Another thing about L&O os how often they brought charges against innocent people in order to put pressure on the people they were convinced were the guilty ones. Spouses, children or other family member, or close friends … it happened a lot, and the line they used, “Confess to this and we’ll drop those other charges.”
Sometimes it was clear that the people they thought were guilty actually were, but often it wasn’t, but in the sence of leveraging pleas it didn’t matter.
Game of Thrones
There’s a phrase I never thought I’d see in print.
Dead Ringers, starring Jeremy Irons as a pair of twins.
Tunes of Glory, starring Alec Guiness and John Mills
At the beginning of each film, there is an obvious Good Guy and an obvious Bad Guy.
As the film progresses, the Good Guy gradually alienates your affection, and the Bad Guy gradually earns your respect.
The main characters in Terriers are a couple of “good guys” who commit felony burglary, felony assault, forgery, identity theft, and other assorted crimes. In the final episode… …they let the criminal kingpin walk, and the last scene has them contemplating a run for the border to avoid prison.
I’m so glad you mentioned one of my all-time favorite shows that got cancelled way too soon. I have yet to determine if it was the title that kept viewers away.
I’d just like to mention an entire genre that is “morally ambiguous”: The Modern Western! Once you get past all the White Hat vs. Black Hat days of the B Westerns and TV serials, a good percentage of Westerns have been based on the “might makes right” principle, where “might” = “faster gun.”
It’s hard to pin down the earliest example but surely by the time of Shane the lines were getting blurred between the Good Guy and the Bad Guy.
These days, substitute the Big City for the Old West and you usually have that same dramatic element in modern clothes. Add futuristic elements and it really gets hard to nail down what’s right any longer.
I’m really trying to think of morally ambiguous Westerns. There are a few with or by Clint Eastwood, and … that’s all I got.
Oops, I forgot the recent one about the bad guy with erectile dysfunction.
Surprisingly for me, a person who likes his heroes to be good, that episode never bothered me morally.
I just want to know how he got away with it. It’s not like there’s a lack of evidence, starting with ballistics. Plus, it was arguably premeditated - they set up a fake breakdown to stop the car. Plus, Ivan had diplomatic immunity. Got to be an international incident.
Unless they murdered the driver, too! :eek:
Maybe I should pretend the last few seconds were Magnum’s fantasy, his l’esprit de l’escalier, as it were.
**The Americans **on FX is a good contender.
In The Fall, there’s a lot of moral ambiguity about the detective, Stella Gibson and Paul Spector, the killer (not a spoiler, it’s revealed almost from the beginning). Spector is a serial killer; he’s also a grief counselor who is very good at helping his clients deal with loss and a very kind and loving father. Gibson is doesn’t break the law, but it’s clear she has an attraction to the killer (the final scene of the second season hammers this home), and her personal life is hardly “good,” since she has one-night stands and affairs with married men.
What do you think about Firefly? We like them, so, of course we think of them as the good guys. But are they? They are criminals. They do rob and smuggle and even kill. Captain Mal didn’t seem to be too upset after kicking someone into an engine intake. I believe the crew of the Serenity would be morally ambiguous, even if I far prefer them to the Alliance.
Deadwood.
In Reservoir Dogs,Mr. Orange, the undercover cop, develops loyalty and friendship with the crew, especially Mr. White. They’re funny, likeable guys when they’re not shooting up a jewelry store. Orange also finds himself reflexively killing the civilian who had shot him. Mr. Blonde is probably the only thoroughly evil guy in the movie.
Similarly, in S1 of 80’s crime show Wiseguy, undercover cop Vincent is conflicted because he genuinely likes the mobster whose operation he’s infiltrated. In one scene, Vincent confesses to his mom (I think), “It never occurred to me that we’d become friends.”
I’m surprised that things have gone this far without a Breaking Bad mention.
Also, if you don’t mind podcasts, check out Serial.
What’s morally ambiguous about BB? He is simply bad.
Movie reviewer Roger Ebert says in his review of ***The Godfather *** from 1972.
In other words the film is constructed so we admire, emphasise with and essentially support professional, career criminals.
TCMF-2L
Meanwhile, one of my favourite films is ***Bladerunner ***from 1992.
Your view on the morality of the characters will vary depending on whether you believe Deckard is a replicant himself (or not) however the central narrative of the film suggests the escaped replicants on Earth must be killed - because they are both dangerous and essentially, somehow less than human.
While initially presented as cunning and murderous by the end of the film Roy has demonstrated all the best human qualities including loyalty, mercy and, famously, a poetic spirit:
So is it best to consider them “fair game” enemies or persecuted victims?
TCMF-2L
I like Ebert, but he massively misses the point of The Godfather.
The Godfather is basically a tragedy, in which the protagonist Michael willingly descends into corruption for motives that, at first, are admirable - to protect his family - but that ends with him ruining everything he loves and wanted to protect - murdering family members, ruining his wife’s love for him by lying to her - all for power.
The key scene in that movie is the last one, where his wife begs him to tell the truth about the killing of their child’s godfather, his sister’s husband. With a straight face, he lies to her. Then, she sees the mafioso going down on their knees in front of him to kiss his ring - and as the door shuts (shutting her out), it is obvious that she knows he’s lied, that he’s a murderer of members of his own family, and totally corrupt. Whatever was originally good and decent in him was gone. He’s gained his world, but lost his soul.
I would go so far as to say that I can’t immediately think of any serious drama that I consider to be worthwhile that is not morally ambiguous. I have little time for childish (usually US) good guy/bad guy movies.
Giving a character a POV makes people sympathize with their problems. If you made a drama where Bin Laden was the protagonist you could see his daily struggles as the hated Americans hunt him, the headaches of running an international organization, having to get dialysis, and petting puppy dogs and making bad jokes with his colleagues or whatever mundane human things he did. People might call such a portrayal morally ambiguous, but it wouldn’t necessarily be so, if you think OBL is a “bad guy.” You were just fooled.
Another wrinkle mentioned by the OP is people want explanations and back stories for the way characters act. If someone is doing bad things, people demand some sort of Freudian excuse, like maybe mommy and daddy didn’t hug him enough. It’s not exactly realistic, is it? Some people are just assholes.