Woody Allen is my Homeboy

It's funny, at the beginning when we see Allen & his actual daughter (playing his niece), I thought it was going to be a pedophilia film.
Little did I know.


----------------------

Crimes and Misdemeanors bleakly studies how “we are the sum of our choices” (a concept originally credited to Sartre), what it means to be this sum, and the Utilitarian ideals that result ipso facto. Though there certainly are arguments against this posit concerning its applicability (or “fairness” when it comes to Utilitarianism), it is a theme that is stressed throughout the movie, as well as the ‘real world’. A and B (Alejandro and Beatrice) discuss, pontificate, and generally bicker over this conclusion- with a flailing attempt at humor.



YOU ARE WHAT YOU THINK
A: [end movie] Well. As I am ‘the sum of my choices’, my sum is now going to consist of being a pig. Thinly veiled attempts at philosophy make me hungry.

B: Oh dude, you are joking?

A: No, not really. The concept of ‘brain food’ is one I wholeheartedly embrace.

B: …I meant about what that guy said. “We are the sum of our choices” thing. The guy who threw himself out the window.

A: Yeah, Levy. What about him?

B: That entire idea is absurd. Out actions don’t entirely make up who we are, not by a long shot. In fact, it’s only a small part of the ‘self’; we are mostly products of circumstance and environment. For example: my overall character has much more to do with the fact that I’m a 17-year-old Australian student than what brand cereal I enjoy.

A: First, you’re trivializing the matter. Second, almost every aspect of our lives affects out character to different degrees, so don’t bother arguing that. Third, Levy was making the point that our actions reflect our character—or at least they should—so one can only truly be judged by what one does. Plus the movie has three great exemplars of this: Rabbi Ben, Cliff, and obviously Judah.

B: As if. But explain, oh wise one.

A: Cheeky. Right, so let’s start with Judah Rosenthal. He’s the privileged, respected, successful, Grade-A, born-and-bred fodder to the ‘American Dream’. He’s also an adulterer, a murderer, and shamelessly avaricious. And if the previous didn’t lead you to it: he’s also an atheist. Right away we see a connection to Levy’s statement: the religious aspect behind it reflects Judah’s godlessness.

B: What? How?

A: “We are the sum of our choices” infers that man is self-derived. He creates himself. This in itself defies faith-bound logic; that we are created by God, in his image. Repeated instances of Judah’s godlessness—“God is a luxury I can’t afford”—underline this aspect.

B: Levy didn’t seem to mean it in an entirely atheistic way, but go on.

A: Next point- the recurring theme of Utilitarianism. Judah made the choice of killing one to save many—his business, his family, his reputation. It’s a typical—though morbid—Utilitarianistic situation.

B: But I thought you said he was a selfish person? Doesn’t this choice—the choice to preserve the happiness of others—negate that aspect of his character?

A: Utilitarians believe in the happiness of the majority. Judah happened to be part of that majority, justifying his selfishness. Furthermore, at the end of the movie, Judah says himself; “We define ourselves by the choices we make”. All of his choices benefited himself, from deciding to indulge in adultery, to committing murder to cover up that same indulgence. He even flaunts his guilt in front of Cliff in that ‘movie idea’.

B: But Judah doesn’t feel guilty. Even if he does have a small relapse at first, it’s obvious his conscience is unaffected. Again, isn’t this contradictory of his character? The choices he made should lead him to feel guilty, but he doesn’t.

A: Well, then I’d have to refer to what Cliff said about Judah’s movie: that in the absence of god, the murderer is then “forced to take on that responsibility”, the guilt, and therefore confess. Judah replies, “That only happens in Hollywood”. And it does. Judah consciously chooses to ‘get over’ Dolores’ murder, Essentially he continues to be a selfish man.

B: A selfish choice dictates a selfish character.

A: Yes.

B: Alright, fine. That’s one. What about the Rabbi?

A: Ah, Rabbi Ben. The almost hatable moral compass. His choice was to be idealistic. He’s probistic, unerring in faith, complete with unreachable moral standards. His unrealistic view of the world—his blindness to the world—metastasizes in the literal sense.

B: Oh, don’t be so cynical. You know Gandhi said “You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”

A: … Hippie. Anyway, the point is that as a result of his choice and figuratively ‘blind’ view of humanity and its morals, he literally became blind.

B: I suppose this leaves Cliff, then.

A: In a word: schlemiel. His character is a continual failure. When offered a well-paying job he stuffs it up purposely; he is unsuccessful at filing documentaries (his only source of income); and is unsatisfying to his wife. Instead of trying to improve his situation and those around him, he does the opposite. A pathetic attempt at adultery with Halley is made instead of trying to save his own marriage. He is both unhappy and does not create happiness around him. By Utilitarian standards, this makes his immoral. Actually, the most moral person in the film is Judah, as his actions created the most amount of happiness for the most amount of people.

B: That’s just not right. All Cliff did was be cheeky and a bit ambitious. Judah murdered someone.

A: These kinds of situations are used as arguments against Utilitarianism. But the premise of your objection is mostly “It doesn’t feel right” rather than “It’s illogical”, no?

B: Human morality can’t suddenly be dropped.

A: Perhaps not. Back to the original argument.

B: You are dragging on, aren’t you?

A: Shut up. Sartre once said, “Man first of all exists, encounters himself, surges up in the world—and defines himself afterward.” If this is true, there is no ‘essence’ to our being. Others can only judge us by our actions. So theoretically what humanity needs to strive for is for our actions to mirror who we want to be, not who we are. Like in Sartre’s play, No Exit. It’s about three people stuck in a room together, who all come to realize their own downfalls and realize responsibility for their mistakes. One character, Garcin, views himself as a hero, but all his actions lead him to be a coward. By Sartre’s philosophy, he is a coward, no matter what he may think.

B: So then Judah must be a murderer. But he doesn’t act like one!

A: Like you said earlier, he doesn’t feel guilty. He accepts his place as a murderer without conscience. Aunt May agrees with this; “If he can do it and get away with it, and he chooses not to be bothered by the ethics, then he’s home free.”

B: Ugh. This entire conversation feels like one big contradiction.

A: Levy noted that as well. He himself can be labeled as a contradiction, concerning his suicide. He also basically said that “all we need is love”.

B: Who’s the hippie now?

A: Dude, you quoted Gandhi.

B: Alright, so really, “no matter how elaborate a philosophical system you work out, in the end it’s gotta be incomplete”?

A: Precisely. Now go pop Mean Girls in; I haven’t had my daily allowance of small dogs and large breasts today yet.

THEND



---------------------

You know I ace.