Wermuth 1

Aaron Wermuth

Dr. Shai Binderman

Screened Ideas: Thinking Through Film and Television

5 June 2015

Ethics in Review of Cheap Thrills & Big Bad Wolves

Introduction

The how far would you go trope has been a major part of film in 2013. The two films I

have selected for this paper are perhaps some of the most interesting to implement it in a long

while. Both of these films are tremendously dark and full of ethical dilemmas at every point in

their plot. These dilemmas result in the viewer questioning their own ethical compass and this is

a big part of the wonder of film. To implant in us some kind of ethical break with reality to

reevaluate our senses of right and wrong. I have attempted to limit the spoilers while analyzing

the ways that the films grapple with their ethical dilemmas.

Cheap Thrills

Cheap Thrills frames itself as an outrageous night/party that takes a horrible turn not

because of external events but by the decisions of the characters. Taking from the popularity of

movies like Project X and The Hangover it sets up an interesting evening of two old friends

meeting in a bar after a number of years and talking about their lives. Craig had just lost his job

when up next to him at the bar sits Vince. They then encounter a couple that is willing to bet

them money to do crazy things which all start in good fun but grow increasingly more dangerous

Wermuth 2

and violent. The main characters, Vince and Craig, are given a dare and that dare is associated

with a certain amount of money. This how far will they go scenario pushes extreme ethical

boundaries in which surprisingly they oblige one after the other.

Big Bad Wolves

Big Bad Wolves is perhaps the most complex israeli crime/revenge movie ever made. It

uses a lot of popular tropes and weaves them into a web where the audience is actually

disoriented by the way they are informed of the story and the backstory. The easiest way to

explain this film is as a revenge drama with extremely violent torture scenes. New elements are

introduced one after the other that make us think the moral and ethical checks and processes of

our society will implement but they fail to do so. The audience is left trying to grapple with the

concept of at what point justice is served and at what point insanity is achieved. This film sets a

new bar for how far will they go in that question if death is an ethical resolution of grief.

Analysis

So here we have two films which come out around the same time and are working with

the ethics of two questions not entirely unrelated. In Cheap Thirills the question being asked is

what is the value of murder? This is compounded with a number of different caveats through the

plot but in general that is the final question of the movie. In Big Bad Wolves the question being

asked is related but a little different; what is the value of revenge? Both of these films subject

their audience to specifically cringe-worthy moments of torture and mutilation on the way to

their resolution. Leaving the audience in a precarious situation of uneasy disapproval and/or

Wermuth 3

satisfaction based on their ethical tolerance to what is being displayed on screen. And even

makes the audience ask themselves, is it ethical to even place a value on either of these concepts

or actions? As an ethical person should it even be a debate or a line where the subject decides

what is right and wrong or is there a categorical imperative or universal truth of right and wrong

that determines the answer to this question regardless of society or situation. Our god-fearing

father of modern philosophy Immanual Kant would say that the latter is the rule and always the

rule. Both of these films I believe take the opposite course they seem to display this radical world

that everyone and everything is a bit out of place the cop is doing dirty interrogations, the

suspected murderer gets away with the crime, the father loses hope in the system to protect his

family. Most of them are a bit vigilante and doing something wrong they think for the right

reasons. These films in particular have an issue however in overloading us with moral choices.

The characters in both films are given choice after choice without receiving the expected real life

consequences for their choices.

Conclusion

This is where the screen kind of leaves the philosophy to the audience to either take a

film at its shock and awe entertainment excitement value or to truly and deeply consider stepping

into any of the shoes of the characters and wondering the questions. How far would I go to get

revenge? How much is murder worth to me? and last but not least, Why has this film made me

think or feel this way? I think that is where the inspired philosophical screen comes to life and

stimulates new stories and new boundaries to bust through and test the viewers to be better

thinkers, curious minds and better people.

Wermuth 4

Works Cited

Big Bad Wolves. Perf. Tzahi Grad, Lior Ashkenazi, Rotem Keinan, Doval'e Glickman. Magnet Releasing, 2013. Film.

Cheap Thrills. Perf. Pat Healy, Sara Paxton, Ethan Embry, David Koechner. Drafthouse Films, 2013. Film.