Hollywood legendary director

Harvard University once held an open class on justice-"Justice".

The moral dilemma raised in it has always been a classic psychological paradigm in the field of moral research. For example, the famous tram problem. It was first proposed by the philosopher Philip Ford in 1967 and triggered philosophy, ethics, psychology, cognitive science, etc. The field’s discussion of this issue.

The topic is as follows:

Suppose you see a tram that has lost control moving forward on the track. There are 5 workers in the direction of the tram that are doing engineering work. If the tram is moving on the current track, these 5 workers will definitely be caught by the tram. There is only one way to save these five workers, and that is-pull the track, change the direction of the tram, and kill another maintenance worker.

The classic moral dilemma is to ask the subject to make a choice on whether or not one person will be sacrificed to save the lives of multiple people, and no matter which choice is made, the choice will have a certain degree of moral conflict.

And this often faces choices:

A: Adhere to principles

B: Break the rules

Harvard political scientist Kohlberg believes that in order to solve the dilemma in the mind, people generally produce two kinds of moral judgments:

A.: The moral choice——

The criterion for moralism to judge whether a behavior is correct or not lies in whether it conforms to the existing system, law or rule.In this way of thinking, the morality of behavior is fixed and has nothing to do with the situation. This is a rule-based moral thinking.

B.: Utilitarian choice——

Utilitarianism judges whether a behavior is ethical or not, not on compliance with the rules, but on whether the result of its behavior increases our "maximum happiness".

In other words, how to choose something and whether a certain behavior is desirable depends on the final result of the event.In order to pursue the greatest benefit for the majority, the minority should be sacrificed to save the majority.

Understand these two kinds of thinking from the tram example.

Utilitarian, when I saw that 5 or 1 were killed, I directly chose to kill 1 person, because it is better to kill 1 than 5, right, this is a simple arithmetic problem for elementary school students.

But another scenario, a moving tram with 5 workers, and seeing it move on will cause disasters, and you happened to notice this scene on the flyover above the track, it must be too late to remind, but there is a black man beside you The fat man is eating and it looks ugly. You can push him down and block the tram. His death can make the tram driver brake early, and 5 workers will be fine.

How to choose?

No student raised his hand in favor of pushing others to save others, and even those who supported utilitarianism were silent.

The same sacrifice of 1 person to save 5 people, why does everyone's choice change 180 degrees?Just because the blocking method has become a personal change?

Everyone should have their own moral principles, and principles determine people's behavior and choices.

Back to the movie "Watchmen", the pharaoh in the movie is a typical resultist.At the end, he launched a nuclear attack in several major cities in the world, and wiped out more than 10 million people, because the world's smartest man believed that this was a sacrifice of little justice to achieve great justice, and it was correct.

Opposite the Pharaoh is Rorschach, the uncompromising representative of absolutism in the film.

Absolutism is a traditional principle, and it is the leading principle of society.For example, the head can be severed and flowed, but the integrity cannot be lost.Some things cannot be measured by simple benefit results.

It's just that, on the surface, consequentialism is better than absolutism. Is it utilitarian or sleek? Just as it is often said that you have to be flexible, don't be mad.The principle of doing things is certainly tenable.

But why has the principled position changed when the master becomes himself?

Because consequentialism is always accompanied by sacrifice, but no one wants to be a victim, consequentialism is often born of injustice. The so-called sacrifice of a small number of people to save most of the people’s righteousness, the high probability of being forced to sacrifice is society The disadvantaged group at the bottom.

In other words, who wants to be a sacrificed member?

Germany was defeated in World War I and the domestic economy was in a downturn. Hitler stepped up and sacrificed more than 6 million Jews with a wave of his hand, and used their wealth to give blood to the German economy. For non-victims, most of them agreed. Therefore, Everyone in Germany cheered and worshiped Hitler as a god.

From the perspective of consequentialism, this is also the sacrifice of small righteousness to achieve great justice. At least, Germany jumped out of the quagmire. It also condensed the belief of the people, and the society's enthusiasm for government support is high.

For another example, a member of the US anti-war movement called on the people to take the interests of the United States as the greatest priority. The sacrifice of American soldiers during the war was great and glorious. A reporter asked the members, where are your members’ sons and why not send them. The battlefield wins glory for the country?

For the sake of political power, Bush Jr. quickly shifted contradictions and wooed arms dealers.Because of the politicians and arms dealers who preach the most fierce war, their families and children don't have to go to the battlefield. They only need to sit in the mansion, have a dance party, drink champagne, and count the hard-earned money that the US foreign war has brought to them.

This is also the so-called sacrifice in consequentialism. You are sacrificed, you are represented, and they earn.

Fortunately, the United States will swallow this bitter pill, and because of the unfair governance of the white supremacists at the beginning of the country, it will explode all the time and continue to stage the dream of a shootout of 300 million people.

In "Watchmen", it is the repressive plot of morality against absolute morality.

Movies are the carrier of culture, and sometimes they must be artificially processed for stronger dramatic conflicts.

More importantly, comics and movies are two different things.

Comics have always been niche. People who are interested will watch it. But movies usually attract more people. You can’t count on people who have never read the comics and have a hard time understanding the background of the story. Boring movies don’t swear.

In other words, without knowing it beforehand, the movie is about a society that does not conform to American moral values ​​of freedom and equality and is not conducive to the construction of a harmonious society. How can it be accepted by the American public?

In fact, even if the three-hour edited version of "Watchmen" is released, it is only a rebound in word-of-mouth. The box office is destined to hit the street because it is too small.It's like there are so many specific groups watching ghost movies. You have to invest more than one billion to make a ghost movie. Even if you please this group, the market cap will be there. You can't go against the sky or change your life.

If "Watchmen" can learn from ordinary Hollywood genre movies, add more machine gun chase battles like street trucks, the White House and the bridge will explode all the way, adding some big bang and big special effects commercial elements, which may attract a part for the visual Enjoy the audience.

Unfortunately, none of these elements are in "Watchmen".Because this is a work of deconstructing superheroes, how can we try to show superpowers-superheroes can supervise the people, so who will supervise superheroes?Who will guarantee justice and who can have absolutely no selfishness?"The Dark Knight" also discussed this point and proposed that justice police outside the law cannot be accepted by society.

The two works are both DC products. In fact, there are many similarities. Unlike the past happy and justice superhero movies, the heroes in these two movies are not so perfect and justice.

In the Dark Knight, at the critical moment of saving people, Batman chose to save Rachel out of selfishness. He fell into the trap of the clown, and even caused Harvey, the hero who was supposed to guard the city to fight crime, to degenerate into a double-faced criminal. Harvey has to be backed up, criminals become heroes, heroes become criminals, and a "just" Gotham is established by lies.

Nolan's version of Batman is flawed and justice is not so perfect. However, it is these flaws and imperfections that make this movie more real, more human, and closer to the audience to grasp their hearts.

Because a hero of justice that is too perfect will make the audience feel false, and "The Dark Knight" still maintains the mainstream value spirit of the society and can be accepted by the audience.

"Watchmen" is too much pure analysis, which is not good for the audience's viewing experience.

The vast majority of people at the bottom of the United States do not need a movie to tell them what the dark side of society and the ugliness of human nature are, because they have seen too much in their daily lives.Educational issues, community security and even the distribution of police force.

In a country where gun battles occur at any time regardless of gun control, how much human touch do you expect the people to have?

What they need is a placebo, an anesthetic, and a moment of spiritual pleasure, to give them the confidence to continue to face the difficulties in life, and the government and the media also need justice, justice and positive energy movies to appease them Society leads the people.

From this point of view, the failure of "Watchmen" is doomed, a movie that deviates from the mainstream market, does not have a popcorn visual scene, and has too many characters, complex backgrounds, and difficult adaptations. Even the basic plot is fragmented. What about the audience? Buy it?