I would be tempted to go further... though I'm not sure there's another gradation. After all, his im/a-morality manifests mainly from fear, suspicion... and logic. His push towards murder was quite reasonably framed (where's the line, if people can bully their way into partnership?) and persuaded at least one of his companions.therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:29 amOne could argue from this deep character study that the process has nothing to do with rigidly defined ‘moral’ pathology but rather relatable ego-infecting psychological damage that results in cognitive dissonance and the disintegration of the self. A sad portrait of the diffusion of identity from ruthless forces outside and within, and one that I believe doesn’t render Dobbs immoral but rather amoral; directionless, and stripped of any bearings on reality.
All three of them make fair points and arguments over the relatives strengths of communal goods vs. individual wealth (...is there a Communism subtext in this film, I wonder? Or are the themes merely coincidental..) and concomitant responsibility are all valid, including the final 'immoral' double-cross. After all, abandonment of the group (putting the burden and risk and hassle on others) is essentially abandonment of property and ownership...
Let's add "philosopher" to Dobbs' character study!
That summary may belong in a medical journal...therewillbeblus wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:29 amThat he becomes robbed of both the psychological and the spiritual values of his identity leaves him totally lost and thus your point on the nuances and flexibility of the terms, despite their distinct differences, rings true. As the film walks this hazy tightrope so does Dobbs, and when he falls, their distinction falls with him. As all these flooding existential experiences are revealed as elastic, they shatter any rigid confidence that existed in separating themselves into tangible forms, just like his own confidence in his psyche, reality, morality and meaning.
It's another handy pointer that the film functions as a commentary on multiple levels of 'the meaning(s) of life'. Especially in the vaguelly-nihilistic way you're essentially writing that the nuances of action and reaction and life are erased after-the-fact, when outcomes (and their perceived purpose and path) are judged apart from the nuance and INSTEAD of the nuance: he betrayed them and lost everything - including his life and fortune. The End.
Outcomes and summaries paint stark lines that obfuscate the varied and complex picture that experience and the thousand compound choices, perceptions and assumptions have used in their portrait of a life.