Spoilers for: The Dark Knight, The Godfather, Star Wars, and Breaking Bad.
Back in my college days, I found myself frequently at odds with a professor who loved to dissect the tragic arcs of well-known characters. She had her views, I had mine, and neither of us could ever fully sway the other. It was during one particular class that she asserted Michael Corleone was a prime example of a character gone bad—an idea I vehemently disputed then and continue to ponder now. I argued that Michael was primarily acting in defense of his father and family. She countered by pointing out that Vito Corleone’s transformation, shown in "Godfather Part II," similarly marked a descent from benevolence to tyranny. Our debate was heated and unresolved, but it left me pondering: What constitutes a character going bad? Is there a breaking point or is it more of a gradual decline? This is what I call "Moral Suicide."
Anakin Skywalker’s transformation into Darth Vader is the epitome of what I describe as Moral Suicide. Anakin starts as a hopeful hero, but as personal and external pressures build, he begins to make choices that progressively detach him from his original values. His journey from a Jedi filled with potential to a Sith Lord represents a deliberate abandonment of his early morals in favor of a path that leads to darkness and despair.
Harvey Dent's downfall also illustrates this concept of Moral Suicide. Gotham's heroic district attorney starts as the city’s hope against corruption but faces personal and psychological battles that lead to his tragic transformation. Harvey's change into Two-Face isn’t just a physical transformation but a complete moral inversion, where he turns against the very ideals he once championed.
Michael Corleone’s Struggle with Moral Suicide shows a complex interaction with the concept. Unlike characters who abandon their initial values, Michael’s story is nuanced. He begins as a war hero, seemingly detached from the violent legacy of his family. Yet, when pushed into a corner, his actions pivot crucially towards protecting the family, no matter the cost. This commitment to family, a core value instilled from the beginning, never wavers—even when it drives him to decisions that skirt dangerously close to what some might call an ethical event horizon.
Michael’s journey is marked by severe tests of his moral resolve, including the betrayal by and subsequent decision to eliminate his own brother, Fredo. This act, while shocking, isn’t a departure from his moral framework but a dark affirmation of it. The protection of the family remains his unwavering goal; his methods, however, adapt to the threats he perceives. This raises a profound question: if one's moral compass remains fixed on a certain ‘good’—in this case, family loyalty—do the extreme actions justified in its name signify Moral Suicide, or are they merely desperate measures in desperate times?
These moments bring Michael to the brink of what I describe as the event horizon of Moral Suicide. He navigates perilously close to this boundary, performing actions that both protect and potentially destroy the moral integrity he claims to uphold. It's a tightrope walk, where the fall might not happen, but the danger of it looms large with every decision made.
So, with that professor, I state my case... Years later, I'm still a bit bugged by our argument. It seems some classroom debates don’t end after graduation—they just keep unfolding in the stories we love to dissect.
Your Turn!
Now, let's consider Walter White. Like Michael, Walter faces choices that test his moral boundaries, though his framework shifts more visibly from his initial stance. What do you think were Walter's defining moments? When, if ever, do you believe he crossed his event horizon?