Becoming Divergent:
How Moral Perfectionism transcends Virtue Ethics in Divergent (Burger) and Insurgent (Schwentke)
Master Film Studies: Thesis
Date: 28 June 2019
Name: Marijke van Putten
Studentnumber: 5984017
Thesis Supervisor: mw. dr. C.M. Lord Second Reader: dhr. dr. G.W. van der Pol
Index
Introduction: Experiencing ethics through a dystopian tale ... 5
Chapter 1: No world for divergents: the interplay of ethical movements in a dystopic world ... 11
Introduction: creating a dystopian world ... 11
The ethical mix: the political forces within the film world ... 13
Conclusion: to be self-reliant is to be rebellious ... 20
Chapter 2: Fear as a divergent’s catalyst: conformity versus self-reliance ... 23
Introduction: who is Beatrice Prior?... 23
Jumping into the unknown: a turning point for Tris ... 26
Soldiers not rebels: Fear as a catalyst ... 30
How to handle fear Dauntless style: conformity as a strategy ... 33
Conclusion: becoming knowledgeable and cultivating skills ... 38
Chapter 3: Inner struggles: overcoming the damaging effects of guilt and shame ... 41
Introduction: guilt and shame ... 41
Lying is denying: how guilt and shame stand in the way of self-transformation ... 45
May the truth set you free: do revelations trigger compassion or suspense? ... 47
The box: the suspense of moral perfectionism ... 49
Conclusion: becoming the one that is worthy ... 53
Conclusion: Dare to be divergent ... 55
Bibliography ... 59
Introduction:
Experiencing ethics through a dystopian tale
Politics in the world seems to be shifting; or so it feels. On the one hand people are encouraged to be who they are and celebrate it; consider for instance the popularity of Lady Gaga’s song: Born this way, but on the other hand human rights and equal rights seem to be under stress now that there is a rise in populism and far right political parties and judging by the rise in people marching in protest against them. This might also cause people to be appealed by films that are themed around conformity and rebellion and what better genre to depict this than dystopia’s.
In the two films that I will explore, Divergent (Burger) and The Divergent Series: Insurgent (Schwentke)1,the journey from adolescence to adulthood proves difficult for our protagonist, Beatrice Prior, because she is different from the norm. But she also comes to realize that the society she lives in is far from perfect. The political structure in place within the film world is based on moral virtuous behaviour. For instance putting the tribal group, faction, before family. It is not meant for people like Beatrice before she transforms into her new character Tris. In fact, for Beatrice it proves to be nightmarish to live in this society made up of factions, when you cannot conform to just one of them. It is like not fitting into a clique at school, only with the added terror of being in mortal danger if those in power find out you are divergent. This sense of being different, of not belonging, of being unable to conform versus being your own individual self, seems to be a recurring theme in teen films and series. This theme is likely to appeal to a lot of young adult spectators that feel different, and are afraid of becoming a social outcast.
Beatrice ‘Tris’ Prior is at that age where everybody in their society chooses which of the five factions they are going to spend the rest of their lives at: Abnegation, Erudite, Dauntless, Candor or Amity. The society in this film is divided in factions based on peoples affinity for a certain virtue. This structure is put in place to keep the peace; each group has their own task within the society. For the first sixteen years Beatrice has lived at Abnegation with her family; a faction that is all about helping others. But she never felt she fully belonged there. She was afraid the test would tell her to stay, but at the same time she was afraid it would tell her to leave. The test, in which she undergoes a simulation in her unconsciousness to see what kind of choices she would make and what kind of solutions to problems she would come up with, should have told her where she belongs. But, as it turns out, she is divergent and therefor has an aptitude for multiple factions. This, as it turns out, is a problem and not just in a sense of not fitting in. Divergents are considered a threat to society.
The protagonist, Beatris Prior, encounters her first crisis now that she does not have the test to
rely on. According to cultural scholar Catherine Driscoll “the modern idea of adolescence as personal and social crisis” is one of the four necessary conditions for teen film (Driscoll 12). The other three necessary conditions being: censorship and classification systems to protect youth that rely on “a set of debates about age, maturity, citizenship, literacy, and pedagogy that are not only an important context for teen film but shape its content”; “the emergence of targeted film marketing” and “the translation of modern adolescence into institutions for the representation, analysis, and management of adolescence” (Driscoll 12-3). By institutions I read her to mean she is referring to social theories, like respecting family rules and public policies, like no underage sex. According to her the problems of modern adolescence are defined by these institutions, among which she also gathers new film genres like the high school film. High school, she considers, being a step between childhood and social independence. She also says that the fourth condition: “the translation of modern adolescence into institutions for the representation, analysis, and management of adolescence” overarches the first three: 1) the modern idea of adolescence as personal and social crisis; 2) censorship and classification systems to protect youth; 3) “the emergence of targeted film marketing” (Driscoll 12-3). Meaning that these institutions set the parameters upon which the first three conditions are based. For this thesis I will focus on the first condition: “the modern idea of adolescence as personal and social crisis” (Driscoll 12). From Driscoll’s book it becomes apparent that teen films all deal with ‘coming-of-age’. According to Driscoll “teen film is less about growing up than about the expectation, difficulty, and social organisation of growing up” (Driscoll 66). The journey from adolescence to adulthood in teen films seem to always be troubled and ridden with “the ambivalent relationship between rebellion and conformity” which Driscoll calls “so important to teen film” (Driscoll 22). This leads to a personal and social crisis. Rebellion and conformity are also important themes in Emerson’s theory of self-reliance. According to Emerson the highest virtue in society is conformity and self-reliance is its adversary (Cavell 22). Self-reliance can therefor also be seen as rebellion. Cavell, when explaining Emerson, also claims most people encounter periods in their lives where they do not agree with society and this period is most likely to reveal itself for the first time during adolescence (Cavell 23). Both films, Divergent (Burger) and Insurgent (Schwentke), will prove excellent examples in which the journey to adulthood is complicated by the choice of conformity or rebellion and this I will link to the theory of self-reliance. Conformity generally proves easy if the society you live in agrees with your values and virtues. It becomes problematic however when you encounter not a utopian but a dystopian society.
“Pick your present-day dilemma; there’s a new dystopian novel to match it,” says American history scholar Jill Lepore (Lepore). The title of the article reads that it is the golden age for dystopian fiction. “Radical pessimism is a dismal trend” (Lepore). According to Lepore dystopian tales are often sparked by a period of optimism, as a reaction to it. The latest surge being at the end of the Obama era and the start of the Trump era. The sales of the classic dystopian novel 1984 spiked after Trump’s
advisor Kellyanne Conway used the phrase ‘alternative facts’ in an interview. Immediately comparisons were drawn with 1984’s ‘newspeak’ (Guardian). Yet, Cecelia Goodnow, (former) Life & Arts and Consumer Team reporter at Seatle Post-Intelligencer, attributes the popularity of the genre, especially among Young Adults, to it mirroring all the bad stuff that has been going on in the world lately. ‘The genre is popular because it “mirrors a world beset by some of the most frightening problems in recent memory, from climate change to terrorism and the shredding of privacy and free will,” making it “the zeitgeist of the times”’ (qtd. In Ames 6). According to literary scholar Melissa Ames, it is the socio-political climate after 9/11 that is responsible for “the mass consumption of these texts” (Ames 6). Since 9/11 there have indeed been many Young Adult dystopian novels published. And some have made it to the big screen (often with massive success), like: The Hunger Games Trilogy, The Maze Runner Series, Ender’s Game, The 5th Wave, The Giver and Divergent Series. As mentioned before the first two films of the Divergent Series will prove excellent case studies for exploring the theme of conformity versus rebellion, an important topic for adolescents especially in regards of current world politics.
Literary scholars Carrie Hintz and Elaine Ostry say “literature encourages people to view their society with a critical eye, sensitizing or predisposing them to political action” (qtd. in Ames 16). Literary scholar Melissa Ames explains that in general utopian and dystopian literature does the same and that “it would follow that this would work on teenagers just as well as adults” (Ames 16). According to Ames, young adult dystopian literature has an educational potential, when these texts are taught in educational settings. Not only are students stimulated by these texts to think critically about the world they live in, but the text could even spark real action (Ames 16-17). It happens to be that the films are based on the bestselling novels by Veronica Roth, but for this thesis I have refrained from reading these novels. This way I can solely focus on the film without interference from the books. However, since the films are based on dystopian novels, they are likely to have the same potential Ames refers to. In fact, in this thesis I will argue that dystopian films can add an extra dimension to spectators thinking critically and being sparked into action by experiencing a story. In order to do this I will turn to philosopher and film scholar Robert Sinnerbrink’s theory of Cinematic Ethics. Sinnerbrink states that film has the potential “for exploring moral issues, ethically-charged situations, and moral thought experiences in film” (Sinnerbrink 5). According to Sinnerbrink a crossover of phenomenology and cognitivism can prove the idea that cinema is a medium of ethical experience. He supplements phenomenology with cognitivist approaches “that highlight the complex forms of affective response, emotional engagement, and moral allegiance at work in our experience of moving images” (Sinnerbrink 80). Sinnerbrink claims that the problem with phenomenological approaches on their own is that they have a descriptive character instead of an explanatory. He therefor adds cognitivist theories, so the phenomena in question can be provided with causal explanatory accounts (Sinnerbrink 83). Phenomenology in short
describes how spectators experience and perceive the film world. Cognitivism explains why spectators reason with their experience and perception. For instance, if a film elicits anger, the spectator might have a bodily response that expresses itself in a rapid heartbeat and muscle tension and the spectator’s affective state might be a feeling of tension (Sinnerbrink 87). So far, this describes merely the phenomena related to the elicitation of anger. But the spectator might not stop there, he might evaluate the situation or pass judgement on a character in light of what he feels (Sinnerbrink). This falls into the realm of the cognitivist theories. Sinnerbrink illustrates this crossover theory with an analysis of the Iranian film A Separation by Asghar Farhadi from 2011 and concludes the following:
This is a fine example of cinematic ethics that shows how emotional engagement, social conflict, moral argument, and cultural-political background all contribute to understanding the reasons for an individual’s behaviour. (…) [The film] offers a powerful demonstration of how cinema can be used to cultivate moral perception and exercise our ethical imaginations, inviting viewers to consider all the relevant perspectives and complexities informing a particular ethical situation, as well as the all-important role of the normative context or broader social-cultural world in which the characters are embedded. (Sinnerbrink 102)
What Sinnerbrink is trying to explain here is that spectators are invited to critical thinking by watching films. Critical thinking about ethical themes in films could cause spectators to learn and therefore evolve in real life. In order for cinema to have this power it needs to engage spectators in the cinematic world, according to Sinnerbrink. To show how spectators might be engaging with the films I have chosen to analyse, Divergent (Burger) and Insurgent (Schwentke), I will use Carl Plantinga’s theory of stances toward fictional characters. According to Plantinga the affect and emotions that are elicited by a film “are strongly related to the moral judgment of spectators” (Plantinga, Moving Viewers: American Film and the Spectator's experience 218). He claims that when making judgements about characters, spectators follow their emotions and often do not questions these emotions. This is how filmmakers can make spectators accept certain behaviour by characters and films therefore may even “alter or reinforce patterns of thinking and feeling” (Plantinga, Moving Viewers: American Film and the Spectator's experience 218). In other words, eliciting affect and emotion is key to making spectators pass judgement and thereby experience ethics. Using Plantinga’s theories will therefor ensure this thesis is a crossover of phenomenology and cognitivism, like Sinnerbrink recommends.
In order to show how spectators could be experiencing ethics, one needs to know how the film deals with ethics. In the first chapter of my thesis, I will lay out the political structure of the film world and explain how, what Sinnerbrink based on his reading of Cavell regards as, the four main ethical approaches (Virtue Ethics, Universalism, Utilitarianism and Moral Perfectionism) play a part.
If we assume that ‘ethics’ refers either to universalizable rules of conduct [Universalism], the rational calculation of utility [Utilitarianism], or the cultivation of received moral virtues [Virtue Ethics], then we miss the ethical significance of many important ‘philosophical’ films that fall outside these three categories – films better described, Cavell claims, as exploring moral perfectionism. (Sinnerbrink 33)
Sinnerbrink and Cavell both regard moral perfectionism to be the fourth main ethical approach. All of these ethical approaches will prove to be relevant, since they all simultaneously work together and against each other to form the political and cultural structure of the film world. The political and cultural structure of this society being the faction system that is based on Virtue Ethics, but that is being regulated by universalism. At the same time society is being threatened by Erudite faction leader Jeanine whose aversion to human nature and her attempts to eradicate it is a result of a utilitarianist approach. The main protagonist Beatrice ‘Tris’ Prior needs to find a way to fit into the world she lives in. She goes through a process of self-transformation in the sense of moral perfectionism. Therefor I will elaborate on this fourth ethical approach using Cavell’s take on Emerson and explaining the differences between the two. The main difference being the role of the friend in Emerson’s moral perfectionism, which seems to be less significant to Cavell. The exposition of the political and cultural structure and the main characters navigating in it will explain how the society within the film world proves to be a dystopia. Of course, in order to prove this I will need to explain more about dystopia. Therefor I will start chapter 1 with an explanation of dystopia.
In the second chapter I will analyse the first film of the Divergent Series, called Divergent (Burger). The film came out in 2014 and was directed by Neil Burger. The story is set in a future Chicago of a post-apocalyptic world. The town is closed off from its surroundings and has formed their own political and cultural structure. The story revolves around main character Tris, who is at the verge of leaving home to join the faction where she belongs. However, according to the aptitude test she is classified as divergent, and it is therefore not clear which faction she belongs in. On the day of the choosing ceremony she chooses to follow her heart and joins the faction she looks up to most: Dauntless. Here she meets instructor Four, who helps her through the training stages of the Dauntless faction. Together they discover that Erudite faction leader Janine is conspiring with the leadership of Dauntless to forcefully overthrow the government, which is trusted upon the faction that is most selfless: Abnegation. Tris and Four set out to defy Janine, but in the process Tris is forced to make an impossible moral choice: killing her friend Will who is under mind control or let him kill her. Also, she is faced with the loss of her parents. The theme conformity versus self-reliance will be explored along the central emotion of this film: fear. I will argue how fear functions as a catalyst toward self-reliance instead of a paralyzing agent. Fear is what drives the protagonist. It will cause her to make decisions
that will allow her to go through a process of self-transformation; a key ingredient in Emerson’s moral perfectionism as I will explain in the first chapter. I will mainly look at the main characters Beatrice ‘Tris’ Prior and Tobias ‘Four’ Eaton and how their relationship evolves. This I will do, because I will argue how Tris goes through a process of self-transformation in the Emersonian sense of (moral) perfectionism, and thus gets help from ‘the Friend’ who will come in the form of Four. Four teaches Tris how to conform so she can survive. He in turn respects Tris for showing self-reliance because it is the right thing to do, even when it gets her into trouble. Conformity versus self-reliance therefor will also play a pivotal role in this chapter. I will pair these Emersonian theories with Plantinga’s stances on fictional characters in order to show how the spectator might engage with the characters and how they might value them and their moral decisions.
The third chapter will be about the second film of the Divergent Series, called Insurgent. The second instalment of the film series was released in 2015 and is directed by Robert Schwentke. The film starts off with Tris and Four on the run, along with Tris’ brother Caleb, Four’s abusive father Marcus Eaton and the semi-untrustworthy Peter. They find shelter in the Amity faction. Janine in the meantime took power over Chicago and is openly hunting divergents. The central emotions in the film are guilt and shame, which is what Tris feels about the deaths of her friend Will and her parents. When it is no longer safe to stay at Amity Tris and Four travel to the Factionless compound followed by the Candor building in search of their Dauntless friends. At Candor Tris and Four are faced with a trial through a truth serum to test their involvement with the raid on Abnegation. Tris is forced to tell the truth about what happened to her parents and to her friend Will. Something she did not want to tell, since she feels guilty for them dying during the first film. In the meantime Jeanine is looking for that one special divergent that can open the box that contains a message from the founding fathers. This turns out to be Tris. In the third chapter I will further explore moral perfectionism along the lines of feelings of worthiness versus guilt and shame. I will use Plantinga’s theory about the rhetoric of emotion to explain how spectators might engage with feelings of guilt and shame and the actions that are caused by these feelings. I will also show how guilt and shame are holding Tris back from self-transformation. And how these feelings leave her dealing with her emotions on her own, since Four will not be able to fulfil his role as the friend in the Emersonian sense because Tris lies about how she feels and omits the truth about what happened to Will. In this chapter therefor the Cavellian notion of moral perfectionism plays a more central role.
To conclude the thesis I will take what I have learned through all three chapters and evaluate how ethical approaches have shaped a dystopian tale that uses emotion to elicit critical thinking. I will define what role moral perfectionism, in both the Emersonian and Cavellian sense, has played throughout the two films and what it’s rhetorical significance has been.
Chapter 1:
No world for divergents: the interplay of ethical movements in a
dystopic world
Introduction: creating a dystopian world
First I will look at the two ‘outer layers’ of the film: the genre and film world. The genre of the Divergent film series is dystopia. It is important to know the genre, for the genre conventions give the spectators certain expectations about the film. Since dystopia’s are all about a certain society which plays a huge part in the characters’ lives, I will explore the film world that is created; which is expected to be a dystopic world. In this dystopic world I will mainly discus which ethical movements are at play, as this will play a part in the main character’s moral choices. Dystopia is generally considered to be a subgenre of Science Fiction. For example, the famous dystopic tale Nineteen eighty-four by George Orwell is classified as Sci-Fi on IMDb (Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)). Science Fiction films in turn often share many generic elements with the Action, Thriller, Mystery and Adventure genre. Since the films are expected to borrow elements of dystopian literary fiction, because they are based on novels, I will borrow theory from literary studies.
Literary scholars Charlotte Balaka Basu, Katherine R. Broad and Carrie Hintz explain the term dystopia as follows:
Orthographically speaking, it seems like it ought to be the reverse of a utopia, the non-existent society “considerably better” than the current world. But instead, the dystopia often functions as a rhetorical reduction ad absurdum of a utopian philosophy, extending a utopia to its most extreme ends in order to caution against the destructive politics and culture of the author’s present. (Basu, Broad en Hintz 2)
A dystopia thus is derived from utopia, but is taken to its extreme and becomes a dystopia. Also, you could argue that one’s utopia can be considered another’s dystopia, since there are several philosophical approaches to forming a utopian society. As stated in the introduction I will follow what Sinnerbrink regards as the four most important philosophical approaches: Universalism, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Moral Perfectionism. What would be utopian to a true universalist would be dystopian to a true utilitarian, since these philosophies are contradictory to another. Dystopias have a negative prescription. “It tells us not how to build a better world, but how to perhaps avoid continuing to mess up the one we’ve got” (Basu, Broad en Hintz 3). The main goal of the dystopia is to warn the spectators from what is going on in the world. This is especially the case in traditional dystopias such as Nineteen Eighty-Four. In Young Adult dystopias however, there is also room for hope, besides fear. “The dystopian
worlds are bleak not because they are meant to stand as mere cautionary tales, but because they are designed to display – in sharp relief – the possibility of utopian change even in the darkest of circumstances” (Basu, Broad en Hintz 3). In Young Adult Dystopian literature the genre also borrows from the Bildungsroman, the Adventure Story and the Romance (Basu, Broad en Hintz 6). These elements are clearly present in the Divergent series as well. Main character Tris is on a quest to find herself and find out where she belongs. A classic element of the Bildungsroman when adolescents are going through a period of moral and psychological growth (Basu, Broad en Hintz 7). Tris literary leaps into the unknown in search of herself, when she jumps off a building into her new home. During this adventure she falls in love with Four, who will become an important factor in her journey towards moral perfectionism. Dystopias concern themselves with global issues like liberty and self-determination, environmental destruction and looming catastrophe, questions of identity, and the increasingly fragile boundaries between technology and the self (Basu, Broad en Hintz 1).
In a similar vein the Divergent series concerns itself with the issue of liberty and self-determination, since the faction system mandates that people choose to be in the faction that relates to their natural abilities. “Faction before blood” is a common phrase in the series. Even Tris remarks that societies leaders (like Erudite leader Jeanine, whom she is talking to at that point) do not want people to choose whatever they want and that the test should tell them what to choose. So, people do not really have the freedom, just the illusion of freedom during the choosing ceremony. Also, people do not really get to determine for themselves which future they get. This becomes abundantly clear when Dauntless instructor Eric announces that not everybody gets to stay at the Dauntless faction, only the best. The rest will become factionless.
The Divergent series also concerns itself with the issue of identity. Main character Tris struggles with who she is and where she fits in. She is Divergent and therefore can’t conform. She relates to all factions and as a consequence she does not feel she fits in anywhere. She is worried about what other people think of her, as is seen during the water box scene in her fear landscape. During this simulation she sees her friends behind the glass, laughing at her, but unable to hear what they are saying. In the end of the first film Tris states that she does not know who she is. Boyfriend Four replies with that he knows exactly who she is. In the second film Insurgent Tris needs to come to grips with what she has done to Will (her best friends boyfriend). Again, she struggles with herself and becomes her own worst enemy. The Box Jeanine finds in Tris’ parents’ house, can (ironically) only be opened by a divergent like Tris, provided she is able to come to grips with herself. The fragile boundary between technology and the self also plays a part in the series. In the film there are many instances in which Tris is placed in a simulated environment to see which choices she would make and how she would handle fear. Through technology the leaders are trying to see who they have in front of them. But together with boyfriend Four, Tris finds a way to cheat the system. Though the series play in a post-apocalyptic world, the issue
of environmental destruction & looming catastrophe does not play a huge part in the first two films. It is merely said that beyond the wall of the city of Chicago it is not safe. No one knows what is out there.
According to Basu, Broad and Hintz the main themes in dystopias are the threat of environmental destruction, post-apocalypse and conformity (Basu, Broad en Hintz 3). The film series show a post-apocalyptic world, but conformity is the main theme of the series. Tris, being divergent, is unable to conform to society and is therefore considered dangerous, especially in the first film. In order to not be discovered, she needs to find a way to blend into society. Even after her secret is discovered, she is forced to behave accordingly to the faction she is hiding at, which proves difficult. In this thesis I will explore how Tris uses conformity as a strategy to survive, but how she is naturally more inclined to do the opposite of conforming. I will argue this using Cavell’s reading of Emerson’s theory of self-reliance. While trying to survive it is paramount to Tris to know who she is. The issue of identity, that as stated above is one of the global issues dystopia’s concern themselves with, will be paired with the theory of self-transformation, which is the cornerstone to reaching moral perfection; both in the Emersonian and Cavellian sense.
The ethical mix: the political forces within the film world
As mentioned earlier, I will discuss four main movements in the philosophy of ethics: Universalism, Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics and Moral Perfectionism. These four movements are at play in the film world of the Divergent series as well. You could argue that it is the interplay of these movements that makes up a society, because a society rarely consists of just one movement. The movement that is most dominant, however, is what characterises the society. And it is this dominant movement that people are forced to conform to and are inclined to challenge. This strokes with Emerson’s saying: “The virtue most in request in society is conformity. Self-reliance is its aversion” (qtd. in Cavell 22). Cavell explains conformity as being asked to show consent to the society you live in. “(…) to recognize the legitimacy of its governing you” (Cavell 23). He puts this demand for conformity “as the expectation of your ‘taking your place’ in society” (Cavell 23). However, Cavell also assumes that we all recognize moments in our life where we do not see or like the place we live in and we merely take on the appearance of accepting it. According to Cavell we pretend to conform throughout our entire lives, but we first encounter it when we are coming of age. “I am assuming that we can all recognize such moments in our lives. They are not confined to the period between adolescence and the claims of adulthood, though they may be first encountered, and be concentrated, there” (Cavell 23). Self-reliance, as the aversion of conformity, happens when you stop pretending to conform and adopt “a counter way of life” (Cavell 22) to the most dominant ethical movement in society. The most dominant ethical movement in the Divergent series is Virtue Ethics, therefore this will be the starting point of explaining how the different ethical movements work together or against each other in the film series.
Virtue Ethics: the basis of the faction system
Virtue Ethics has played a large role in the history of philosophy. It goes back as far as the ancient Greek philosophers like Aristotle, Plato and Socrates. Virtue ethics is based on character traits; it is a disposition that will make a person do things in a certain characteristic way (Hursthouse and Pettigrove). Stanley Cavell describes it as follows: “(…) a study that puts emphasis on the assessment of a person and on a way of life, as opposed to features of actions and reasons for actions, is sometimes called virtue ethics” (Cavell 318). Joseph Kupfer says virtues are “excellent qualities of individuals that make them valuable to themselves and to other people” (Kupfer). So, Virtue Ethics has everything to do with what a person is naturally inclined to do in certain circumstances. Yet, one can nurture certain character traits in order to be the best you can be. There are many lists of virtues put together by philosophers. Aristotle has a list of twelve moral virtues: courage, temperance, generosity, magnanimity, self-confidence, proper ambition, good temper, truthfulness, wittiness, friendliness, proper shame and righteous indignation (Fieser). And Plato only has four: justice, wisdom, courage and moderation (Cavell 318). Socrates, Plato’s teacher, sees knowledge as the highest virtue: “If virtue is to be beneficial it must be knowledge, since all the qualities of the soul are in themselves neither beneficial nor harmful, but are only beneficial when accompanied by wisdom and harmful when accompanied by folly” (Ambury). To Socrates, thus, all virtues are meaningless, unless wisdom accompanies them.
The idea of cultivating peoples best qualities so they will be most useful to society is the central idea in the society that is in place in the Divergent series. Five factions make up this future society, with the ultimate goal of keeping the peace. The five factions are: Dauntless, Candor, Erudite, Amity and Abnegation. Dauntless is meant for those who have courage, bravery and strength. The people in it are trained to be societies protectors, their soldiers and police. Tris describes them as follows: “They're our protectors, our soldiers, our police. I always thought they were amazing. Brave, fearless, and free. Some people think Dauntless are crazy, which they kind of are” (Burger). Dauntless members are recognized by their black leather clothing and their tattoos and piercings. Their symbol is fire. About courage Kupfer says the following: “Courage seems to be an especially important and dramatic virtue of execution or willpower. We must be courageous when moral conduct is risky, and courage can be essential to the expression of other virtues. Individuals may need courage to keep their integrity, to be patient, or to maintain their loyalty” (Kupfer 26). The film will show that Tris is most courageous, more so then most Dauntless members, since they only follow orders. Tris, however, has the courage to defy an unhealthy regime.
Candor is the faction that is responsible for the judiciary system. “Candor value honesty and order. They tell the truth, even when you wish they wouldn't,” says Tris about them (Burger). The
audience only gets to meet the Candor faction and its facilities in the second film. Tris will then be forced to tell the truth by being injected with a truth serum. She does not like it, since by then, she has secrets about things she has done that she is ashamed of.
Erudite is the faction that is all about knowledge. “The smart ones, the ones who value knowledge and logic are Erudite. They know everything,” says Tris (Burger). When the audience hear her say this, they can almost hear her roll her eyes. It is a prelude to the role erudite will play in the film. Since they value knowledge, they feel that they should govern the city. They appear to have a Socratic view on knowledge and wisdom, since they feel superior to the other virtues in the city. They take the phrase ‘Knowledge is power’ to the extreme. Logic, they feel, is more important than human nature. In fact, they even want to eliminate human nature. It is this faction, and especially its leader Jeanine, that will be Tris’ main adversary in the first two films.
The hippies of the city are the people belonging to the Amity faction. They are all about kindness and peace. They dress in colourful clothes and are responsible for the food supply of the city. They work on the land as farmers and their symbol is a tree. Tris says about them: “Amity farm the land. They're all about kindness and harmony, and they are always happy” (Burger). The audience gets to know the faction in the second film, when Tris, boyfriend Four, brother Caleb, the partially untrustworthy Peter and Four’s abusive father Marcus are on the run from Dauntless and Erudite. Amity agrees to letting them hide at their faction, but only on the condition that they adapt to their lifestyle. Which turns out to be especially difficult for Tris, since she struggles with who she is. She does not like herself very much, due to what she did at the end of the first film. Plus, she has just come out a violent situation. Amity, or kindness, is a virtue that is not on the lists of every Virtue Ethicist, but is a virtue none the less. It is not in everybody’s nature to be passive when met with violence or unkindness. And it is not everybody’s virtue to be at harmony with nature and humanity. As is seen in the Erudite faction, where human nature is seen as a weakness.
Lastly there is Abnegation, the faction that values selflessness. Tris is born in this faction, so is her brother Caleb and her boyfriend Four. “My faction is Abnegation. The rest all call us stiffs. We lead a simply life, selfless, dedicated to helping others. We even feed the factionless, the ones that don't fit in anywhere. Because we're public servants, we're trusted to run the government,” says Tris (Burger). The people at Abnegation live a minimal life, they get by with the basic necessities. Everything else they give away to people who need it. They dress in raggedy clothes and are not preoccupied with how they look. Therefore they also rarely look in the mirror. Like Tris says, they run the government, to the dismay of the Erudite faction, who believe they should be in charge.
On the surface, the faction system seems to work, but underneath it crumbles. Most people know what is expected of them, they all do their job and society seems peaceful. The factions however, all have their own philosophy of what would be best for society, and do not fully trust the other factions
to do the right thing. It does not help that Erudite envies the governing position of Abnegation. Also, the faction system turns out to not be ideal for everybody. There is a chance you are not virtuous enough to fit in anywhere. In which case you become factionless. Or, in Tris’ case, that you are virtuous in all areas and become a threat to those that want to keep control over everybody.
The factions system in place in this future Chicago could be considered a thought experiment to see what would happen to a society and its citizens, if the virtues played a central part in the political structure. A film would certainly prove to be an ideal method to test this approach, since in real life one does not come across a society like this. And I assume it would be difficult to find volunteers to undergo such a political structure for a long period of time.
Hursthause and Pettigrove claim that the focus on the virtues only became the focus of Utilitarianism and Universalism (Kant did write about virtues, but it wasn’t under anyone’s attention before) after Virtue Ethics re-emerged: “Its re-emergence had an invigorating effect on the other two approaches, many of whose proponents then began to address these topics in the terms of their favoured theory. (One consequence of this has been that it is now necessary to distinguish ‘virtue ethics’ (the third approach) from ‘virtue theory’, a term which includes accounts of virtue within the other approaches)” (Hursthouse and Pettigrove). Hursthouse and Pettigrove also explain the difference between the three approaches:
It [Virtue Ethics, M.C.P.] may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent. (Hursthouse and Pettigrove)
In short, the motive a person has when, for instance, helping someone, is key to the approach used. A Utilitarian is motivated by the consequences, a Universalist is motivated by duty and a Virtue Ethicist is motivated by moral character. Although Virtue Ethics can stand on its own as an approach, it rarely stands alone in society. Sooner or later the other ethical approaches rear their (sometimes ugly) heads. As is the case in the Divergent series.
Universalism: “faction before blood”
Another ethical approach is Universalism, also known as Kantian ethics, which is based on the deontological approach. Deon is Greek for duty and the rest of the term translates to ‘study of logic’ (Alexander and Moore). So, duty and logic are central aspects of this ethical approach. “Kantianism seeks rationality in the universality of the principle on which one acts (it is against reason to exempt oneself from the judgement of one’s principles)” (Cavell 42). As said before, why you act, is important here. A universalist will act because it is the right thing to do, based on (universal) rules, even if it means that the consequences of this act are not beneficiary for you. A possible problem with Universalism is therefore that your actions might not bring you happiness (Staat).
In the Divergent series the faction system, which is based on virtue ethics, works because it is peoples duty to put the faction’s (and thereby the system’s) needs first. The system is thus kept in check by a Universalist approach. “Faction before blood” (Burger), is the mantra that the people of the city use to keep this principle in mind. It means that faction is more important than family. This becomes very clear in a conversation between Tris and the leader of Erudite Jeanine. Jeanine tells Tris point blanc that if asked, if she can count on Tris to do the right thing when it turns out that Abnegation (which includes her parents) is at fault (abnegation is accused of harbouring divergents); implying, would she kill her family if it is demanded of her to do so as a soldier or police officer. Jeanine expects Tris to uphold the law and not give in to natural tendencies. According to Jeanine, nature is the biggest flaw, because it defies logic and undermines the system she wants to keep in place. So, you could argue that to Jeanine conformity to the system is the highest virtue those that, according to her, do not have the intellect to rule the government can achieve.
Utilitarianism: Jeanine’s aversion to human nature
Contrary to Universalists, Utilitarianists are very much concerned with the consequences of one’s actions. Instead of doing what is right, despite of the consequences, it is considered best to do what does the most good. “The Classical Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, identified the good with pleasure, so, like Epicurus, were hedonists about value. They also held that we ought to maximize the good, that is, bring about ‘the greatest amount of good for the greatest number’” (Driver). The ultimate goal of Utilitarianists is to find happiness, because that is something that, according to them, everybody desires. However, we only know in hindsight that we desired it (Staat). And therein lies the crux. If you do not know for sure that something will make you happy, then you also do not know if what you are doing does the most good. The only thing you can go on is that your actions feel good; and this is highly subjective. When the pursuit of happiness is taken to its extreme, there is a possibility that the goal will justify the means (Staat). What is clear about this approach is
that they are the opposite of Universalists. Utilitarianists will not act based on duty and logic, if they know the outcome will not bring happiness; or at least they will be reluctant to do so.
Some Utilitarianists say that happiness is the will of God. David Hume however is “in favor of a naturalistic view of human nature and a reliance on our sympathetic engagement with others” (Driver). As I have described previously, in the film Jeanine sees human nature as a flaw. With this, she disregards Utilitarianism and along with that, she disregards the consequences of her actions. Her goal in fact is to eliminate human nature, by injecting people with a serum that will make them susceptible to suggestion. With this serum, she can control people’s minds so they no longer listen to their own desires, but follow orders without question instead. The only problem: divergents are immune to the serum. This is why Jeanine hunts divergents. Though she tells everyone they are dangerous, to her, they are just inconvenient. Divergents do not conform and therefore cannot be controlled.
(Moral) Perfectionism: a divergent way of life
So far I have discussed the three major ethical theories in modern culture, but Stanley Cavell proposes an alternative perspective: moral perfectionism. To explain this alternative he draws mostly on the theories of Ralph Waldo Emerson: self-reliance and perfectionism. Emersonian perfectionism does not strive for an utopian ideal (like the other three major ethical theories do). Instead, it encourages people to become intelligible about the world around them with self-transformation as its goal. This results in the afore mentioned self-reliance, where one moves away from conformity. So far, Cavell stays in line with Emerson. However, how self-transformation comes about differs between Cavell and his hero Emerson. According to Cavell there is a “lack of given means of making ourselves intelligible (to ourselves, to others)” and that this implies that people have a need of invention and of transformation (Cavell 26). He follows with two dominating themes in Emersonian perfectionism. “The first theme is that the human self – confined by itself, aspiring toward itself – is always becoming, as on a journey, always partially in a further state. This journey is described as education or cultivation” (Cavell 26). This could be explained as human beings being inclined to forever be scholars of life and cultivating their role in it. “The second dominating theme is that the other to whom I can use the words I discover in which to express myself is the Friend – a figure that may occur as the goal of the journey but also as its instigation and accompaniment” (Cavell 27). Within Emersonian perfectionism one aspires to change the world by reinventing relations with others. This requires a conversation with ‘The Friend’. The Friend will assist you in your quest to self-reliance, constantly question your sincerity, acknowledge your identity and hereby facilitates self-transformation. But, as Cavell shows in his studies of the melodrama of the unknown women, the female protagonist needs to reinvent herself without conversation with the Friend, since such a relationship is lacking. Therefore, Cavell’s notion of moral
perfectionism focusses on the individual.
Cavell writes the following about how moral perfectionism relates to the other major theories:
“Utilitarianism seeks rationality in the maximization of value (it is irrational to achieve less pleasure for fewer persons if you have the choice to achieve more for more). Kantianism seeks rationality in the universality of the principle on which one acts (it is against reason to exempt oneself from the judgement of one’s principles). (…) This is the aim of moral reasoning in perfectionism, not to assess pluses and minuses of advantage, nor to assess whether the act is recommendable universally, but yet to see to what those two standard theories wish to accomplish, namely that the one in question make himself intelligible, to others and to himself. Perfectionism concentrates on this moment.” (Cavell 42)
So, instead of doing something because it does the most good, or doing something because it is the right thing to do, perfectionists reflect on the options first, talk it over with the Friend and then decide what is the best thing to do in each situation. Perfectionism therefor does not dismiss the other major ethical theories, but merely reflects on them. But foremost, it is a way of discovering for oneself what kind of person one wants to be. It “focusses instead on the worth of a way of life, of my way of life, which has come to a crossroads demanding self-questioning, a pause or crisis in which I must assess something the romantics (explicitly including Emerson) articulated as the imperative to become the one I am” (Cavell 49). To Universalists and Utilitarianists “if an act is bad or wrong, then it is bad or wrong period; no matter who you are” (Cavell 50), but a perfectionist will take into account ones moral standing in the matter.
According to Sinnerbrink “Cavell suggests that narrative cinema is ideally suited for exploring characters embarking on a quest for self-knowledge or experience creative self-transformation; the ethical process, as Nietzsche described, of ‘becoming who one is’ (2007 [1888]), independent of canonical moral rules or abstract theoretical reflection” (Sinnerbrink 32). This is also the case for the Divergent series and its main character Beatrice ‘Tris’ Prior. She is on a quest to find out who she is and where she fits into the world. Especially now that she has learnt why conforming to just one faction, which is expected of her, is so difficult for her. She is divergent and therefor can’t conform. She can merely pretend.
Sinnerbrink claims there is great importance to adding Cavell’s moral perfectionist theory to cinematic ethics. He quotes film scholar David Rodowick saying Cavell is the one contemporary philosopher that deals the most with the problem of ethics in film and philosophy; especially by his reading of Emerson’s moral perfectionism. (Sinnerbrink 27). According to Sinnerbrink “Cavell has opened up the field of film-philosophy in ways that are only now being appreciated” (Sinnerbrink 27).
Sinnerbrink is most interested in Cavell because of “his claim that (Emersonian) moral perfectionism, as enacted in particular cinematic genres, offers a response to (cultural and moral) scepticism via its emphasis on creative self-transformation” (Sinnerbrink 28). What is meant by scepticism is that in modern society, with all its knowledge of the world and the questioning of traditional religious certainties, people do not know the world and the people in it (including themselves) with certainty. It is in art, through images, that people reflect on the world and try to make sense of it. And according to Sinnerbrink cinema holds a special position in this matter.
Cinema is the most accomplished expression of modernity’s technologically-mediated culture; it is the global art form that takes the visual rendering of the world through images to its apogee. It is both the highest exemplar of Heideggers’s ‘age of the world-picture’, the reduction of the world to an image-world, and the medium that explores all the possibilities of scepticism – of disconnection, disengagement, or isolation from the world – via the
mediation of moving images. (Sinnerbrink 30)
In other words, cinema holds the power to reflect on the world in a way other arts cannot, because moving images are most capable of reflecting real life. In light of these claims I would like to argue that cinema can make the spectator more knowledgeable about the world they live in and therefor gives the spectator a stronger basis for self-reliance. In the next chapters I will explore both films through the lens of moral perfectionism.
Conclusion: to be self-reliant is to be rebellious
The faction system that is in place in the film world is based on Virtue Ethics. The highest virtue the people of this future Chicago can reach is conforming to one of the five factions; preferably the faction that they have the most aptitude for. “Faction before blood” is the mantra that is employed in order to sway people into believing that this is the highest virtue. It is meant to have people chose duty over natural tendencies like choosing family and friends above all else. The Virtue Ethics approach that the society is based on is therefore kept in check by a universalist approach. There is a downside to the society that is in place. People that do not have a knack for any of the five factions run the risk of becoming factionless, which equates to being homeless and being dependant on handouts or stealing. These are the people that fall between the cracks of the system and are treated as social outcasts. It also instils fear in young people that have to make sure they fall in line with the faction system when they are at that age where they need to choose which faction they will spend the rest of their lives at. The aptitude test is meant to tell them which faction they would thrive at. For our protagonist Beatrice Prior this does not have the expected result. She is divergent, meaning that she has an aptitude for multiple factions. This means that she cannot conform like people are supposed to. The only options for her are either pretending to conform or deploying self-reliance. This is problematic, because this is
considered to be a threat to society. If you cannot conform, you cannot be controlled. To be self-reliant is to be rebellious.
Erudite leader Jeanine is most extreme in her views about conforming. She believes human nature is the enemy and she wants to eradicate it. She creates a serum which places people under mind control, removing “everything that makes up a person: thoughts, emotion, history” (Burger). With this act Jeanine forces them to conform and therefor takes away not only peoples identity, but also their liberty and self-determination; both are central themes in dystopia’s according to Basu, Broad and Hintz. To Jeanine the goal, creating a peaceful society in which the intelligent rule based on logic, justifies the means. This is a utilitarian approach. However, divergents are not affected by the serum and Jeanine decides to hunt them down. The utopia of the faction system has been taken to it’s extreme and has become a dystopia, especially for people like Tris. But Tris decides to fight the system by becoming more knowledgeable about the world she lives in. With this she follows a moral perfectionist approach, while cultivating skills that help her survive. In the next chapters I will analyse the films using a moral perfectionist lens. In the first film Tris clearly gets help from The Friend, in the Emersonian sense, who will come in the form of Four. In the second film however, Tris distances herself from Four by omitting the truth. For the second film I shall therefore focus on Cavellian moral perfectionism.
Chapter 2:
Fear as a divergent’s catalyst: conformity versus self-reliance
Introduction: who is Beatrice Prior?
In the opening shots of the film, Divergent (Burger), we see a future Chicago. The camera follows the sunrise outside the city until it’s at eyelevel and then pans left toward the city. The camera moves toward the city, rises to get over the electric fence and moves in further into the city (Figure 1). The camera movement and it’s pace might elicit the feeling that the spectator is being drawn into the city and into the story.
Figure 1: symmetrical shot of the city while camera rises over the electric fence (Burger)
All shots are symmetrical in composition, using the horizontal and vertical lines of the city: streets, bridges, gaps between buildings etcetera. The symmetry and the straight lines could be seen as soothing for the eye, making the spectator more accepting to what it sees. A diegetic voice over by main character Beatrice Prior tells us about this city. How it is divided into factions and that some people fit in naturally into those factions, but how she doesn’t know where she fits in. While Beatrice tells us about the society she lives in, images of the city and its factions are shown. The camera movement accelerates along with the music. Again, the spectator is taken along by the camera into the space and time the story takes place. Her own faction, Abnegation, she mentions last. About the faction system Beatrice says: “It all works, everybody knows where they fit in, except for me.” She says this while an aerial shot of the Abnegation neighbourhood pans toward the horizon looking out of the city. The image abruptly cuts to white and a fade in follows. The sound of scissors and hair falling down in slow motion follows. A moment in time seems to be extended, for it is an important moment: a conversation between mother and daughter on a very important day.
The first secondary character we meet is Beatrice’s mother, Nathalie Prior. She is cutting Beatrice’s hair and putting it in a bun. Unlike the opening sequence the camera movement comes to a halt after a slow motion shows the cutting of hair. It is a special moment which, as we will learn later on, Beatrice savors. Extreme close ups, close ups and medium close ups follow each other, as well as two-shots of Beatrice and her mother. They talk about the test and whether Beatrice is nervous. In the brief moment Beatrice gets to look in the mirror (at Abnegation mirrors are locked away in a cupboard) we see a shot/reverse shot of Beatrice and her mirror image. Abnegation members are not supposed to put their own needs above that of others; to not look to long in the mirror. Yet, Beatrice is worried about who she is and where she fits in. The moment she has with herself in the mirror signifies that. During this exposition the spectator has been acquainted with the city, the faction system that is in place and with the main protagonist Beatrice Prior. They have also learned what is worrying her, her biggest fear: not fitting in. A theme that might resonate well with the target audience of the film: young adults. Hearing Beatrice’s thoughts and worries while being drawn into the story by the camera movements is likely to elicit allegiance with Beatrice by the spectator.
As the exposition comes to an end the voice over stops and we no longer hear Beatrice’s thoughts. We do however see Beatrice’s nature and how she is held back by her brother Caleb. He is a little overbearing when it comes to Beatrice. He tells her what to do and how she should behave. When Beatrice sees another kid from Abnegation being bullied by Peter, a character we will come to know later on, her first instinct is to stand up for the kid. Caleb holds her back and tells her not to, and so she doesn’t do anything. It shows that Beatrice relies on her brother and doesn’t stand up to him. During this scene Beatrice is positioned in the middle of a group of people. She looks small and closed in. When her brother says: “Beatrice, don’t” he looms over her and Beatrice responds by keeping her head down. This ends when a group of Dauntless kids arrive. Beatrice is shown standing in front of the group, a bit larger than the rest, with her head held high. Beatrice is in focus, while the others are out of focus. There are several shots of her separately looking at and admiring the Dauntless faction. The purpose of this scene is to give clues about which faction the presented characters lean towards, but more importantly it is meant to have the spectator form stances toward several fictional characters that play a central role in the story. Plantinga makes an overview of stances the audience may have toward fictional characters. These stances are the following from negative to positive: opposition, antipathy, dislike, neutral interest, liking, sympathy, allegiance, projection2 (Plantinga, "I Followed the Rules, and They All Loved You More": Moral Judgement and Attitudes toward Fictional Charachters in Film 43). In light of the exposition it is safe to say that the spectator is supposed to form an allegiance with Beatrice and possibly even projection. It is shown that Beatrice has a tendency to stand up for others and protect
them from bullies, which may be considered an admirable quality. Unlike the others from Abnegation, she is not inclined to turn the other cheek. She shows she is more of a risk taker, but is held back by her brother Caleb. Although Caleb is a natural at helping people and would, according to Beatrice, fit perfectly in Abnegation, it also becomes clear how Caleb makes decisions in his life. He tells Beatrice to trust the test and the system that is in place. It is clear Caleb trusts science above anything else, like someone from Erudite would do. His phrase “It is not that hard, Beatrice”, after helping a woman up and him wondering why Beatrice did not help, could therefore also be seen in a different light. A deduction of logic: Abnegation is selfless, and therefore you help others. So perhaps helping others does not come as natural to him as Beatrice thinks, it is just pure logic when you are presenting yourself as belonging to Abnegation. He simply pretends to conform, because it is considered the smart thing to do; like Cavell says people do throughout most of their life. It is also a prelude to the relationship Beatrice and her brother will have in the future. Beatrice will, on various occasions, be disappointed in her brother, because he will not act on his feelings about something, but merely acts based on logic. Caleb siding with Erudite is another thing Beatrice will be disappointed about. The way Caleb behaves towards Beatrice, towards whom the spectator is encouraged to have an allegiance with, may elicit the spectator to dislike him. Presenting characters that are meant to be disliked may also strengthen the positive stance the spectator may have toward the protagonist.
It is now time for the film to expose the complications Beatrice faces and needs to overcome. The test all sixteen year-olds need to take is an aptitude test that will show them which faction they fit into best. The test however did not work on Beatrice. So, not only does Beatrice not know which faction she belongs to, the test doesn’t ‘know’ either. Also, she appears to be in danger, because she does not conform to society. Like Tori said, she cannot trust anyone, only herself. This scene informs the spectator of the main complication the protagonist faces. And the decisions Beatrice makes throughout the rest of the first film of the series, all stand in relation to this first and foremost complication. It is all about knowing who she is, where she belongs and who she can trust.
In this chapter I will explore how Beatrice deals with the fact that she does not fit into just one faction, like the system demands. Now that she has learned that she is divergent, she needs to figure out what that means and how she can navigate through the system that is in place. In other words, she needs to educate herself on life and cultivate her role in it, which, through Cavell’s lens, is the cornerstone in Emerson’s moral perfectionism. She needs to become intelligible about the world around her so she can reach self-transformation. Basically, there are only two ways to do this when considering Emerson’s theory and that is either by conforming or by its adversary: self-reliance. This chapter will show how Beatrice goes about doing this and as Emerson prescribes she gets help from ‘The Friend’, who will come in the form of Four. I will also show how her search for knowledge about who she is (as in: what is divergent?) and why she is considered a threat, creates suspense for the
spectator. Key ingredient here is ‘fear’, which forms the central emotion in this film. This I will do because, according to Sinnerbrink, it is important that spectators engage with the film world in order to elicit critical thinking.
Jumping into the unknown: a turning point for Tris
Now that the test is not the solution to knowing where she belongs, she needs to figure out another way to get the answer. Like Tory said, she can only trust herself, so she needs to learn to rely on herself. This is where the theory of self-reliance comes in. Beatrice is divergent, therefore she cannot conform and therefore she needs to find another way to live her life. At least she knows what she does not want. She does not want to stay at Abnegation, as she has mentioned during the exposition of the film. When she is walking home alone after the inconclusive test, she comes across a factionless woman who is going through a dumpster. That doesn’t seem to be an appealing future either. During dinner Beatrice is reprimanded by her parents for going home early without telling anyone. They explain that Abnegation, and especially its leaders (among which Beatrice’s parents) are under a lot of scrutiny from Erudite. During this scene the spectator sees the family sitting in a very dark room with merely one table light lighting up their faces (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Beatrice having dinner with her family (Burger)
The scene comes across as very secretive. Like no one is supposed to say out loud what Erudite is doing. According to her parents Erudite is discrediting Abnegation, making allegations about the way they govern, because in reality Erudite feels they should rule the government. This scene makes clear that Erudite is untrustworthy. The situation is also educational for Beatrice. She learns more about the politics that lie behind the seemingly perfect faction system. It is useful for her to know that Erudite has ulterior motives that might threaten society. They also discuss Abnegation leader Marcus’s son, who defected to another faction during his choosing ceremony. Rumours say that he defected because
his father was abusive. Beatrice’s parents say the rumours are not true and Beatrice’s mother says that children defect for all kinds of reasons. At this point we see Beatrice looking at her own reflection in her spoon (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Beatrice looking in the reflection of her spoon (Burger)
This signifies that she is already thinking about choosing another faction at the choosing ceremony the next day. The whole scene is meant to create suspense for the spectator, since they now know that there is something fishy about the presented society.
At the day of the choosing ceremony we can already see that Beatrice is starting reinventing herself. When the family is at the venue where the ceremony takes place they run into Erudite leader Jeanine. Beatrice is demure at first, needing her brother to introduce who she is to Jeanine. But when Jeanine remarks that she is sure their parents will support whatever choice they make, Beatrice finds the courage to speak up: “It’s not supposed to be a choice, the test should tell us what to do,” she says. When Jeanine responds that she is still free to choose, Beatrice remarks: “But you don’t really want that”. Her brother Jacob warningly says her name, but Beatrice looks at him like she doesn’t care for his belittlement. She responds differently towards her brother than she did before. It seems that Beatrice does not shy away anymore from confrontation, not even when it’s with a superior like Jeanine who is literally standing above her (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Jeanine lecturing Tris (Burger)
This indicates that she is already closer to making her decision as to which faction she will join, even if she does not fully realize it yet herself. Beatrice herself, still feels she does not really know where she belongs. This is shown when Jeanine says to the crowd: “The future belongs to those who know where they belong.” When Jeanine says this we see a shot of her from behind where she is in focus and the crowd is out of focus. Directly after her statement we see the focus shift. Jeanine becomes out of focus and Beatrice becomes now in focus instead.
After choosing Dauntless everything happens really fast. The music picks up, the camera movements are faster and the shots change at a higher pace. The Dauntless members are running in the streets. The mood also becomes hopeful and cheerful, which contrasts the tension of the previous scene. As Basu, Broad and Hintz said, hope besides fear characterizes young adult dystopia’s contrary to traditional dystopia’s. The sun is shining and people are cheering and laughing out of excitement. We see Beatrice smiling as well, she looks relieved. Now that she is with Dauntless she needs to keep up with the fast pace. She is clearly not used to this, as we see her being the last in the group at various moments. She is the last one to climb onto the train tracks that are high above ground level. She is the last to jump onto the train and she and her new friend Christina, whom she met on the train, are the last to jump out of the train onto the roof. But in the spirit of reinventing herself, she volunteers to be the first to jump off of the roof into a dark pit not knowing what lies at the bottom (. Just before she jumps we see a close up of Beatrice. It is a symmetrical shot with her in the centre. She takes a deep breath, closes her eyes and jumps (Figure 5).
Figure 5: A symetrical shot before Tris jumps (Burger)
The non-diegetic music stops and all we hear are the swooshing sounds of the wind as she falls down. We see shots of her falling. The most significant one being a worms eye view, where the camera is directly below Beatrice which shows her falling towards the spectator. Because the camera is looking up at the bright sky and the camera is positioned in a dark area, we only see a silhouette of Beatrice. The silhouette has the shape of a cross, because she holds her arms wide as she is falling down (Figure 6). As it turns out, there is a net at the bottom. When we see Beatrice lying in the net her arms are still wide and her legs are slightly bend. The shot of her lying in the net resembles Jesus on the cross Figure 7).
Figure 7: Beatrice lying in the net, resembling Jesus on the cross (Burger)
By being the first jumper of the group she sacrificed herself by jumping into the unknown. The idea of sacrifice is enhanced by the young man that helps her out of the net asking: “what, did you get pushed?” and Beatrice answering with “no.” Beatrice being presented as the sacrificial lamb is telling for her role in the films. She is the person that will ultimately be the one that will be considered the hope for humanity the founders of this society talk about in the message that is revealed at the end of the second film. It is a strong and iconic image that may ensure the audience having allegiance with her and possibly even desire to emulate her. The young man that helps her out of the net is Four. Beatrice gasps as he picks her up out of the net and we see his hands placed firmly around her upper body. He will become an important ally in the story. We can already tell that is the case by the shot and reverse shots between him and Beatrice, which give the illusion that they are the only ones in the room. He is kind to her and tells her she can pick a new name if she wants and after Beatrice introduces herself as Tris, he welcomes her. Beatrice changing her name to Tris is another sign of Beatrice reinventing herself.
Soldiers not rebels: Fear as a catalyst
The euphoric mood of the previous day does not last. The first bombshell is dropped by Eric, a not so kind Dauntless leader. He informs the initiates of a new rule: those that rank below the red line after the first and second training stage will no longer get to stay at Dauntless and become factionless. The first stage of training is physical and since Tris is born at Abnegation, she lacks physical strength. The threat of becoming factionless is enhanced when they see a bunch of factionless people during a run. Peter, the bully we met before, remarks: “check it out stiff, that’s going to be your new family.” And by stiff he means Tris. During her first fight, first jumper versus last jumper, Tris is knocked out. Upon looking at the scoreboard Tris is ranked 32 out of 33. Tris is worried. In the evening she meets Tori, the lady that altered her test results and send her home before anyone would find out about her being
