Those are good points, Critical Watcher, and I think you are right in saying, for at least the point concerning his "wife," that this might be his major concern, or at least close to it, when considering his course of action. I think that, for the townspeople's opinion towards just him, that their opinion of him might not be so harsh, especially if they see that he wants to make reparations to the other townsfolk for his past deeds. Also, he has just successfully completed the first year of his "tobacco plan" for his present neighbors, and didn't run off with the money (although I'm not sure whether that money was dispersed yet to the individual families, or if Jack is holding on to it), which has got to look like he's trying to do things on the up and up.
Now, on the other hand, imagine Jack - or yourself, sitting in the jailhouse, listening to the sounds of the men constructing the gallows that you will soon be swinging from. You think of the good times you've had with your wife and family and friends, and that you'll never be seeing them again. And what will their lives be like without you? Would it really be better without you? You think about some of the things that you enjoy and that you will never again be able to experience - the taste of a good steak grilled outdoors, snuggling up with your dog, that vacation you had planned, or the monthly town dances where everyone gets ripped out of their gourds on moonshine, and the wares from Jack's marijuana patch and that wagonload of Indian Joe's peyote buttons. Hmmm, you think - on the one side you've got "dangling on a rope from a gallows with your pants filling up with do do." You're dead, but with an honorable reputation (except for that little murder blip). Now, on the other hand, you have - alive, a seedy reputation (but trying to repent and make amends), and "steak, your dog, and Indian Joe's peyote buttons." Really now, which way are you gonna' go? I'm going to have to think that the closer and closer he gets to the day of his death, the more reasons he's going to find that swinging on a rope until you're dead is not such a good thing. I mean, hell, he can always move to a new city if the townsfolk don't want to be sociable.
Maybe I'm looking at it through today's eyes, which too often are cynical, of a been-around-the-block-too-many-times nature, uncaring, selfish, and lacking a system of moral values. But then I wonder just how moral, etc. people were back then. I think that probably more people were "god-fearin' folk" back then, and maybe they would look at this situation differently. Say what you will about religion, with all it's faults and exploitation of people, but religion does usually instill in people, or try to, a system of moral values and beliefs. That is a good thing, as it helps to prevent anti-social behavior. Without such an internalized system, we may be left with our society's legal system as the main guide to an individual's views of what is right and what is wrong, which doesn't pertain to certain spheres of human behavior. Another question is how closely do these movie character's actions actually resemble reality, and after we have viewed so many of these films throughout our lifetimes, how influenced are we into believing that this is the way real people react in these situations. Anyways, this is far too much thought about this movie ending. I'm going to have to go back to my statement that avoiding death, and protecting life is the strongest drive in any creature - and I think one might also argue that as human beings, we may be the only species that somehow gets twisted around enough to actually choose death over life (although on 2nd thought, I'm not sure how you would interpret the practice in the animal kingdom of a mother defending it's offspring with a ferociousness that might even be to the death).
reply
share
tommyrfc10
19 years ago
He wasn't Jack Sommersby. Simple as. The reason he chose to die was because of the crops and because he loved his wife. His wife would have faced a life of ignomy and his newborn child would be a bastard.
Also all the deeds to the lands that he had signed would have been voided because he was not Jack Sommersby, that would mean that everyone's land would be taken from them and all off their profits from the land. Chances are the KKK would have got to Joseph the emancipated slave as well.
He took Jack Sommersby's identity initially (I think) as an opportunity to exploit the people of the town, but after meeting Jodie Foster changes his mind. Jack Sommersby was a murderer so he was charged under the assumption that he was the same man. If he cleared his name he admitted he was not who he said he was. It was a totally selfless act to save both his 'family' and his community.
reply
share
Bolts65
19 years ago
Au contraire, this reasoning does not hold up! His reason for insisting he was Jack could not have been to protect his 'wife' and child.
When Mrs Sommersby got on the stand, she insisted that the man was ABSOLUTELY NOT her husband. Right there, she declared herself living out of wedlock with a man and preggers with a bastard child. Jack's admitting he was not Sommersby could not have either made her situation worse or protected her.
reply
share
raphael_disanto
18 years ago
- I'm going to have to go back to my statement that avoiding death, and protecting life is the strongest drive in any creature - and I think one might also argue that as human beings, we may be the only species that somehow gets twisted around enough to actually choose death over life-
From Babylon 5: "The third principle of sentient life is the capacity for self-sacrifice, the conscious ability to override evolution and self-preservation for a cause, a friend, a loved one."
I rest my case.
reply
share
mrnaturalsez
18 years ago
Ah so, Grasshopper, very good - but I have a friendly challenge for you. Can you tell me what the #1 and #2 principles of sentient life are? If one were to live their life by these principles, would not principle 1 and 2 have to be satisfied first? What would be a principle that could be more important - self-preservation, perhaps? I don't know the answer to that, because I don't know principle 1 and 2.
reply
share
mrnaturalsez
18 years ago
Whoops - I have to add this post. I didn't read your post, Raphael, correctly, and I see now, when taking a 2nd look at this thread, that you were agreeing that preservation of life is the strongest drive. Somehow I thought you were praising the principles of sentient life - Geesh. Sorry for being so dumb. My challenge was kind of a trick, because I already looked, and I could find no mention anywhere of any principles, except for #3 (although, just 'cuz I couldn't find them doesn't mean that there necessarily isn't some more out there somewhere, and your search may have found some).
reply
share
LadyDaughtery
18 years ago
Had I seen this when I was younger, it probably would have appeared to not make sense. I find that in my older years, I think I, too would have maybe taken that way out to protect not only my wife and children,reutations and good names, my new friends, neighbors and even a newly freed slave family, but possibly having been through so very much it rang more as a suicide of love.
In an ironic twist my great great grandfather was murdered just as the man Jack/Horace killed was....it was not looked upon very well and for anyone who is curious, I can show how the newspapers told it in 1885.The man who stabbed him went free as it was self defense....so I say they could have made that part of the story better....however when you get older, you start to want to leave only good memories with those left behind.
To leave at the top of his game...with surely much more scheming to come to light, was the only way to feel he had done it right.
reply
share
DaytonaBob
18 years ago
I disagree, the country was wide open. They easily could have left for the west coast and had an entirely new life and lived happily ever after. The noble death was just for the movies and no one in real life would have done it with all the country to disappear into and start over.
Just didn't make sense and gave the movie a totally downer ending. Didn't like it at all after the end was realized.
They who give up liberty to
obtain a temporary safety deserve
neither liberty or safety
reply
share
cheepchick389
18 years ago
He made the choice based on the greater good. He chose to "save" many rather than just himself. He had the opportunity to do something good and honorable, and where in the past he chose to benefit himself, he has become a changed man, making a difference in people's lives and as such, chose the outcome that would benefet many instead of just one.
If he hadn't, there would have been little or no hope for the people. His identity gave them their first real chance at indepedence, to own land, to prosper and to have a future.
reply
share
thatsweetbird
18 years ago
I think why so many people are criticizing the ending is because they don't feel they or many people would have done what he did in the end. Well, no kidding.
And yes, he is a fictional character. But THAT'S the movie. It is about a character who does an extraordinary thing, a selfless thing. It is even more extraordinary when we know that he used to be a no-goodnik. But THAT'S the story.
There HAVE been people who have sacrificed themselves this way(Martin Luther King Jr. comes to mind--and Jesus if you believe in the New Testament). I don't know that many if any used to be nogoodniks like this guy was. But THAT"S the story. It is about the possibility of redemption, of becoming better as a human being. His choice is consistent with who he is/has become as a person.
Are they complaining that this exact scenario never happened? Well, stories can still be moving and inspiring without ever having happened exactly as depicted somewhere at sometime.
reply
share