Because their actions match their beliefs. It’s terrifying to us when it happens, because we are so used to people not acting on their professed beliefs. If people actually believed what they said, they would act on it. And often, those actions would be extreme. That is why when extremists commit acts of violence, others of that group denounce it. They do not actually believe everything their chosen system says. If they did, they would feel they had no choice but to take similar action. And they don’t. A person who actually believes their loved ones will burn in hell will stop at nothing to prevent that. Someone who actually believes in global warming won’t get on an airplane and thus contribute to the pollution. Yet, for the most part, we say things and live an ordinary, extremist-free life. Most of us, anyway.

Rope also questions whom society should hold responsible for wicked actions—just the people who do them, or the ideology behind it and its creator. Though Philip and Brandon commit the murderers, Rupert inspired them through teaching the boys his ideology. His starry-eyed philosophical discussions about man-made moral constructs, and how the superior man should be able to commit murder, inspired these two demented young men to act on his ideas, and take them literally. Rupert is as guilty as they are, because without him, they might never have thought of this crime.
This seems more timely than ever, in an age that forces us to ponder whether society should hold artists responsible for any “violence” their art creates. I speak of the movie Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix in what will undoubtedly be an Oscar-award-winning performance. I found it an unsettling and thought-provoking exploration of mental illness, but can also agree with the fear-driven criticism that it glamorizes mental illness and justifies the Joker’s negative, violent attitude toward humanity. Most major psychologists agree that shooters share the same hatred for human beings and sense of rejection by them that the Joker feels. Some fear it will inspire new shooters. Recent history has proven that certain topics in film draw mentally unstable people, who then pervert the film as their “inspiration” (look no further than the Columbine shooting, and the perpetrators’ love of The Matrix, or the The Dark Knight shooting).
And therein lies the quandary. Joker would not inspire a sane person to commit violence. Sane people watched it and walked away unsettled, saddened, or even appalled. Sane people might even, like Rupert, theorize about horrific behaviors without having the moral deficiencies required to translate those fantasies into action. But sane people are not the ones we need to worry about. The recent onslaught of mass shootings has shown us we have an epidemic of unstable people to whom Joker might become an inspiration. The movie seems to validate the unreliable narrator’s feelings about how humanity deserves to die, based on its inhumanity. Not one person in Gotham shows him kindness. Not one person in Gotham is worth saving. And so, the Joker turns against the city, against his former “friends” and coworkers, and against his “hero” who mocks him on live television, and becomes a murderer.
As humans, we cannot possibly live out our spoken beliefs and ideals all the time—that’s impossible. And I don’t know that we should restrict “art” from its exploration of human nature, both the good and the evil. But I think we have a moral responsibility to hold our beliefs to a high standard, and to say nothing we are unwilling to see actualized in the world, in the realization that a less sane individual could use our ideas to inspire violence.
This is a fascinating discussion, but I have to disagree on the level of guilt. Foolish words, false ideologies don’t cause actions (and those are the ends of a spectrum), there is certainly some guilt there, but to consider (in the legal sense), any person accessory to murder, is very serious, it depends on the circumstances. Did the person preaching knowingly advocate a certain point of view, knowing others would perpetrate in all the while keeping his/her hands dirty? I don’t think careless words should be held to the same point. A crazy person will take anything to justify anything.
I remember Dark Knight Rises because as we were driving to the movie theatre the morning after it opened in theatres, Mom was calling us about the shooting. I felt a bit guilty for watching it, but I’m not sure what I feel about the “rightness” of such things being made. If evil is glorified that is wrong, but evil portrayed is necessary too.
You could put this in a clearer context — if a white supremacist raises his son to believe in white supremacy, and that child commits a crime against a black person, should society and/or the court hold the parent responsible and/or culpable in the child’s sin? It digs into whether we hold the individual entirely responsible, or also place some of the blame on the cultivating environment.
I am 100% behind the notion that we are all ultimately responsible for all our actions and decisions and should not displace blame onto other people / our society / our upbringing, because our choices are ours alone, but I’m not sure we should entirely ignore the fact that other people do have an influence on us.
In Rope’s context, Rupert was teaching his students an immoral philosophy in which he genuinely / half jokingly said murder is justifiable by higher beings; it’s not his fault that two grown up men decided to act ON his ideology — but nevertheless, he planted the idea in their head. He should not go to jail for it, but he’ll have to live with the consequence of knowing that his ideas inspired two sociopaths to commit murder.
If I seem like I’m talking in circles, I am — because I there is no easy answer in a morally complex “gray” area such as “my words inspired their actions.” Yet, history is replete with instances of that — leaders saying something that incites violence, because others are ready to act on their “inspiration.”
I’m not really targeting careless words here — but deliberate ones, with a violent undertone behind them (which is especially dangerous right now in our polarized political climate).
“The Dark Knight Rises” shooting was in “my” theater (the one I often went to at the time), so I had people worried about me the next day, in case I had been there. I didn’t really feel guilt watching that film, because it didn’t necessarily glorify the Joker’s psychopathic behaviors in the same way “The Joker” did — and for the record, I didn’t feel guilty watching that, either. But the two films have very different agendas behind them; one glorifies heroism and goodness, the other one portrays a man’s descent into villainy. And it would trouble me less if I hadn’t studied the psychology behind shooters, and recognized they all share the same contempt for society, seeing themselves as outsiders “above” other people. That, sadly, is the mindset that allows humans to do awful things — if you are above them, then it’s not that difficult to relegate them to… trash.
I think I mean equally to blame, I certainly believe guilt can be from many sources, but ultimately only the active (and that varies, I had a criminal justice course and accomplice to murder or something was a conviction) deserves criminal punishment.
I’m sorry, I’m not a lucid thinker. I guess it’s similar to the difference between talking treason/anarchy (freedom of speech) and actively planning to overthrow the government?
Wow, that is really scary about the shooting. I think any guilt I felt wasn’t exactly about the film, but maybe it felt insensitive to watch it? If that makes sense. I’ve no intention of seeing the Joker, it seems in the same vicarious/voyueristic strain as that horrible Netflix documentary on that serial killer.
I think though, I’m less afraid of actual psychopaths (perhaps only because I’ve not been affected by them) than people who should have consciences/are in their right minds. Or those who label criminals as insane, so they don’t get properly punished as its starting to seem to be.
I do understand and agree, as pertains to the law — but there’s a difference between legal responsibility and moral responsibility, in my mind. To use your example, the person who talks treason/anarchy who then inspires a bunch of young people to overthrow the government. He’s not legally culpable except in extreme cases, but he inspired it.
… the Ted Bundy one, you mean? I know Netflix has an entire documentary series on him (which I did not watch) plus a movie about him (which I did watch… and I did not feel it depicted him as “horribly” as he should have been depicted).
I think people are a bit like wild animals. The truly crazy ones are the most dangerous, because they are unpredictable. A sane criminal has an objective agenda they are trying to accomplish through their actions. A crazy one might just knife someone at random on a subway platform because the aliens told them to do it.
Whether insane people should get away with things due to their insanity is a whole other topic. I think they should always PROVE insanity, to get a break.
I actually read a super interesting book on psychopaths not long ago, in which the author spoke to a man imprisoned for being “a sociopath.” The man had chosen to pretend to be crazy, to get away with something; but the author found it hard to believe him. He seemed completely lucid and sane, and yet something was “off.” He was very insistent on wanting the initial article to plea his case for freedom. Then the author spoke to the hospital psychologist, and asked him why he was clearly keeping incarcerated someone who was sane. The man replied that only a sociopath would think about pretending to be one to get out of something in the first place. That sent chills up my spine.
Oh, I agree about legal and moral responsibility being two separate things that can overlap, it’s when it overlaps that is the question it can seem as though some people want everyone punished no matter what, legally. Also, one can be punished for words, but it’s the difference between ideology, incitement, and actively encouraging, and that is were the catch is I guess, and I feel that some people want to punish all of them the same, even mere disagreement. I haven’t seen this movie, I’m rather scared to, this sort of thing freaks me out plus I don’t like seeing Jimmy Stewart doing anything wrong.
I’m not sure it’s always the truly crazy, wild animal people that scare me most, but the cold, polished ones. I guess it depends. Or the ones that “legally” cause horribly things to be done. Of course the only experience I have is with history (and for the punishment for speech I’ve got my Stalinism class in mind) and movies.
I’m not sure what the medical definition of sociopath and psychopath are, but my sister took psychiatric nursing as part of her nursing degree, and she said that sociopaths know there is something wrong with them and some at least will turn themselves in for treatment, but psychopaths don’t know (or don’t care).
I’m not for punishing everything, no — just encouraging people to take responsibility for themselves. The former sort of behavior winds up becoming a society where people are afraid to express themselves, for fear someone is going to vilify them for it — and I am absolutely against social media campaigns to punish people for their beliefs. (Like, campaigning to get someone fired because you don’t like their politics / religion / personal beliefs, for example. That… is not good.)
Jimmy Stewart is my favorite classic actor, so I agree with you there. “Rope” actually didn’t do well commercially, and it was felt later that people were unsure how to perceive him in this part — they were so used to Stewart playing the “aww shucks” good guy next door. I like him in this, though, and he redeems himself at the end by turning in the murderers. (Same thing with Hitchcock’s “Vertigo” in which he plays a more disturbing role.) Stewart never played anyone truly awful, though, which was nice of him. 😉
I guess I think of villains in these terms — Michael Corleone will leave me alone as long as I do not get in his way, but the Joker could randomly shoot me on a subway. Ha, ha.
I wrote a post awhile back on the distinctions between the antisocial disorders, using characters from The Musketeers as an example, but the finer points have since eluded me. Psychopaths are more prone to overt violence than Sociopaths — the latter is more charming, more socially aware, and more generally careless, whereas psychopaths are deliberately malicious. Ironically, the book I mentioned earlier stated that most psychopaths wind up in politics — many of them don’t end up behind bars, because they are not necessarily murderers. They are, however, drawn to the limelight and prone to firing people without empathy, and justifying their actions as being “necessary” for the bottom line.
Excellent. Very excellent. I love this post.
It’s like what they say (jokingly, but it’s true), “Always ask yourself, ‘would a white person in a horror movie do this thing?’ and if so, DO NOT DO THE THING.”
Always ask yourself, “would a deranged person be inspired to violence by this thing?” and if so, DO NOT SAY THE THING.
I’m glad I was able to make some sense of it, because what I wanted to say was all jumbled up in my head and connected to various trains of thought. I had been thinking about “Joker” for months and not sure where I stand on the “should they have filmed it or not?” debate. I don’t know that we should hold our art “hostage” just because “some whack-job might do something bad with it,” but every creator has a moral responsibility to think about the ways their creation COULD be used. Sort of like the guy who created the atomic bomb — sure, this will end the war, but… what if it falls into the wrong hands? Should a weapon on that massive of a destructive scale been invented in the first place?
Words have far more power than people think. The statistics of teens committing suicide as egged on by online bullies, for example, is staggering — and how much do we hold the bullies accountable for driving a sensitive person “over the edge” into hurting themselves? So, really… we live in a tough, tough time in which we need divine wisdom to navigate it.
You cracked me up with that quote; I had never heard it before, but it’s hilariously accurate. I’m not a fan of the majority of horror films (I see them as torture porn) but it astounds me how consistently STUPID people are in them.
No, it all made sense, and it was really thought-provoking! I think I have the same feeling as you–not censorship, necessarily, but encouraging artists to think about their RESPONSIBILITY not to encourage harmful behavior.
Because words have power, art has power, for good and for evil.
Right though???? I mean, I guess the thinking is, “well, our characters HAVE to be stupid or else these crazy scenarios with the monsters will never happen.” Which is . . . silly, when you think about it; your conflicts should never depend upon your characters making utterly dumb choices.
I want to live in a world where people are responsible for censoring themselves, and no one has to censor them. 😉
Obviously, you can’t anticipate and avoid all misuses of your ideas, but some ideas are so controversial and/or potentially dangerous in and of themselves, I don’t think they ought to be shared with the world.
See, that’s what drives me crazy about horror movies (aside from the gore). If your plot relies on your characters being morons to move things along… it’s a bad plot. 😛
100% agree. Because it means you’re not truly exploring character motives or decisions, you’re just like “Here’s a bunch of people with fluff for brains and we automatically know they will make the Worst Possible Decisions, now let’s sit back and watch them all get ground to mush.”
YES.
It’s like that commercial where instead of running to the car and climbing in, all the teenagers hide in the shed full of chainsaws.
Lol I remember that one!!! #horror film logic