• Home
  • Journal
  • Events
  • Fellowships
  • Resources
  • Newsletter
  • Forum
  • Subscribe
  • Good Letters: The IMAGE Blog
  • About
  • Donate
  • Store
  • Contact
  • Artist of the Month
  • Ads
  • Home
  • Journal
  • Events
  • Fellowships
  • Resources
  • Newsletter
  • Forum
  • Subscribe
  • Good Letters: The IMAGE Blog
  • About
  • Donate
  • Store
  • Contact
  • Artist of the Month
  • Ads
  • Recent Blog Entries

    • A Marginal Life
    • The Fall of Declinism
    • Do Dictators Have Anything to Fear from Musicians?
    • The Evil That Men Do
    • Love in the Ruins II – Why Does God Permit Suffering?
    • View More
    • About Good Letters
    • Contributors
  • Current Issue

    Issue 57

    The sculpture of Richard Serra, Franz Wright on the Gospels, interview with Ron Hansen, fiction by Pinckney Benedict

    View Issue 57

  • ImageUpdate SignUp

    Stay in the know on the best of art and religion. Our free e-newsletter has reviews of books, albums, conferences, websites, gallery openings, and more.

Good Letters: The IMAGE Blog

The Evil That Men Do 3 comments

By A.G. Harmon

Among oxymorons in common usage, one of the most popular is “victimless crime.” It would seem that if an act is criminal in nature, it must have a victim. If there is no victim, then the act cannot be a crime in any real sense.

When the phrase is used, a larger point is being made, as the speaker means to imply something arcane and puritanical about a certain “offense” being considered an offense at all. Generally, the concept involves an agent who solicits his own poison, as it were—a person who has a taste for something that society might deem dangerous or corrupting, but whose choices are reflexive in consequence. No one is being hurt but the procurer, so it goes, and the purveyor is no more blameworthy for hurting him than is a restaurateur who serves fettuccine alfredo to an obese man with heart disease. With some conditions—the agent must have attained the age of reason and emancipation—the affair is considered merely a transaction, and in a free society we should be able to contract for our vices.

In short, a “victimless crime” is one that should be read out of the books. That is the argument.

Sidney Lumet’s Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead involves a different kind of victimless crime, but works off the same basic premise: if no one gets hurt, then no crime was committed. The title comes from the old Irish toast that winks at the supreme act of “getting away” with something for which you should stand in condemnation: “May you spend a half-hour in heaven before the Devil knows you’re dead.”

Brothers Hank and Andy Hanson (Ethan Hawke and Philip Seymour Hoffman) both have money troubles. Hank, weak and vacillating, is months behind on his child support, and his demonic ex-wife is threatening him; Andy, stone-faced and distant, has embezzled cash to feed his drug habit, and the IRS is on the way to investigate irregularities. So Andy suggests a scheme: Hank will hood himself and rob their parent’s suburban jewelry store. They know the ins and outs of the business—where the money and keys are kept; where the alarm is; when the Saturday clerk arrives. Hank will use a fake gun, so the threat will be an empty one, and the place is insured, so their parents will not lose anything. Truly, no one will get “hurt” except the faceless insurance company. Besides, how can you “steal” what you’d inherit anyway?

As will happen, things go wrong. Hank loses resolve and brings in a thug to rob the place, one who uses a real gun; further, the men’s mother (Rosemary Harris) opens the store instead of the regular clerk. Then Hank lets himself be seen by the thug’s girlfriend.

When plans go awry, not all can be controlled. People are hurt, in no uncertain terms, and to a degree that becomes nearly Grecian in scope (there are deaths enough to rival The Spanish Tragedy; the film could have used some restraint here). But most important is the original question: whether this scheme could ever have been victimless, and whether any act involving deceit for profit can not be a crime. For there are lies being told, not the least of which are lies to the self—a plot of personal destruction the complicity with which indicts those who participate in it. Helping someone to his end, which will undoubtedly set off a ring of repercussions, a wave of damaging consequences to wash over those indirectly, but foreseeably, affected, is not blameless.

There is also the question of motivations. Telling the story in backwards fashion (the Nolan brothers’ Memento has had lasting influence) reveals the resentments the men have against each other and against their father (Albert Finney). This scheme may never have been meant to be “painless.” Revenge for unrequited love and retaliation for unrealized dreams inspires the characters, who are shocked to find private turmoils have wrought public cataclysm.

We’re both the authors and stars of our own tragedies, yes, but it must be admitted that we play the supporting cast in the lives of others. Which suggests the “self-inflicted wound” is perhaps the greatest oxymoron of all.

Tags a.g. harmon, film

Comments

  •  Print Article
  •  Email Article
  •  Share Article

You can email "The Evil That Men Do" by Copying and pasting this link into an email or instant message

or, clicking this link to email the link using your computer's email program.

These icons link to social networks where users can share and discover new webpages.

  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Facebook
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlinkList
  • NewsVine
  • scuttle
  • Fark
  • Shadows
andrew
Interesting commentary AG, but I hardly think it's appropriate to peg Hank's ex-wife as demonic.

2008-05-08 17:52 Permalink Reply

A.G. Harmon
Too strong a term, perhaps, but she takes a "fiendish" glee in sending his daughter to ask him to pay for a school trip she knows he can't afford, and the reaction shot clearly captures the pleasure she takes in his inability to say no to his child. She also refuses to tell his daughter that he loves her, and says that if he loved her he would pay the child support. Hank is a loser, true, but his love for his child is not tied to that.

2008-05-08 18:02 Permalink Reply

Liz
Yeah, I thought she was creepy too. The face she makes is an amazing two-second reaction shot that captures all of her delight in tormenting him. Amy Ryan, who was in Gone Baby Gone, once again does a lot with a small part.

2008-05-08 18:37 Permalink Reply

Add a Comment

Email:

Home Page   |   Site by Coptix   |   Content © 1999 - 2008 Center For Religious Humanism

3307 Third Ave. West Seattle, WA, 98119   |   ph (206) 281-2988   |   fx (206) 281-2335   |   subscriptions 1 (866) 481-0688   |   image@imagejournal.org