![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Essay-like thingamabobs
Jack tells Will that his father was a pirate and a good man both, something which Will originally refutes on the grounds that pirate == bad, period. But at some point he changes his mind about this--or perhaps just his allegiance?--so that by the end of the movie, he rescues Jack because even though he is a pirate, he is also a good man, and Will says his conscience would not be clear if he did not try to save this good man from the gallows.
Is Will moving from absolute definitions of good and bad to personal definitions of "Jack did right by me (eventually)"? Or is he reformulating his absolute definitions? (As opposed to Governor Swann, who had a firm grasp of personal definitions of good and bad all along. Good == his daughter safe, bad == his daughter in danger.)
If the latter, what's the difference between a pirate who's a bad man (though not solely because he's a pirate, as pirate no longer automatically equates with bad under this new system) and a pirate who's a good man?
Thieving, womanizing, and drinking apparently don't enter into it. Jack does all of these unapologetically and Will does not count them as sins.
Jack might says it's honesty versus treachery, as he finds this to be his distinction from his former crew--they betrayed him, while he is a man of his word. Of course, shortly after affirming that he's a man of his word, he also says that he's a dishonest man and starts fighting Barbossa after having claimed to have been on his side against Norrington.
"Whose side is Jack on?" asks Elizabeth.
"At the moment?" Will returns bemusedly, and shrugs.
However, Jack only swears one oath in the entire film: "I swear on pain of death, if you spring me from this cell I will take you the Black Pearl and your bonnie lass." This he does, and he doesn't even make it a promise by the letter rather than by the spirit, as Barbossa is wont to do: later, Jack says, "Elizabeth is safe, as I promised; she'll wed Norrington, as she promised; and you'll die for her, as you promised, so we are all men of our word--except Elizabeth, who is, in fact, a woman." (Only the first part of that is relevant, but I like the rest too much.) Did Jack promise to make sure Elizabeth was safe? No, not in so many words, but in the context of his oath, knowing Will wanted to not only find Elizabeth but rescue her, Jack considered this part of his promise.
Does this make Jack a man of his word more than Barbossa, despite lying to everyone about everything the rest of the time? Only to Will: if this is Will's justification, than Will's been shifting his definitions of good and bad from absolute to personal.
However, while Jack believe that what sets him apart from his former crew is that he's not a treacherous man, Barbossa defines the difference as mercy on Jack's part and none of his own--although he defines this as a weakness of Jack's, a lack of will to kill, whereas Barbossa has the strength of ruthlessness. Yes, Jack kills, specifically, kills Barbossa, but this is recompense for a wrong, and therefore justifiable (actually, it's revenge, but "revenge" sounds harder to justify).
Jack does not, however, kill indiscriminately. The context in which Barbossa makes the comment is when Jack suggests he negotiate with the Intercepter for return of the last medallion, and Barbossa says, no, we kill them all, bodies are easy to search. Barbossa slaughters people indiscriminately and needlessly, while Jack is very, very picky about who he kills. He doesn't want to have to kill Will even to escape, when they first meet, as Will hasn't done anything but had his shop invaded. Jack commandeers the Dauntless (and then the Intercepter) by his wits rather than with his weapons, leaving all the lobsters alive. When the Intercepter first catches up with the Black Pearl, Jack only risks his life and Will's to go take on Barbossa--and he's already extracted a "promise" from Will that he'd die to save Elizabeth.
So: the distinction between Jack and Barbossa, as good and bad men, is that Barbossa has no conscience about slaughter, while Jack seems to avoid it.
But how much of this is just circumstance? Jack doesn't kill Will by swordplay because he can't easily, as Will was better than the was expecting, and doesn't kill him with his pistol, because he's obsessed with saving that shot for Barbossa (after ten years and some dunkings, wouldn't it be funny if he'd tried to shoot the man and the gun just didn't work?). Likewise, he didn't want to spend his one shot on any of the officers on the Dauntless or the Intercepter, and couldn't hope to defeat them all with his blade, even with Will fighting with him. Even the instance where Barbossa mocks Jack's unwillingness to slaughter the buccaneer crew of the Intercepter seems subject to question to me--if I were Barbossa, I would have said, "Let you negotiate with the ship you sailed in on? Not bloody likely. You're staying in your damn cell, Sparrow." For Barbossa to assume Jack wanted to spare their lives out of mercy rather than out of self-interest and hope of escape was--very odd.
And Jack himself points out that it's only circumstance that separates him from the Black Pearl's crew and the curse they carry.
What this boils down to, to me, is that Jack is a bad, bad man who's very good at playing any part he needs to, and plays up his supposed goodness for Will, who's willing to buy into it out of personal loyalty.
Or, Yes I Really Am A Slasher (Despite The Jack/Elizabeth Stuff I've Been Writing) And Am Firmly Convinced That Will Fell Desperately In Mad, Passionate Love With Jack.
The End.
Is Will moving from absolute definitions of good and bad to personal definitions of "Jack did right by me (eventually)"? Or is he reformulating his absolute definitions? (As opposed to Governor Swann, who had a firm grasp of personal definitions of good and bad all along. Good == his daughter safe, bad == his daughter in danger.)
If the latter, what's the difference between a pirate who's a bad man (though not solely because he's a pirate, as pirate no longer automatically equates with bad under this new system) and a pirate who's a good man?
Thieving, womanizing, and drinking apparently don't enter into it. Jack does all of these unapologetically and Will does not count them as sins.
Jack might says it's honesty versus treachery, as he finds this to be his distinction from his former crew--they betrayed him, while he is a man of his word. Of course, shortly after affirming that he's a man of his word, he also says that he's a dishonest man and starts fighting Barbossa after having claimed to have been on his side against Norrington.
"Whose side is Jack on?" asks Elizabeth.
"At the moment?" Will returns bemusedly, and shrugs.
However, Jack only swears one oath in the entire film: "I swear on pain of death, if you spring me from this cell I will take you the Black Pearl and your bonnie lass." This he does, and he doesn't even make it a promise by the letter rather than by the spirit, as Barbossa is wont to do: later, Jack says, "Elizabeth is safe, as I promised; she'll wed Norrington, as she promised; and you'll die for her, as you promised, so we are all men of our word--except Elizabeth, who is, in fact, a woman." (Only the first part of that is relevant, but I like the rest too much.) Did Jack promise to make sure Elizabeth was safe? No, not in so many words, but in the context of his oath, knowing Will wanted to not only find Elizabeth but rescue her, Jack considered this part of his promise.
Does this make Jack a man of his word more than Barbossa, despite lying to everyone about everything the rest of the time? Only to Will: if this is Will's justification, than Will's been shifting his definitions of good and bad from absolute to personal.
However, while Jack believe that what sets him apart from his former crew is that he's not a treacherous man, Barbossa defines the difference as mercy on Jack's part and none of his own--although he defines this as a weakness of Jack's, a lack of will to kill, whereas Barbossa has the strength of ruthlessness. Yes, Jack kills, specifically, kills Barbossa, but this is recompense for a wrong, and therefore justifiable (actually, it's revenge, but "revenge" sounds harder to justify).
Jack does not, however, kill indiscriminately. The context in which Barbossa makes the comment is when Jack suggests he negotiate with the Intercepter for return of the last medallion, and Barbossa says, no, we kill them all, bodies are easy to search. Barbossa slaughters people indiscriminately and needlessly, while Jack is very, very picky about who he kills. He doesn't want to have to kill Will even to escape, when they first meet, as Will hasn't done anything but had his shop invaded. Jack commandeers the Dauntless (and then the Intercepter) by his wits rather than with his weapons, leaving all the lobsters alive. When the Intercepter first catches up with the Black Pearl, Jack only risks his life and Will's to go take on Barbossa--and he's already extracted a "promise" from Will that he'd die to save Elizabeth.
So: the distinction between Jack and Barbossa, as good and bad men, is that Barbossa has no conscience about slaughter, while Jack seems to avoid it.
But how much of this is just circumstance? Jack doesn't kill Will by swordplay because he can't easily, as Will was better than the was expecting, and doesn't kill him with his pistol, because he's obsessed with saving that shot for Barbossa (after ten years and some dunkings, wouldn't it be funny if he'd tried to shoot the man and the gun just didn't work?). Likewise, he didn't want to spend his one shot on any of the officers on the Dauntless or the Intercepter, and couldn't hope to defeat them all with his blade, even with Will fighting with him. Even the instance where Barbossa mocks Jack's unwillingness to slaughter the buccaneer crew of the Intercepter seems subject to question to me--if I were Barbossa, I would have said, "Let you negotiate with the ship you sailed in on? Not bloody likely. You're staying in your damn cell, Sparrow." For Barbossa to assume Jack wanted to spare their lives out of mercy rather than out of self-interest and hope of escape was--very odd.
And Jack himself points out that it's only circumstance that separates him from the Black Pearl's crew and the curse they carry.
What this boils down to, to me, is that Jack is a bad, bad man who's very good at playing any part he needs to, and plays up his supposed goodness for Will, who's willing to buy into it out of personal loyalty.
Or, Yes I Really Am A Slasher (Despite The Jack/Elizabeth Stuff I've Been Writing) And Am Firmly Convinced That Will Fell Desperately In Mad, Passionate Love With Jack.
The End.
no subject
*g* Totally. The ending of the movie makes no sense unless you suppose, as I did, that Will was thinking with something other than his brain.
Actually, I thought the whole movie was on somewhat shifty moral ground--I love pirates as much as the next person, of course, but they steal, they kill, etc. etc., and the end of PotC seemed to be Disney saying "no, these are *good* pirates. Really" without any backup, because god forbid you have an anti-hero in a Disney flick.
But really, it's not like anyone I know minds a little moral ambiguity when the character in question is as cool as Jack...
no subject
Will liked Jack. A lot.
The End.
no subject
I saw Jack constantly going after one goal: reclaim his ship. He had one side-goal: take Will to Elizabeth for purposes of rescue.
Everything else he did and said was, as far as I could tell, whatever he needed to do or say in order to try to make the current circumstance lead to the regaining of his ship, the Black Pearl.
I actually don't even know where it was that Jack was supposed to have had questionable allegiance -- the other characters may not have always known when Jack was telling the truth, and when he was being misleading in order to survive an encounter. But Jack was always on the side of the Black Pearl, himself, and Elizabeth (at least for as long as it took to fulfill his promise to Will).
Will's behaviour at the end isn't surprising, even if non-slashy. Jack did the right thing - he saved Elizabeth, twice. His reward, both times, was execution for his profession. Will owed Jack a debt - the woman he loved owed her life to Jack, and so Will had to return the favour. Norrington returned the favor as well, by letting Jack escape (even if it took him awhile to get up the nerve to return the favor).
On the other hand, I think Will fell madly in love with Jack and would have saved him anyhow. ;-)
no subject
no subject
*cracks up*
Yeah.
Disney saying "no, these are *good* pirates. Really" without any backup
There was plenty of back-up! How can anyone that pretty be evil?
*snickering*
no subject
No, he likes to wait for the opportune moment... and then strike very quickly. Not hasteful at all, 'cause of the waiting, see?
Will liked Jack. A lot.
The End.
Yep.
no subject
I can understand why the characters think it, but I, too, can't figure out why the audience agrees. Also, the 'Jack is crazy and random' corollary, whereby they assume he's switching sides for the hell of it and because he's insane. I was having a discussion with
I saw Jack constantly going after one goal: reclaim his ship. He had one side-goal: take Will to Elizabeth for purposes of rescue.
And one other thing: get revenge against Barbossa for his betrayal. He was never going to bargain Will's life for his ship, even though he did want to use Will to break the curse so he *could* take his revenge on Barbossa. Luckily for him, by the end of the movie Will was totally on the "let's kill Barbossa!" ship and also, for once, smart enough to figure out what Jack needed him to do.
the other characters may not have always known when Jack was telling the truth, and when he was being misleading in order to survive an encounter.
Well, we can suss out when he's lying and not, but the fact that the characters can't means that when he lies, when he says something like, "Let's take over the Dauntless and you can be Commodore Barbossa, so long as I can have the Black Pearl" and then turns around and kills Barbossa--that's an apparent betrayal, even though he was lying in the first place and never actually intended to aid Barbossa in any way. Which means, to me, he's no better than his crew in the traitorism department.
no subject