Portrayal of the Legal System:
This film brings up issues pertaining to Capital Punishment. It seems like an unfavorable portrayal of it, since Budd is such a likeable character. The film makes Claggart seem like a criminal for all the suffering and horrible things he makes the crew got through. But one could argue that he is just fulfilling his duty. The film makes Budd look like a hero, because he makes everyone happy through trying times. The way the Captain handles it is a very realistic approach to the situation. Just like in Hammurabi’s Code, the famous “Eye for an Eye,” stands true in this. The legal system is presented in a few ways. The master of arms, Claggart is almost like the police. He watches the crew and enforces the laws of the ship. If a law is broken by one of the crew, then he reports it to the Captain who then will decide a punishment for the man. A judge and jury could be compared to the questioning from the captain and then the court marshal where they decide what should be done with Budd. The punishments would be done aboard ship. The crew cannot defend themselves really; their word is not taken as heavily as that of the Master at Arms.
Relationship between Legal System and the Individual/Society:
The main relationship that was portrayed in this movie was that between Claggart and Billy. This was an obviously strained relationship. Billy was very open to a friendship with Claggart, but Claggart would not have it and deemed it to be impossible. Since Claggart is the legal system, and Billy is the individual this represents one relationship. Another relationship that is key is the relationship between Captain Verre and the code. Captain Verre would like to forgive Billy and to let him go and not press charges, but the code says that Billy should die. This poses a conflict between Verre’s moral and lawful values. Should he kill Budd as the law tells him to? Or should he let it pass, because he knows Billy is a good person and it was accidental?
The Issue/Conflict:
The issue/conflict arose when Billy boarded the ship. His jubilant manner contradicted how the master at arms felt sailors should be. He took this attitude as a threat to the order of the ship. He saw Billy as the type of person who would start a mutiny. Claggart felt that Billy was up to something, especially when he attempted being friends with him. It created division, because Claggart cannot trust anyone and thinks Billy Is bad news. It created division, because everything Billy does to make the crew happy, Claggart sees as it as an attempt to turn their backs on the rules and persuade them to do the wrong. The second, more important issue is that of Verre and his decision. It arose through the killing of Claggart and from deciding what Billy’s punishment should be. Side A says that it is the Captains duty to kill Billy according to the rules and the law. The captain also takes into account the life lost; that although Claggart was a gloomy person, he had the right to live and that right was taken away when Billy killed him. Side B would argue that Billy did it by accident and that it was not a malicious kill. Chances are, Billy would not kill again. There is also the chance that people will mutiny if Billy dies. These are the thoughts that run through the Captain’s mind when he ponders Billy’s future.
The conflict ends with Bill’s execution through hanging. The Captain deduces that the right choice to make is to kill Billy according to the law, and Billy accepts that. Despite the crew’s disapproval of the action, the captain has to go through with it. Billy also is very content with the Captains decision, because he understands what he killed a man and that that is a capital punishment. Billy does not hold any bad feelings for feel bitter, because he feels bad about Claggart’s death as well.
The Message and the Subtext:
(I was not clear whether you were referring to the time the book was made, or the time the movie was made)
The book was started in 1886 by Herman Melville. During that time Capital Punishment might have been a controversy. This was probably a reflection upon the army and the issue of a persons rights. The army was much more strict in the 1800’s than it is not and brutal punishment was not unheard of. However, I suspect that this is not related to the army and just that of how someone should be judged. I think Herman Melville’s intention was to show the conflict between duty and morals.
In 1962 this movie was probably related more to the army. In 1967 the United States was in a cold was with Russia and many troops were being deployed through out the world to protect countries. Many men were being court marshaled and many people were being investigated for conspiracy, since it was a largely unpopular war to be in. It probably brought up the issue of killing the enemy. Technically for killing someone, you should die or be severely punished. Even if he/she is the enemy like Claggart, do they have the same rights that we have? This is the type of question that people in the army had to face and had to live through.
The Movie, its Message, and You:
To me, Billy Budd explored the idea that even though you are not a bad person, you can still be punished for a crime you committed according to the law. This film taught me that many courts are unforgiving and would never forgive a random outburst of anger. This both calms me, and frightens me. It calms me because that means that people, who kill and don’t mean to or don’t understand their strength and ways, are being put into jail far away from me. But it also frightens me, to think that what if it happened to me and no one is merciful? It also gets me thinking about capital punishment and where it should be applied. Such as, under what circumstances does a person have to kill for their life to be taken away? What type of mental state do they need to have? Does it matter? It arose issues such as this and I left class the last of filming thinking about all of this.
I think that this is a semi-accurate portrayal of the legal system. Semi-accurate, because today we have a jury, we have many people who would have defended Billy and others to defend Claggart. Or maybe there would have been a person to defend Jenkins when Claggart ordered him to his post, which led to his death. The portrayal of someone enforcing the law and some sort of court is very accurate though. The court marshal acts as the judge and the jury. The captain calls both men in for questioning before Billy kills Claggart. This is all accurate to how thinks would be help today. Ultimately, they decided to obey the law and kill Billy. However, the issue of Capital Punishment was different throughout all ages. Back in the 1800’s there might not have ever been an argument about it, and people rarely questioned the law. It was just a clear yes, he deserves to die or no, he did not commit the crime. Now, people have become more passionate and we understand that there are certain circumstantial and rightful killings. Such as, killing to defend one self. I don’t think Billy would be let go completely free. Most likely, they would give him 25 to life now. I think the argument is universally a problem and it always will be. There will always be side A and B who will lock heads and argue whether this punishment is humane or just.
Watching this movie in class, it was not terribly exciting, but looking back on all the movies I’ve watching in school it was not the worst. I liked the character Billy a lot and how he was cheerful through everything. I thought that generally, the acting was good since bad acting is a pet peeve of mine. What I did not like was the fact that it was in black and white. I really love color to catch my eye and the fact that every color was some variation of a mixture of black and white really annoyed me. The only other thing I can think of was that in man cases, I could not understand what they were saying. Thank god, you deciphered it. Over all, I’m sure that if I saw the movie in theaters in 1962 I would have thoughts I got my moneys worth.
Billy Budd taught us more than the law though. During the time Billy was aboard this Miserable ship Avenger, he always kept a positive attitude and took the “cup half full,” approach to any situation. That teaches me that maybe school isn’t that bad and maybe I should take things from a different angle instead of seeing all the work involved. I also learned to accept what’s for me and what you can’t help. Such as this paper, at first I was very reluctant to start a 13-paragraph essay. That’s pretty daunting, but as I rounded my 5th paragraph I knew that I had to do this. This is acceptance, not to the same greatness and peacefulness ad Billy’s, but still getting there. The third lesson I took from Billy Budd is not to kill someone., because there are always consequences for your actions. Not that I ever considered killing someone, but I mean that it made a big impression on me that in the real world, hey don’t care is you have a problem getting the words out so you just punch. There are no second chances. So, with me on the road I realize that there is no saying “whoops sorry, won’t happen again.” There’s saying, “Please don’t tell my parents I got arrested.” It’s kind of a slap in the face that bad things happen to good people, and good people do bad things to make that true.
