In Black Mirror, we saw the norms of our society put into overdrive. A woman who could have been innocent put through a day of torture for an unknown amount of time. Assuming she was guilty of her accused act, we have to question if the punishment was suitable for her crime. Victoria was tricked into an entire day of confusion, terror and uncertainty. The doubt is only brought into play when it is seen that she has to go through such a thing again and again and again.
When we are finally clued into the epic plot twist, I noticed that everything from the original crime was involved in Victoria's day.- the picture of the young child she helped abduct, the videos of people constantly watching, the wooded area where the crime took place, the white bear etc. After noticing these things, it's easy to see the idolization the crime has gained. It's no longer a set example; it's something to be continuously talked about and enjoyed, like a normal television event. The entire "set" is just a large park containing the main areas in which Victoria and Ian's crimes took place. It's a way for viewers and volunteers to be close to the actual happenings- to be a part of it all. Looking at it from a more unbiased point of view, using the original grounds could have been a way to make Victoria feel all the more guilty- make her stand where her victim stood. Now, though, after weeks of the same torture, it just adds to the novelty.
Another reason to doubt the justice of the punishment was the fact that they wiped her memory of these events after every time. Not only after reliving it, but most likely after the actual event itself. Whenever whoever decided the form of punishment did, Victoria's memory was wiped and she was put into her new story. She knew absolutely nothing about who she was or what she'd allegedly done. Technically, after the first memory wipe, she woke up an innocent person. Her entire background has been erased; she wasn't the same person who watched a child be kidnapped, tortured and burned behind a phone screen. So the question is, was it really justice? Making her live a day in the place of her victim, making her truly understand the implications of her actions on the human psyche, is an understandable punishment because after doing so, she would have had to live with all of it for the rest of her life. Why, then,would you take away the memories of her wrongdoings? Why strip her of the only rehabilitation she could possibly retain? This only goes to show what the crime and her punishment became- an amusement hidden behind a tragedy.
In the end, Victoria was truly in the wrong. No matter if she was actually physically involved or just an accessory- she chose to be a bystander in the murder or an innocent. Regardless of the outside influences, she deserved to be punished for those actions. Furthermore, those who carried out said punishment, under whatever guise, are now also in the same boat. They are now guilty of torturing an innocent woman; they have made themselves no better than she, and only comfort themselves under the false pretense of justice. In the end, every party was wrong. Who's going to punish them all?
6 comments:
First off, I really appreciate the title of your post. Second, it's interesting that you bring up that they should have the "set" at the same place where she and her husband murdered the child. She may have more recall of it, but it might send a stronger message if she is at the scene of the crime and remembers what happened there.
(I’m going to include a potential trigger warning: I’m going to briefly discuss or make allusions to some violent events from history, such as Nazi Germany. Nothing particularly explicit or graphic, but better safe than sorry.)
Was Victoria necessarily truly in the wrong? The film briefly mentions that Victoria had claimed coercion, that her lover had her “under his spell.” It is not so far-fetched for someone to watch passively as someone tortures and murders a young girl; people throughout history have done much, much worse. In 1965, the psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a rather famous study (famous enough to be made into a movie) investigating whether the average person would kill a man they did not know under orders. In brief, two people were placed in two different rooms where they could not see each other but could still hear each other. One was supposed to call out questions for the other to answer and, if given an incorrect answer, was supposed to press a button they were told would shock the answerer. In reality, the answerer was an actor, and instructed to sound as though the shocks were growing increasingly painful for him, before eventually ceasing to respond after being given a “lethal” shock. A researcher was in the same room as the asker, to answer any questions. Many contemporaries predicted very few “fatalities.” However, 65% of participants applied “lethal” shocks. 65% of people in this study tortured and killed a man under the instructions of the experimenter (You should read up on this more fully sometime, it is fascinating in a morbid kind of way). The purpose of this study was to investigate how hundreds of thousands of German citizens could commit the atrocities that were inflicted on the Jewish people. As it turns out, they weren’t innately more evil than any of the rest of us. They were just following orders. This is all well and good, but Victoria’s lover wasn’t an authority figure. He was just a guy, and shouldn’t have had any more influence than some random person on the street, right? Well, we can take a look at the Manson Family for an example of the influence “just a guy” can have. Charles Manson somehow convinced 18 women to live with him and eventually commit 9 murders at his instruction, despite having been making a living by panhandling when starting out. In summary, the court should not have dismissed Victoria’s plea of coercion so readily, and neither should we. Of course, this would exacerbate the points you made: not only are they torturing a new innocent woman on the subsequent days, they’re torturing a woman who was never guilty at all.
I agree with your opinion about the park. I don't think that the key to achieving justice is by stooping down to the level of the criminal, it almost seems like a five year old using "she started it" as an excuse. You could have included something about the fact that she has never felt the real torture everyday since her memory is constantly being erased.
I feel like the title of your post describes how many perceive justice–"someone did this thing that we believe is wrong so we're going to do that same wrong to them." How does that make sense? I agree that those running and participating in the park have now committed a crime themselves and are hiding behind "justice." I don't understand why they would take away the memory of her crime, either; living with guilt may be the worst punishment.
I fully agree with everything you have said in this post. It is true that Victoria had committed that horrendous crime, but when they erased her memory she became a different person. I would like to add a bit to your post. When she first came to, she believed the child was her daughter. She goes through the whole movie believing this. Imagine her shock at learning that she had killed that girl. She, in the time since she awoke in that chair, had developed motherly attachment to this little girl. So, in a way, the ending punished her even more than people would normally think. It's just a thought, but I believe it is worth adding to the injustice of this torture park.
First, I'd like to say your title is amazing. I also really enjoyed how you talked about how Victoria had to experience the same things as the little girl in the same place. But, as you said, after the one experience, she should be innocent due to the memory wiping. Do it once and it's punishment, more than once makes it just needless torture for the sake of entertainment.
Post a Comment