More Money, More Problems

Jim Williams, as a wealthy member of Savannah’s society, believed in the power of his money. Just as has been seen before in Savannah, Jim Williams expected his money to get him out of trouble with the law. However, this wealth actually works against him, skewing his perception of reality and causing other members of Savannah’s society to presume his guilt, rather than innocence.

Jim Williams’ attitude towards money is made very apparent in his attitude towards his own murder trial. Williams stated that “My case has come down to one thing and one thing only… Money” (Berendt 252) The separation of money from the rest of his sentence highlights its importance to Williams. To Williams, the world revolves around money. He casually dispels Danny’s importance in the case, as seen in his word choice and actions: he calls Danny “nothing but a would-be murderer” and then finishes his drink (Berendt 252). The use of “nothing but a” degrades Danny and his importance into just another violent person. Rather than people, Williams sees money as the prime mover in his case and is extremely confident in that belief, which is apparent throughout the trials by his laid back, borderline smug, attitude.

Jim Williams’ view on the power of money spans much further than just his trial; money is the primary weapon in fighting all kinds of battles. He describes money as “ammunition”, and, regarding the spending of money, says “I have no choice. I have to do it” (Berendt 296). “Ammunition” bears the connotation of conflict and weapons; in this case, money is made to be the most powerful tool for Williams’ fight. Williams does not think of any alternatives, he goes straight to his wealth when trying to solve his problems, and the use of his wealth is viewed as a complete necessity. Williams’ strict adherence to the idea that money solves problems forces him down a singular path, one in which his money is his only defense against the allegations made against him. As influential as money may be, Jim Williams overestimates its worth and pays the price for it. Thus Jim Williams’ overestimation of the power and influence wealth caused him to be overconfident and skewed his perception of the reality, both generally and specifically in regards to his murder trial.

Outside of Jim Williams, other upper-class citizens hold the same view that money solves problems. Their view does not care about guilt or innocence; in fact, Williams is thought of as guilty without a second thought, displaying an underlying presumption of guilt for the wealthy in Savannah. This presumption of guilt is well-represented when one wealthy man claims that the two new witnesses were “bought and paid for by Jim,” while also saying “Of course he would, and so would I in his position” (Berendt 304). Implying that Williams bought witnesses insinuates that Williams is not innocent, but that he is using his wealth to buy his way out of his misdeeds. More interesting, however, is the man’s statement that, in Williams’ position, he would do the same. Williams’ “position” is assumed to be one of guilt, or at least of some sort of societal misdeed, and the man, who is also wealthy, prescribes to the same notion that money can solve his problems. There is no doubt at all to the man that Williams has bought witnesses, as seen in his statement, “of course he would,” which implies that the use of wealth in escaping the criminal justice system is commonplace and, moreso, a view that is shared by many wealthy members of Savannah’s society.

Money is what fails Jim Williams. His wealth gives him a false sense of security and the false belief that he is in no danger, ultimately leading to two convictions despite his own confidence in the proceedings. His misguided outlook on life makes money the root of his problems, as well as the most powerful tool in fighting his enemies. The prevailing opinion that wealth solves problems was not lost on the high-class people of Savannah either, and this entrenched the belief in Jim’s guilt within that subsection of society. In the end, Jim Williams’ own wealth and his belief in its ultimate power works against him, contrary to the popular notion that those with money can simply buy their way out of problems.

The Corleone Men and the Importance of Family

The 1972 classic The Godfather portrays the lives of the infamous Corleone family in all of their criminal glory. The film emphasized the importance of family to the male Corleones, and especially to reigning patriarch Vito. This choice to display the criminal Corleone family as just that, a family, undermines the typical criminal that society expects. Most criminals, and especially murderers, are not portrayed in film as family men, with marriage and children not playing any important role in the criminal’s life, unless they are being used by the criminal. Examples of such stereotypical criminals in film include Jerry and Gaear from Fargo, Patrick Bateman from American Psycho, and Charlie Wolfe from Kill Me Three Times. All of these male criminals are not what one would call family men; Jerry even goes as far as to use his wife to further his criminal plans. The Corleone family men value their familial relationships very highly, and by portraying the these male characters in this way, the traditional callous criminal man is subverted, and it is shown that criminals can be caring, family individuals.

The phrase “the family” is used repeatedly by members of the Corleone family to describe themselves and their position on topics. By referring to the group collectively, rather than any individual, the family is made into the most important unit. Decisions are made based on the good to the family, rather than any individual. Individuals are subservient to the family, and their primary responsibility is to the success of the family. Using “the family” also creates very strict divides amongst the criminals, as family members have the utmost loyalty only to other family members, resulting in tense relationships between the large crime families. Whether it be in tense interfamily meetings when Sonny speaks out, or later when Michael reminds his other brother to “never take sides against the family again,” the Corleone’s view their family as a coherent unit, more important than any outside relationships.

Although Sonny’s infidelity during his own sister’s wedding appears to be contrary to the ideals of a family man, Sonny is still extremely focused on the safety and wellbeing of his family. Infidelity does not necessarily have to mean that a man does not care about his family. The reaction of Tom to Sonny’s infidelity speaks to this point, as Tom walks away with a simple smile after finding Sonny engaged in his extramarital affair. There was no disgust or surprise, for Tom knows that Sonny would never endanger the greater Corleone family or his marriage, since those values are so important to them all. Sonny’s immense value for his family is seen in his own demise, as he is gunned down as he rushes to help his sister from an abusive husband. Sonny thus represents a man with strong family values, despite his extramarital activities.

The film chose to have many intimate family settings throughout the movie, juxtaposed with the criminal behaviour that was ongoing. Perhaps the most striking example comes during the wedding, which is itself a family activity. Fifteen minutes into the film, while Vito is speaking with Luca Brasi, three children run into the room. These children help to show that Vito’s criminal activity is inseparable from his family life, as even these secret meetings can be interrupted by children, the quintessential innocent members of the family. This relationship is further seen in Vito’s continuous switching between the wedding, and his family responsibilities, and meetings with associates and his criminal activities. Choosing to take time away from his dirty work to spend time with his family shows the compassion of Vito as a father and husband, as well as his love for his family.

Throughout The Godfather, the Corleone men demonstrate their love and loyalty to the family through their words and actions. Unlike the stereotypical criminal, to whom family is unimportant or, even worse, another means to reach his end goal, the Corleone men are constantly proving their fierce loyalty and high regard for their family. The juxtaposition between criminal behaviour and family life seems odd, but only because society is so used to criminals who do not value their family relationships. By having the Corleones be this interesting combination of criminal and family man, the idea that criminals have to be callous or uncaring is challenged and it is shown that men can indeed be murderers while still maintaining strong family loyalties and ties.

Lord Arthur and the dark side of London

To Lord Arthur, London is a city full of both sin and splendour, but he imagines that the London seen by outsiders is one which is only pure and good. He describes such a London as “pallid, ghost-like, and desolate” because it is but a shadow of the true London, which is the one known to Lord Arthur (Wilde 27). Describing the town as “pallid, ghost-like, and desolate” implies that the London that Lord Arthur sees is empty without its darker side, which is an integral part of London society. Additionally, this evil side of London is known to Lord Arthur, for he is the one commenting on the outsiders’ perceptions. This means that the dark side of the city has reached every inhabitant, even the more refined and sophisticated nobility. Furthermore, every time Lord Arthur describes London favorably, it is immediately followed by a description of London’s darker side. This shows that for every good part of London, there is an equal and opposite evil component: “splendour” and “shame”, “fierce joys” and “horrible hunger”, and “of all it makes and mars” (Wilde 27-28). Evil and maliciousness are an inescapable part of life, even to the upper class Lord Arthur, who one would expect to be refined and sophisticated. Instead, Lord Arthur is another example of the duality present in London’s society.

Lord Arthur’s own perception of London as a dark, sinful city opens up new avenues to achieve his goals within his perception of what society would allow. Merton’s theory of society is thus useful to understand Lord Arthur’s motives and methods and explains why Lord Arthur so easily turns to murder when told that it is his destiny, as murder is an acceptable form of reaching his goals according to the twisted London society where he resides. This is further seen in the bombmaker, who nonchalantly asks who the bomb is for and makes nothing more than a few snide remarks. Such behaviour is not to be expected, and one would anticipate a more powerful reaction to an upper class man who simply strolls in and asks for a bomb to be made for his own relative. Yet, because London is a city where such means are acceptable to reach one’s goal, there is no objection. The duality of life in London is also portrayed, as Lord Arthur remains a prominent upper class man, displaying all of the “splendour” and “fiery-coloured joys” that one anticipates, but also portraying the “horrible hunger” and other, darker sides to London’s society. Thus life in London was a dichotomy of good and evil, with individuals portraying both sides throughout their lives. Any individual also had many avenues open to him to reach his goals, as both the legitimate and less-legitimate options were condoned by society, making criminal activity commonplace and ordinary. Such an approach is what allowed Lord Arthur to commit his crime, despite numerous failures, without any repercussions. Without such criminal activity being deeply ingrained within society, Lord Arthur would have been hard-pressed to find the means to commit his crime, while also being forced to reconcile his choice with society’s predefined means for reaching its goal. By making the London that Lord Arthur resides in one which condones murder and other sinful activities, Lord Arthur had no problem reconciling the deed he had to commit with society’s predefined means. In either case, Lord Arthur’s goal of marriage to a woman of his class was one which society thrust upon him, and one which Lord Arthur pursued using the means available and allowed to him by society.

Truth vs Fiction Blog Post for 9/28

“All we’ve got here are our friends. What a terrible thing when neighbors can’t look at each other without kind of wondering! Yes, it’s a hard fact to live with, but if they ever do find out who done it, I’m sure it’ll be a bigger surprise than the murders themselves.” (Capote 70)

The passage gives some suggestion that the murderer won’t be found, as seen in “If they ever do find out…”.  

The passage portrays the immediate reactions and speculation of townsfolk, thereby displaying their inner thoughts and ideas on the crime.  A lack of evidence due to the very recent nature of the crime means that speculation abounds, and everyone is still a suspect and all theories may have some merit. After the crime, a new dynamic is thus created in which even longtime neighbors are suddenly suspicious of each other (“What a terrible thing when neighbors can’t look at each other without kind of wondering!”). 

The identity of the killer would be a “bigger surprise” because the citizens all know one another (“All we’ve got here are our friends.”) and thus the criminal must be known to the others. The criminal was and still is deceiving them and is now hiding in plain sight. Again, despite the shock of the crime itself, even more significant to the townspeople is the fact that one of them is the most likely culprit.

That phrase, “All we’ve got here are our friends,” bears significance. Someone in the community is not who they seem, as the criminal is believed to be a part of the community. Thus they will inevitably be known by the rest of the town, due to the intimate nature of the community. This situation creates tension and suspicions of even those you know well, given the (apparently) closed circle of suspects and lack of motive, given that the victims were a well liked and respected family, with no possessions or valuables apparently missing. It is likely that this tension and new distrust will play a prominent role in the investigation and the rest of the book, and a number of important questions are raised from the passage and some of the initial assumptions made by the townsfolk.

Perhaps most important of the questions raised by this passage is quite simply: Why was it assumed that someone in the community was the criminal?

In the passage, the assumption is made that it was one of the members of the community that commit the crime. This speaks volumes about the community, who portray themselves as closely knit and all friends of each other. In reality, much is left unknown between neighbors, as no one is willing to rule out one of their own as the culprit, despite all that they may say. This suspicion also shows the limits of how much one can truly ‘know’ about another person, even someone who you may have lived next to and known for many years. The lack of trust despite a supposedly close relationship means that claiming a member of the community commit the crime is far from outlandish, and is in fact the initial assumption of at least some of the townsfolk.

The passage claims that finding out the identity of the killer would be a greater shock, but is that really true? How does the small town setting change the investigation? Are the crime or criminal in some way ‘worse’ because the family was a part of a small community?

My own opinion is that the crime is ‘worse’ because it is a crime committed amongst friends, against a friend. The community itself is shaken by the violence and the attack on their societal structure. More than just a couple of murders, the crime attacks this community and threatens their established traditions and rules by attacking one of its most pious and respected families. The investigation would quickly become very personal, with local lawmen’s individual bias’ taking hold and likely interfering with their work and clouding their judgement, particularly when it comes to the character of suspects.

In relation to the three theories of crime discussed in class, the passage, the community, and the community’s response to the crime have various interpretations. For the Foucauldian interpretation, an important observation is that the power in the community lies not in the law so much as in every person. Foucault advocates for the dissemination of power, rather than its concentration in any individual or institution. This argument is even more obvious in a small community such as the one within the novel, where one’s reputation is key and can be made or broken through interactions with others. Knowledge produces power and in particular, knowledge of everyone else in the small community forces everyone to adhere to strict rules. Every citizen is constantly under observation by other townsfolk while simultaneously monitoring the actions of others. This dynamic results in a forced adherence to traditions through the ‘threat’ of observation and denunciation. The murders then increased the level of surveillance, as everyone is now suspicious of everyone else, and no one can escape scrutiny. The result is a society that, in some respects, resembles a plague town, with extreme levels of surveillance and major repercussions if one were to break from the norm. No one can afford to deviate from the norm at this time for fear of being caught by their neighbor or friend. Thus the crime served to turn the town into a prison, with every community member under constant observation, and any sort of deviation would result in association with the crime and even if innocent, their reputation in the community would be marred. And in this community, what is more important than reputation?

From Merton’s perspective, the town represents a microcosm of society with goals that deviate from the norm of simple wealth, and which is perhaps more ritualistic than larger American society. Members of the younger generation likely adhere to the rules simply because they are the rules and adherence is the expectation, as seen in Nancy and Bobby. In a strict society centered around religion, reputation, and a mutual profession ( in farming), whomever committed the crime broke all of the predefined rules and deviated radically from the rest of society. Yet their goal must have been different from that of the rest of the community, as it seems that the crime fails to elevate or aid the criminal in any way to become a more established member of the community, and there was nothing of material value taken. This interpretation makes the community’s assumption that one of their own is the killer more interesting, for it seems to imply that someone within the community had both a deviant goal and deviant means for achieving that goal.

From a Freudian perspective, the townsfoks’ initial reactions in terms of likely culprits can be examined. Bess Hartman first thinks of Bonnie, due to her history of mental illness. Bonnie represents a deficient superego through her inability to control herself and her actions, and is thus a likely suspect for such a crime. The police initially suspected Bobby Rupp, most likely due to his relationship with Nancy and what can likely be seen as a momentary dominance of the id, with Bobby losing control and letting his desires take over, presumably after a fight or spat of some sort with Nancy. Despite these potential explanations, the fact remains that the town functioned for so long with their strict regulations. Isn’t it odd to think that someone would have even a momentary lapse of control with such deeply ingrained societal rules and a presumably very dominant superego?