MovieChat Forums > Billy Budd (1962) Discussion > The Real Villian

The Real Villian

posted 14 years ago by gary_overman
10 replies | jump to latest

Has anyone else noticed this story's real villian? Claggart was accusing Billy of mutiny, and he ends up striking Claggart over what was admittedly a trumped up charge by the Master-at-Arms. Here is the irony. According to the Mutiny Act, the law governing the Royal Navy at the time, mutiny could be punished at the discretion of the court-martial. This could be anything from a warning to the yardarm. On the other hand, the court had no discretion when it came to striking an officer.
This was a mandatory death sentence.
So, Claggart by hitting Billy with a charge having a potential death sentence, provokes him into an act that had a mandatory death sentence, insures that the object of his hatred will be hanged.
I would suggest that given the totality of his circumstances, (the fact that they were at war with the French, the fact that the average sailor in the Royal Navy at the time was likely to be an impressed man, or an outright criminal given the choice between jail or service aboard the King's ship, or a debtor, as opposed to someone who wished to 'join the Navy and see the world', or who was motivated by patrotism) Vere felt that he had to act decisvely or the crew's performance in an emergency would possibly be compromised.
Since the law was the law, Vere seemed to feel that there was no point in waiting for the admiral, since according to the Act, even his hands would be tied. In addition, with the crew that he had, any sign of weakness on Vere's part could be disastrous.
In short, Vere is shown to be a man faced with an awful choice. If he follows the law, then he in effect, abandons his conscience. If he follows his conscience, then he breaks the law, and is also faced with possible mutiny.
And at the time, the Royal Navy was under a greater threat of mutiny that normal, as two well-publicized mutinies had had just taken place, one at the Spithead in Hampshire and the other ocurred at the Nore near the head of the Thames.
So, in order to maintain what he sees as the necessary discipline, he has to show that he is willing to sacrifice anyone, even the most innocent, to achieve this. The law leaves him no choice in any event.
This, then is the real villian: the Mutiny Act. Given the circumstances, Vere makes the only choice that he can make and Melville does not condemn him.
What Melville does condemn is the harsh and merciless Act under which Vere was operating.

[–] rgcustomer 14 years ago

You're too easy on Vere. It's the "I was just following orders" excuse.

If the law is not serving justice, it must be ignored.

[–] gary_overman 14 years ago

<You're too easy on Vere. It's the "I was just following orders" excuse.

If the law is not serving justice, it must be ignored.>

No, actually, it is not.
The Nuremberg defense that you allude to, noble sir, applies only to acts done due to illegal orders. In other words, a military person cannot use this defense if, for example, he kills people that it is clear are non-combatants under orders of his commanding officer. The defense of "I was following orders" will not be allowed in this case.
The Mutiny Act was the legitmate law governing the Royal Navy at the time, and had been for about fifty years, and Vere was bound to follow it.

As for your feeling that laws not serving justice 'must be ignored', it seems to me that if this becomes the basis for compliance with the law, the question then becomes one of 'according to who?' For example, would a pacifist be justified in not paying taxes because in his view, it would not be 'just' to support a military force whose job includes killing? Or police work that sometimes involves the use of force?

No, my friend, while I admire your obvious sincerity, and I actually share your repugnance somewhat at Billy's fate, Vere still had no choice. Billy's doom was sealed when he struck Claggart, and Vere, actng as he was, as the agent of the law, had no alternative but to order Billy to the yardarm.

I stand by what I said in the OP.

[–] Bernnard_Black 14 years ago

Well said. While we might feel sympathy for Billy and want him acquitted, the fact is that he did strike a superior officer, and kill him...and not in self-defense. The rules, the LAW, made the punishment crystal clear. As Vere said, it wasn't an issue of doing what he wanted to do, but of doing his sworn duty. He didn't like it at all, and in the end it unhinged him. But he was doing his legal, proper duty. In fact, if he hadn't hanged him, he'd likely have been in serious trouble with the admiralty when he got back to port. This is one of those classic cases that shows the difference in doing the right thing, and the legal thing. Vere and the officers did the legal thing, even though they knew it was wrong to do so. But they can't be faulted for following legal orders, especially in war-time.

If Vere made a mistake, it was in not replacing Claggart earlier when he knew what kind of man he was. He could easily have promoted another into the position, and given Claggart another posting. I may be mistaken, but I don't beleive the position of master at arms was protected by a warrant (i.e., it's not a warrant officer position, like the sailing master, purser, bosun, gunner, carpenter, and surgeon are). In that case, Vere could do whatever the hell he wanted with Claggart, and busting him back a notch or two would have been ideal. He could have made him a bosuns mate, the armorers assistant, captain's clerk...anything. In fact, captain's clerk would have been perfect. He's educated, and by being with the captain most of the time he'd be safe from reprisals from the crew until he could be reassigned. But the fact is, Claggart should never have been allowed to stay in the position he was in...he ruined the ship's morale and turned the crew against an otherwise very decent set of officers. That's all on Vere.

[–] BobbyDupea 9 years ago

I agree that Vere was doing his legal duty, but you are wrong to conclude it was also "proper duty," and that Vere can't be faulted for following legal orders. The point of the movie is that they can be faulted for sticking stubbornly to the dictates of the law. Disobedience of the law was possible. In deference to the law in that situation, Vere would simply have to face the punishment meted out by his superiors later, but he had the option of disobeying the military law.

And, of course, disobeying the law would give rise to the issue of when disobeying the law is appropriate and when it is not. No clear line can be drawn that will be agreed to by everyone - if everyone decided to disobey any law at their discretion, obviously chaos would result.

My real name is Jeff

[–] Conspirator_Slash 14 years ago

Actually, the drumhead court is illegal. They should've waited till they joined the fleet. A proper court needs 5 to 13 captain (or higher rank) so what Vere does is against the rules. Of course, keeping the accused in irons when mutiny was in the air would be dangerous. So it's justified, but if Vere lived he'd have to face a court for his actions too. Just like in the original Somers case which inspired the story. The captain was absolved but had to go through a lot of procedures.

And Vere is just hopeless. He's the only witness. He could've said it was an accident and kept Billy out of suspicion. (Ok, no one really wants to lie when he just saw how liars end. Plus he's gay for Billy and can't admit it.)

[–] denham 12 years ago

If the three members of the court-martial had stuck to their original verdict notwithstanding the captain's disagreement, what would have happened? Vere says "I summoned this court, and I must review its findings and approve them before sending them on to the Admiralty." Would Vere, if unable to persuade the other officers to his way of thinking, have been able to set aside their verdict and substitute his own, making their participation merely decorative?

"I beseech ye in the bowels of Christ, think that ye may be mistaken."

[–] dannieboy20906 10 years ago

This story takes place in the summer of 1797. The British have been at war with France since 1792 stemming from the French Revolution and the invasion of France by Prussia. By 1797 France has the largest land army in Europe and possible the most powerful land army in the world. The only thing that stands between them and England is the Royal Navy.

From mid-April to mid-May 1797 the portion of the British fleet then at anchor in Spithead (the Royal Navy anchorage at the mouth of the River Test and almost directly opposite the Normandy coast) mutinied. Now, there is the Admiralty facing 16 ships-of-the-line in mutiny in the middle of a war. After careful and very quite negotiations, the Admiralty mostly gives in to the mutineers. When word gets out, the ships in the Nore (the mouth of the Thames Estuary) mutiny, and threaten to go over to France. This mutiny is put down brutally, with a total of 30 hangings, dozens of floggings, and many transports (exile to Australia). That summer and for several years after the Royal Navy is extremely anxious about mutinies.

Captain Vere is far from a great captain. He should have acted more quickly and with more resolution regarding the Master-at-arms. But captaining a ship of war in the 18th century is not an easy task.

Note the names of the ships. The merchant ship from which Billy Budd is pressed into service is "The Rights of Man," and he is pressed into service on board "HMS Vengeance." Mr. Melville I telling us a moral story here.

Captain Vere (probably a lieutenant commissioned as master and commander; brigs don't rate post captains) would be courting a mutiny if he allowed Billy to go, regardless of pretense.

[–] davidwile 10 years ago

Hey folks,

For me this is not about "The Real Villain." For me, there were multiple villains and multiple degrees of villainy depicted in this film. One can argue all sorts of reasons why Budd had to be hanged: to uphold the law, to keep from mutiny, for King and Country or whatever. When you cut through it all, these arguments are simply sophistry used as a tapestry to cloak the shortcomings of all the people who allowed the hanging to happen.

Yes, I know this film was a work of fiction, but it was made to get viewers to put themselves in the scene and come to grips with what was taking place. I also recognize the necessity for authority in society, but I despise the abuse of authority, and that is exactly what was taking place on this ship.

Claggart's villainy and abuse of power is obvious for everyone to see. What is perhaps less obvious to recognize is the abuse of authority and even abdication of authority by Vere and his officers.

Vere sets up a court martial of Budd wherein he claims to empower three of his officer staff to make the decision of the court as to Budd's guilt or innocence. When the court does not make the decision Vere desires, he then abuses his authority by forcing them to change their decision. The three officers of the court then abdicate their authority by caving in to Vere's arguments which they should not have been required to hear since they had their own authority as the court.

All people who are placed in positions of authority have a duty to that authority to use it fairly and not simply to their own personal interests. All their arguments about serving the law and their duty to country was just plain crap. They conspired to hang a man they all said was innocent and did not deserve to be punished, and they did it for their own personal interests. When Budd walked past them on his way to the noose, he looked each one of them in the eye, and they all looked down in their shame.

Duty and honor? No way - it was abuse of authority for their own self interest. Duty and honor are made of sterner stuff.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

[–] dannieboy20906 10 years ago

I agree with you in so far as the hierarchy of authority failed. To much authority was delegated to Master-at-arms Claggart. The officers neglected to exercise proper oversight of his exercise of the authority delegated to him. I think this was much of what Melville was writing about in the novel.

Herman Melville wrote his unfinished novel in the late 19th century, as the armored steam powered cruiser was replacing the wooden sailing ship and as the Dreadnaught era was approaching. The navy, both the Royal Navy and the United States Navy (and probably every other navy in the world) was progressing rapidly in technology while it held on to a tradition that evolved in the days of wooden sailing ships.

Much leadership and authority was delegated by the officers to senior enlisted men (though the master-at-arms is a warrant). We have a saying that I emphasize often to my junior officers: "you can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility." That means that the officer of the deck, watch, division, etc. retains the responsibility for the actions taken by the officers, warrants, and petty officers junior to him.

Nevertheless, those errors having occurred, and the blame for the punishment that devolved onto Able Seaman Budd, the court martial needed to occur to maintain military discipline. The only responsible agency that would be likely to condemn the officers in charge would be their own consciences, but they were liable.

Chances are had this story actually occurred as the fictional drama displayed, none of the officers of the HMS Vengeance would have high prospects for promotion and success in the Royal Navy. The word would pass, and they would struggle for eminent appointments without success. But, at least they would live and draw pay. They would be much better off than Billy.

[–] marktayloruk (2591) 3 years ago

If Vere had acquitted him , who'd have known if he hadn't put it in his report?