MovieChat Forums > The Bounty (1984) Discussion > Moral Equivalence

Moral Equivalence

posted 10 years ago by gdifalco
4 replies | jump to latest

In my opinion, Christian was the much more sympathetic character. Despite his flaws (impulsiveness, immaturity, hedonistic), you could tell from the story that he was extremely conflicted about the whole thing. On one hand, he wanted to “do the right thing” when it came to the girl. It’s not that he wanted to stay just so that he could have sex all day with her. It seemed to me that it was the fact that the girl was pregnant that led to his moral conflict. In that respect, he’s a very complex character - hedonistic, yet moral. The best scene was when he tells Bligh he’ll kill Blight AND himself. He knows the gravity of the situation, but can’t mask his inner conflict over the decision.

The decision on Christian’s part was made more difficult a) by the laws of the British navy (you desert, you die) and b) Bligh’s overly stubborn, unwavering decision to restore order and discipline.

But, on the other hand, even if this retelling of the story favors Christian a little bit more, I think it draws a moral equivalency between the 2 men, evidenced by the scene where Bligh passes on the opportunity to have sex with one of the King’s wives. Bligh’s morality is unwavering. But so is Christian’s. This was the most interesting aspect of the story for me.

[–] Doc80 10 years ago

Yes, it is a very intriguing story. The problem is that the majority of the narrative throughout history has been from Bligh's perspective. Unfortunately Christian died without ever telling his side of the story.

I remember reading something years ago too that talked about how after the decided that Bligh's actions weren't the cause of the mutiny that some of the mutineers or crew members that weren't with him made it back to England and they told a much different version of things. In their account, Bligh was a strict taskmaster and that many members wanted to mutiny before they ever got to Tahiti. Anyway, they didn't believe them and Bligh was given another ship which again had a mutiny.

[–] neomusic 9 years ago

This story did side with Christian's story. The difference in this one was that Bligh and Christian were friends. I think Christian's side was to show how strict Bligh was, he was bad Captain who cared about his image. When they were sailing for Tahiti when they went around Cape Horn in which the crew almost lost their lives. A real Captain would care more about the well being of his crew then his ego, which is why he was a bad captain. Mr. Fryer did the right thing in questioning his judgment but Bligh did not like that and he promoted Christian. The main reasons, they were friends so therefore he could not cross him another was that he was inexperienced officer which Bligh could control.

What lead to the mutiny, yes Christian fell in love but Bligh did not treat him like a man. He embarassed him in front of his fellow officers and crew.

[–] eddysl12 9 years ago

This is something I have never quite understood. Fletcher was considered married to the King's daughter by the King proclaiming him to be so. A baby was on the way which meant that Fletcher had a duty to his new wife and baby to be there for them.

This would also be greatly advantageous to the British Empire. What could solidify the Island country of Tahiti more with the British empire than to have a British subject as the King's son-in-law and the father of the King's grandchild?

Good relations with the Tahitians was one one thing, having them as relatives through inter-marriage between the two peoples was magnitudes greater.

It would I think have been greatly in the interest of the British Empire to have Fletcher Christian remain in Tahiti, and he would be serving greatly the British Empire by living there.

[–] horsenbuggy 8 years ago

Meh. The British didn't look kindly upon foreign wives. They pretended to respect the "king" of Tahiti but they really saw the islanders as backwards savages.