Introduction
A recurring topic in literature and movies has been the investigation of good and evil. Examining how these moral dilemmas are portrayed in the books Sanctuary and the movie A History of Violence is crucial to understanding this development. The examination will also center on Erasmus’ query of whether evildoers can correct their lives. Both pieces address the complexity of human nature and feature characters that represent both good and evil.
Good and Evil in Human Nature
Tom Stall, the main character in David Cronenberg’s A History of Violence, embarks on a transformative journey that poses issues with atonement and the likelihood of overcoming his troubled history. Tom’s yearning for redemption—which alludes to the redemptive nature of God—can be understood in his plans to put his violent past behind him and live a moral life (McBrayer and Howard 329). It is commendable that he is making an effort to put his former illegal acts and the bloodshed they entailed behind him (A History of Violence). Viewers are prompted to consider if it is possible for someone with a history of wickedness actually to reform and find atonement in the film.
The vision presented in William Faulkner’s Sanctuary is remarkably different, favoring the face of Satan above the face of God. The novel’s protagonists are entangled in corruption, brutality, and moral decay. Temple Drake, the primary character, experiences challenging situations that highlight the worst aspects of human nature (Faulkner 7). As the protagonists’ moral degradation deepens, the story questions the notion of redemption, prompting the reader to consider whether those who have given in to evil’s lures may still be saved.
Recognizing the moral complexity in A History of Violence is essential. Although Tom Stall’s goals and hardships point to a redemptive arc, the movie does not simplify the story by offering solutions. The idea that violence is a fundamental aspect of human nature begs whether complete atonement is possible. In the movie, viewers wonder if Tom’s efforts erase his history or if they only bury it under the surface (A History of Violence). This ambiguity challenges conventional notions of atonement and leaves flexibility for interpretation while deepening the investigation of good and evil (McBrayer and Howard 334).
Erasmus’s question of whether wrongdoers can reform their lives serves as a sharp prism through which viewers see the people in both the book and the movie. Tom Stoll’s attempts to turn away from his violent past and move on from it imply that everyone may aspire to atone for past transgressions (McBrayer and Howard 332). However, Sanctuary offers a more somber perspective, raising more questions than answers. There are questions regarding the prospect of genuine change because the characters in Faulkner’s novels appear to be caught in a never-ending circle of sin and depravity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both works’ examination of the various aspects of good and evil provides a complex understanding of human nature. In contrast to Tom Stoll’s trip in the movie, which points to God’s redeeming face and the possibility of redemption, Faulkner’s Sanctuary tends to show more of Satan’s face at the bottom of moral decay. Erasmus’s query is still pertinent today because it makes us consider the intricacies of morality in humans and the potential for sinners to turn their lives around. These pieces act as mirrors, reflecting the human soul’s enduring conflict between light and darkness.
Works Cited
A History of Violence. Directed by David Cronenberg, New Line Cinema, 2005.
Faulkner, William. Sanctuary. Vintage, 2011.
McBrayer, Justin P., and Daniel Howard-Snyder. The Blackwell Companion to the Problem of Evil. John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
Loading...
