Dammit, Would You Rather could have been a good movie if they would’ve just tweaked a few dozen hundred things.
First off, let me just give you a brief synopsis of what this movie is about. Alright, the movie starts off by focusing on the pretty blonde girl. So already you know that this is the chick that’s going to survive the whole ordeal. That realization out of the way we find out that her brother needs a bone marrow transplant but, guess what, she doesn’t have any money. Yep, she’s strapped for cash and she has no relatives or church charity to fall back on. I guess that only means one thing: accept an offer by some creepy guy that inexplicably shows up in your doctor’s office and join him for a night of some big “Game.” The winner of this mysterious game will have all their problems taken care of for them – and then some.
Sounds like a good deal, right? Well, it turns out the doctor that Iris is seeing (that’s the cute blonde’s name…Iris – do you get the movie poster now?) was the winner of this game at one time. Oh, he has an enormous scar on his face that looks like it got there by someone spitting battery acid on him. I’m sure everything’s on the up and up though.
Well, we wouldn’t have a movie if she said, “no, I’ll just get the operation and be in debt for the rest of my life.” So she gets all gussied up and heads over to the mansion for a night of fun and hi-jinx.
Here’s the second-of-all: I have to clear up what I mean when I use the word “altruist” in my title.
A lot of people think that “altruism” and “benevolence” are the same word. Essentially, altruism is self-sacrifice for a lower value. If you think of all the values in your life you’ll probably list your spouse or your child as your highest value. So doing whatever you can do to support your highest value is beneficial to both you and your highest value. Got it? So it’s not a “sacrifice” if you do something you don’t want to do to benefit your highest value. But it is a sacrifice if it’s for a lower value. For example, if you’re going to the pharmacy to buy medication and on your way there you see a homeless guy then give that homeless guy the only money you have to buy medication because you think it’s your “duty” as a citizen, Christian, or whatever – that’s a sacrifice. You don’t know that homeless guy and for all you know he could just run around the corner and blow it all on comic books and moldy tangerines.
Basically, your life should be a high value to you. A stranger should always be a lower value than yourself. Whatever supports and gives you life is a high value. Whatever takes away and hurts your life is a lower value. Even though a stranger might be a great person they are still a lower value than you. Your life is the only thing you truly own. It is the only thing that is truly yours. You only have one life to live and you shouldn’t fritter it away with the belief that self-sacrifice is a good and noble thing. So never take values out of the equation when you’re talking about benevolence and sacrifice.
I understand that self-sacrifice makes great cinema but it’s portrayal of being noble is infiltrating the brains and the philosophy of the public at large.
Nathaniel Brandon summed up nice in his “Benevolence vs. Altruism”:
“By the nature of the altruist ethics, it can engender only fear and hostility among men: it forces men to accept the role of victim or executioner, as objects of sacrifice or profiteers on human sacrifices—and leaves men no standard of justice, no way to know what they can demand and what they must surrender, what is theirs by right, and what is theirs by favor, what is theirs by someone’s sacrifice—thereby casting men into an amoral jungle. Contrary to the pretensions of altruism’s advocates, it is human brotherhood and good will among men that altruism makes impossible.
Benevolence, good will and respect for the rights of others proceed from an opposite code of morality: from the principle that man the individual is not an object of sacrifice but an entity of supreme value; that each man exists for his own sake and is not a means to the ends of others; that no one has the right to sacrifice anyone.”
Altruism vs. Benevolence is the core of “Would You Rather.” However, what ruins it is that it’s based on a game run by a wealthy man that is evil because he is wealthy. And for some god damn reason most films coming out these days think that if you’re successful, if you’ve built a business, and if you have money then you’re evil. Apparently the only way you can get anywhere in life is by stepping on others. At least, that’s what I’ve been taught by Hollywood.
So, of course, the villain in this movie is a wealthy man with a second-hander son.
This wealthy man holds a game every year where he, his son, and his servants make people play Would You Rather until only one person is left alive. They make it very clear that if you don’t participate, if you bow out, then you’re dead. Try to escape? They’ve got guns. Take too long to decide on what you’re going to do? Shot in the head.
So you can either make a mad dash to the door and hopefully flee, make a run to your captors and hope that everyone joins in and kills them before they kill all of you, or you can play out the game and kill everyone else off.
Because this game runs like this: it’s you versus them – kill them or we kill you.
My problem is with the entire cast minus Sasha Grey’s character. It seems like everyone at the table wants to help each other out…but not Amy. Amy is Sasha Grey’s character and she’s a real bitch according to everyone else because she’s only out for herself.
Everyone at the table wants to band together and either “take one for the team” or hurt themselves. But the only thing this does is prolong the game and weaken the players. Helping the others out only keeps them around long enough for the game to come back around to you so that someone else has the opportunity to kill you.
Let me get this straight, the one character that realizes that everyone around her is going to die and then acts accordingly is a “bitch” and is “crazy.” Well, while you’re helping out the person next to you you’re only prolonging the inevitable. You’re all going to die – no doubt about it. So you can either finish the game or make it go on longer. Amy figured that shit out and became the outcast of the bunch.
One person tried to leave – shot. One person tried to find back – shot.
Only at one point did one other character realize that Amy was right the entire time. But it was too late.
So that’s why I say that the movie almost indemnifies the altruist. If it wasn’t for that one character realizing, “oh shit, unless I kill everyone else off then I’m going to be dead as well” the whole movie would be a wash for me.
The movie had a lot going against it. It’s typical torture porn. It’s just one of those movies where the premise is weak; it only exists to show a bunch of uncomfortable scenarios. The ending is very weak, unsatisfying, and extremely predictable. But the real thing that kills it for me is the underlying theme that the people that just get through life and want an easy way out with their problems are inherent victims preyed upon by the ruling class.
But maybe you’ll enjoy the movie if you don’t think about all that stuff.
