MovieChat Forums > Seven Waves Away (1957) Discussion > The captain was a FIEND!

The captain was a FIEND!

posted 15 years ago by badnomad
8 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this film. (Amazing and unforgettable!) What I was really struck by was that the captain ordered the others to dispatch the "unworthy" overboard, even at gunpoint. Why did he force the others to play such a criminally active role and not do the deed himself? It's easy to be "brave" when you are forcing others to commit such a heinous act. I had no respect for the character for this reason. He should have been given the death penalty when found guilty of murder.
Through no fault of his victims he sentenced his those to death. If he was such a student of the randomness and cruelty of fate, he should have accepted his own fate even after rescued.

[–] foster1234 15 years ago

As the captain of the ship(lifeboat) he was responsible for the safety of the ship and to save those he could. He ordered others to do those things and absolved them of any future guilt.

It was a hard decision and someone had to make it, as captain it was his job. Had they left those others on board, all would have died.

In a world where a carpenter can be resurrected,anything is possible

[–] Caractacus23 13 years ago

I hate to sound smug, but...if you paid adequate attention to this film, you'd know that if the Captain hadn't thrown those people overboard, the boat would have capsized during the storm, and they'd have all drowned. It was a very unpleasant task to decide who gets overthrown (and who doesn't), and the Captain clearly didn't relish it. But he did do what was absolutely necessary, and if he had shirked his duty, everyone would have died. That would have made him a fiend.

Your analysis of this film is the hysterical wailing of a child, not an adult's opinion.

[–] artemis_1986 13 years ago

No; it is not the hysterical wailing of a child. The point is fairly logical. The Captain is responsible for the lives of everybody on board, INCLUDING the ones he threw overboard. Following that logic he only saved half the lives he was responsible for, and at that the easiest ones to keep alive.

Any nominal integrity Powers' character may have had vanished the moment he failed to throw the child overboard (as heartless as that sounds). He did not obey the rules he himself had set; the child was 'deadweight' and needed to be jettisoned (following his logic). If this did not happen he had no right to throw anyone else overboard.

What you then have is a man who throws sick, unconscious people, incapapable of self defense, out into the open sea. The criteria for who is cast out is not strictly adhered to, which makes this man a hypocrit as well as a murderer.

Furthermore, no attempt is made to improve the situation. In the beginning the lifeboat finds itself in the middle of a debris field. It is possible to steer and propel the lifeboat. Why then does the Captain not try and find suitable pieces of flotsam for smaller rafts to get people out of the lifeboat and water?

I am not suggesting that this would have saved them but it would have lightened the load in the boat and given the evicted tenants a chance of survival. Instead this man did nothing but bob about in a boat until a storm threatened to swamp the boat and he started chucking the weakest links out of the boat.

Like I said before; this man was a hypocritical murderer who lacked any creativity. This lack of positive thought sent a number of people to their deaths and turned the rest of the people on board the lifeboat into his accomplices, following orders or not.

[–] jescci 11 years ago

To do the throwing over himself would diminish his authority. Without it, given human nature and the established unrest of the survivors, chaos and the assured death of all would ensue.

The movie tipped that Alec's actions were correct in that it was the advice given him - albeit indirectly - by the two most sensible, experienced, courageous and selfless characters on the lifeboat: Captain Darrow and Frank Kelly.

[–] gribfritz2 11 years ago

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you juror #1.

[–] jgroub 10 years ago

Furthermore, no attempt is made to improve the situation. In the beginning the lifeboat finds itself in the middle of a debris field. It is possible to steer and propel the lifeboat. Why then does the Captain not try and find suitable pieces of flotsam for smaller rafts to get people out of the lifeboat and water?

I am not suggesting that this would have saved them but it would have lightened the load in the boat and given the evicted tenants a chance of survival.

While I don't agree with the rest of your post, I do agree with this part. There was no reason not to do this immediately.

I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

[–] missy (174) 7 years ago

*****SPOILERS****

"The Captain is responsible for the lives of everybody on board, INCLUDING the ones he threw overboard. Following that logic he only saved half the lives he was responsible for, and at that the easiest ones to keep alive."

If he hadn't ordered some overboard, they all would have died. The boat was only meant for 9, not 26.

"He did not obey the rules he himself had set; the child was 'deadweight' and needed to be jettisoned (following his logic). If this did not happen he had no right to throw anyone else overboard."

He set rules, and they were HIS rules. He chose to make an exception, since both mother and father were being cast into the sea, in order that there would be a future for that family. I don't see him as a hypocrite. I don't envy him, either.

"What you then have is a man who throws sick, unconscious people, incapapable of self defense, out into the open sea. The criteria for who is cast out is not strictly adhered to, which makes this man a hypocrit as well as a murderer."

I would love to see how you would have handled it. I assume everyone would have ended up dead under your watch. The man was in an impossible situation. Perhaps he should have kept all of the sick people and thrown the healthy ones into the sea?

"Furthermore, no attempt is made to improve the situation. In the beginning the lifeboat finds itself in the middle of a debris field. It is possible to steer and propel the lifeboat. Why then does the Captain not try and find suitable pieces of flotsam for smaller rafts to get people out of the lifeboat and water?"

Because at that time, it had not dawned on him not to try and save all 26 people. He still had faith he could save all of their lives. The more experienced captain and the other mate helped him see this was not the case. Even if he had done that, those people would have been likely doomed, as no S.O.S. signal had been sent.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]