'Darlings' is a dark comedy worth your time. It might be even more worth if you have a part that enjoys philosophical churning about human behaviour.
Against the run of play, Darlings turns somewhat preachy at a very critical moment in the movie. Perhaps there was no other way to go about. The critical moment gives us an intriguing question: Will we be permanently haunted by our conscience if we choose to commit an evil act consciously and when committing such an act is against our nature? By evil act, we can assume an act that leads to physical, very likely a bodily harm to others.
The argument goes as follows - sooner or later your conscience will make you aware of the evil act you have committed. And once we are aware, we cannot be at peace. And then the utilitarian implication follows- if you do not want to lose your peace, do not commit evil.
In some sense, the argument is demeaning. It asks us not to be evil because that is better than being an evil. If somehow, being an evil turn better then be it, but since that does not seem to be the case, don’t be.
The other and better interpretation is – there are some of us who are evil. They do not have the conscience or moral compass. They cannot be anything else but a being that hurts others. And it may seem that we must turn a greater evil to deal with these evil beings. But that is not the right strategy. Because turning evil is the wrong thing. We must deal with the evil, but not at the cost of turning into one. This is non-utilitarian argument, something we find hard to understand these days. We are deeply utilitarian beings now.
The argument in the movie is more utilitarian than about intrinsic right-wrong choice as well. But as a good story should have it, it has shade of better interpretation as well and an open ended possibility of an exception as well.
The obvious implication of the argument is – those of us who have committed an evil act and yet do not live with a remorse or a lifelong unease, they are not the right kind of people. Somehow, I keep remembering the rapist from BBC documentary about Delhi rape case (one that we renamed as ‘Nirbhaya’ to assuage our unease). The teacher who trashed the student to death for drinking water apparently not meant for him, I would like to see if he fits the implication. Another obvious recollection is that of Eichmann, who gave us banality of the evil.
Somehow, I do not agree with the implied dichotomy - Good guys cannot live at peace if they commit an evil act and those who can live with evil act or perhaps can do nothing but evil are not good guys , the metaphorical scorpion. Somehow it assumes too much of innocence on our part.
I believe that most of us are capable of self-deception that can allow us to process evil acts, of ours as well as of others we like, in a manner that does not generate a bother that alters the course of normal pleasure-seeking life. Again, I think of the Eichmann trial and the Milgram experiment. I also think of many I know, who can spin a story to justify violence of the side they prefer. They see violence of their side as a necessary evil which will be sheathed back once the purpose is served. In other words, they are claiming that one can be strategically evil as long as it serves some greater good (which their side is invariably delivering).
Perhaps there is a line somewhere, up till which we can be evil and still come back. I think of teachers from my school who used to beat students in very violent manner, something unimaginable to many of us today. They were not overwhelmed by what they did. May be they enjoyed being the master for those moments, of a pupil who is devoid of equivalent reaction. Or may be they saw their act as a necessary evil towards greater good.
May be it was not exactly of the magnitude to think much of it. I do not have scars left on me. I learned a thing or two from these teachers as well. Perhaps they had that line they did not cross, even if they were not aware.
And this is not the only example. There are occupations which need individuals to exert violence on others as a matter of profession, sometimes in ways which are not official. Are these professional altered for life? Or they somehow maintain the switch, where they can be wrath at someplace and affection at others?
'Darlings' raises the intriguing question. A good story often does that. A modern good story not only raises it, it dares to jump to scary side, like ‘Breaking Bad' and it’s spinoff. But then Walter White and James McGill are just meant to scorpions, didn’t they? And Jesse Pinkman and Kim Wexler are the frogs who could not bear their evil?
May be the mundane sounding implication is what perhaps best truth we have. Some of us are frogs and some of us are scorpions. But aren’t binaries ultimately false conventions? May be myth of ‘don’t be evil’ is just a nicety held by amphibian which can be scorpion if it serves?
Who am I? Darlings, who are you?
Comments