How can one distinguish “good” versus “bad” or “bad” versus “evil” as continuously referenced in Niechezhes’ discussions in The Genealogy of Morality? Alfred Hitchcock’s phenomenal story writing and cinematography in Rope ties together the themes regarding the rhetoric of being a “Master of Morality” as Niecheche put it. One can synthesize this clash of morals as– Once evil or bad is unrecognizable it no longer exists. Within this paper, I would like to expand on this point further; If morals express our “will to power”, how does one distinguish this from egoism and despotism? Coincidently, does having morals or erecting our inter ideas and desires diminish or destroy those subconscious dreams? Or do they just delay the inevitable? To put it simply, to become a Superman, there are two ways to look at it: self-proclaimed self-actualization which typically leads to the triangular reflection of Brandon that Humbert alludes to in the film Rope. The other reflection would be a more passive kind, similar to Philip, who defied his moral compass to adhere to someone else’s wishes. Both the former and the prior, lose all chances of becoming Superman. However, just because one loses their chance at truly self-actualizing into becoming a Superman doesn’t mean they cognitively recognize or accept their loss which leads us to these themes of repentance and accountability as we see in the film.
Brandon’s philosophy follows a father-like expression of the father-son relationship in accordance with Phillip. He took Rubert’s teachings and twisted them into believing that a noble, or Superman, should voluntarily be willing to dispose of anyone that poses a threat to your own growth. However, in this disposal process, you are ridding the world of your opposition, almost
Bowser 2
like getting rid of the Batman to your Joker – you then are taking away a part of your life purpose. Without an opponent to give you purpose “we no longer see it as feels victorious” (The Genealogy.) Because of this fact, once Brandon killed David he took away any chance (that I truly don’t think he had in the first place because of his misinterpretation of Rupert’s teachings) he had at becoming a Superman and sought out another external presence of validation – hence why he felt compelled to throw the party to display his “perfect” murder.
With David perished, Brandon’s biggest threat against him now was ordinance. Without Superman, Batman is just an ordinary person committing heinous crimes to no end. To paraphrase, one scene that stuck with me in Rope was when Brandon was proclaiming to Phillip that fear is a factor only the ordinary man has to consider, “The few are those men of such intellectual and cultural superiority that they’re above the traditional moral concepts. Good and evil, right and wrong, were invented for the ordinary average man – the inferior man, because he needs them.” However, as illustrated by Rubert at the end of the film, fear is also something that connects one back to the material world, in the scene where he opens up the window and shoots the gun was meant to bring both convicts back to reality – as even a Superman has external societal moral standards to uphold. Brandon was voided of this fact, and his sociopathic tendencies were directly connected to his avoidance of taking accountability for the criminal homicide he committed and all actions prior.
Conclusively, one can derive a subjective centralized purpose from this discussion: – there is not one definition of morality or moral standards. The concept itself has lost influence on the individual and in turn, we have an abundance of Brandon’s – people who become their own self-proclaimed Supermans. However, one thing these people tend to forget is that morality is
Bowser 3
heavily coincided and dependent on lawful standards. In ponderance, I concluded that we need to have cross-matrixial “good faith” conversations in order to liberate the human experience. Though it’s not plausible to expect to attain that level of openness from the “other side” in this example because of their sociopathic inclinations. And we’ll never be able to reach those people who find comfort in the dark to reference the allegory of the cave, those who aren’t “good” or “bad” – but are evil dwellers.
