"Sophie's Choice" (MOVIE SPOILER ALERT)

[TahitiNut]

The purpose of this post is NOT to discuss a movie, per se. It's to discuss ethics, morality, principles, right, and wrong. The movie merely offers a reference point. This is NOT a Lounge thread. It's relevant.

"The Choice"

Sophie, caught with her two children in the Nazi collection of Jews and "undesirables" for shipment to the death camps, is told by a Nazi officer to choose which of her children will live as the other is taken and shot. He tells her that if she does not choose, both will be shot. As she resists, the officer proceeds to grab both - and she says to take her daughter, the younger one. They do. Her son then accompanies her on the freight car to the camps.

Think about it.

• Was Sophie right to choose in favor of the son?
  
• Was Sophie right to choose at all?
  
• Did she "succeed" in saving the son's life?
  
• Who would be morally responsible for the children being shot???

Let's consider some other facts in the story.

• Sophie was the daughter of an antisemite who was killed by the Nazis.
  
  
• Sophie was complacent with and complicit in that antisemitism.
  
  
• The Nazi officer's attention was drawn to Sophie because she attempted to differentiate herself from the mostly Jews being herded aboard the freight cars. Had she not plead for special treatment - claiming she was not a Jew and therefore didn't 'deserve' to be there - perhaps the 'choice' would not have been necessary.
  
  
• Her son was ultimately killed in the death camps.
  
  
• She ultimately commits suicide herself.
  

What ethical and moral principles are at stake?

Did she do as well as she could?

What's the absolute best she could've done? At what point?


____________________________________________________________________________


Now, consider this: When you make a 'deal' with someone who's demonstrated a total absence of honor, are you affording them an honor they don't deserve? Can such a contract be enforced? Do we commit a moral wrong when we pretend someone without ethics is honest enough to be trusted?

When people have proven they'll jettison the rules of a civilized society, how can they be trusted?

[noiretextatique]

1. in other words

we're fucked :hi:

[TahitiNut]

15. Well, let's say they faced what they saw as a moral dilemma ...

... and retreated? I personally don't believe we can accept moral responsibility for the behavior of others, particularly coercive or threatening behavior. Somehow, when we take a principled stance and behave according to rules we've agreed are just and equitable, that's what moral courage is all about. It seems to me that the Democrats had their own moral and ethical "nuclear option": stop giving "unanimous consent" to the killers of Sophie's children. (I say that figuratively, of course.) When one side proposes, through might, not right, to violate the rules and the other can adhere to moral principle and comply diligently to those same rules, it seems to me the path is clear - and it's not to abandon principle.

(Hugz, luv!! :hi: )

[noiretextatique]

16. these compromising dems are a bunch of sophies

trying to distinguish themselves from the rest of the party. but unlike sophie, they have willingly offered up all their children to save their own lives....the nazis didn't even have to offer "the choice." :puke: :loveya:

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

2. The illusion of choice was presented in the absence of power

Sophie was powerless and when offered the illusion of choice felt compelled to act upon it.

With the Democrats in the Senate in a minority position, "the deal" was the best they could hope for right now. Otherwise the filibuster would have been revoked and they would have been truly powerless. Is it an illusion that they still have the power of the filibuster, that I don't know. But, just like Sophie, hope prevails.

Just my thoughts.

[TahitiNut]

3. She's the one who first tried to bargain.

Was she compelled to invite lenience according to some set of "rules"??
Nobody offered her an "illusion of choice" at that point - she volunteered.

I also reject the notion that if the Reich had illegitimately and unilaterally violated one of the Senate Rules, that the Democrats would have been powerless.

Yes, they can choose to be powerless. And they did.

Unfortunately, they could have also shown honor by being hyper-techincal and insisted on enforcement of all the Senate Rules, depriving the Reich of their "unanimous consent."

Afraid of name-calling? From the Reich? (Sophie didn't want to be called a "Jew.")

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

5. Hmmm, haven't seen that movie in about 10 years....

But, let's say she didn't volunteer. Let's say she stayed in line and said nothing. Would there have been any better outcome? Or, if she had made a run for it with the kids, would things have changed?

I say, at least she tried, as horrible as her choice was, at least she tried to save one of her children. She was powerless.

Good discussion topic.

[noiretextatique]

6. but, her father had already been killed by the nazis

so she knew what they were capable of when she tried to distinguish herself. in trying to distinguish herself from jews, she brought on the terrible choice that was put to her. had she not tried to distinguish herself, she would not have been as powerless as she was once she did. as it turned out, in trying to distinguish herself from jews, both of her children died anyway.
as i asked yesterday: what's to stop the fristians from using the nuclear option next week, if they want to? answer:nothing.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

7. And the end result would be....

I guess she took a chance when in a position where there were no options. Sure, it turned out horribly, but it would have been of equal horror had she done nothing, right?

By the way, I haven't seen that movie in 10+ years, but I thought she never found out what happened to her son so there was still the "hope" that he survived via the Lebensborn (?sp) project.

[noiretextatique]

8. perhaps...i think what's key is the anti-semiticism

and her (mistaken) belief that she could use it to free herself and her children. that belief is what did her and her children in. as to what the outcome might have been: they all might have survived.
i can't remember what happened to the son...it's been a while for me too. tahiti nut said he died.

[TahitiNut]

11. The son died. The ambiguity about him being put in the Lebensborn ...

... stems from yet another attempt by Sophie to "make a deal with the Devil" in the form of the concentration camp commander. She again discovered the futility, again sacrifcing more of her soul. (Lots of "learning experiences" for that gal.)

The way the movie (and the book by Styron) is constructed, the audience is "invited" to be seduced right along with Sophie. The 'facts' are revealed to the audience only after being presented with the myths.

[gumby]

4. You thought of "Sophie's Choice,"

I've been thinking and talking about the 'campy' TV series "V" and what happened to all the appeasers and collaborators.

When aliens or fascists take over a country from within, it seems like a large portion of the population either agree with them or don't even notice.

The philosophical/political questions you are asking don't even reach the level of comprehension for a large portion of the population. Moreover, if you bring these things up, people take offense because they don't understand what you're talking about. To them, you are an 'elite' who thinks they're stupid.

I saw "Sophie's Choice" when it first came out and thought it was the most manipulative movie I'd ever seen.

In reality, any deals with the current Cornpone Nazis will come to no good. We've got plenty of history, movies and TV series to show us at least that much.

[TahitiNut]

12. The movie is deliberately manipulative.

It allows the audience to be seduced into the moral dilemma - or, so it's called in lower division Philosphy courses. That 'seduction' makes it a participative viewing experience - and the more cerebrally-active viewers will find themselves engaging in a bit of self-examination.

In that sense, it's a bit like "24-Hour Photo."

[gumby]

13. As a movie review,

I wasn't "seduced" at all. In fact, I thought exploiting the Holocaust was a very, very cheap shot.

Didn't see "24-Hour Photo" nor "One Hour Photo."

[TahitiNut]

14. (oops) Yes, it's "One-Hour Photo"

[Eloriel]

9. Well, for me, the initial attempt at dealmaking was

such an act of cowardice to start with ("I'm not a Jew so I don't deserve this") that I can't get much beyond that.

I haven't seen the movie. Was she in denial about how ruthless these people were and the unlikelihood of any of them living thru it?

I believe most of our people in the Congress are in near total denial about what's happening, and their willingness to make deals with people who should only be confronted and challenged and vigorously fought on EVERYthing, 24/7 is depressing beyond words.

There are a few who aren't, of course (Conyers, Waxman, primarily), but they're limited (or limit themselves) to writing a few pointed letters with a few pointed questions that don't get answered anyway, or making requests for information that don't get fulfilled. Just how fucking useful is that? Not very -- it may serve as documentation for some future historical tome, perhaps, but that's about it. I'm weary of that toothless approach.

Good post pointing up not just the futility but the moral depravity of making deals with the devil.

[TahitiNut]

10. Both her father and her husband ...

... were antisemites and were, "despite' that, taken away to the labor camps and killed. So, I doubt she was able to be in much denial about the evil.