Idealism versus Pragmatism

Just finished watching this movie a couple of hours ago and it certainly was an intriguing film! I read some of the posts here where people suggested his trial
was about "being human" or about "original sin" and I just don't really see it that way. Here's what I think...

-- DO NOT READ THIS if you haven't seen the movie or if you are still enjoying the process of analyzing it yourself --

Josef K was an idealist. His view on "justice" was an ideal one. He saw justice as civilized, logical, fair, impartial and good. But that form of justice was an illusion and it's exact composition is specific to every single man who contemplates the idea. But his view of justice comes into conflict with the other justice depicted in the film which is a system built by elites and run by cynical, corrupt and manipulative pragmatists from top to bottom (though some submitted to it out of fear). This justice isn't fair, it isn't logical, nor impartial and it is hopelessly distant from the type of justice he envisages.

The story about the door and the guard represents the position Josef K finds himself in AS PERCEIVED BY the Advocate. Josef K on the other hand refuses to believe that there is nothing on the other side of that door and that if he keeps searching he will find a way through to the the salvation and vindication that surely awaits on the other side.

So like most idealists, Josef K was eternally hopeful and he continued to search for someone within this system who could help him. Enter the advocate played by
Orson Welles... a man full of sloth, gluttony, greed, wrath, lust, and envy. Like the nurse, he too is able to admire the idealism of these "accused." They find such qualities in people attractive. But idealism was to be damned for neither the advocate or the nurse were willing to leave the safety, comfort and material gain that comes from working for, in and with the system.

The nurse as well as the other women served to show us that Josef K had a weakness that he struggled with throughout the film. No man is perfect and despite his idealism, he was still just a man and was often tempted by these fast and beautiful women. Beautiful women can often blind a man and lead him into making some poor choices. (I have another theory that the older woman who worked at the gentleman's club and who lived in the next room represented a fantasy version of his own mother. Recall the pictures of "her" mother that both of them were protective of? Anyone know if the book's author had a mother who worked at such a club? Ok, enough of the Freud :) But some have commented that Kafka never intended for this book to be published and I believe I see why. It is a deeply personal work detailing his own weaknesses and failings. I mean, I won't even touch what "the painter" represents who they keep tucked away in that hot attic.)

But Josef K was too brave, too strong and incorruptible. And brave, strong, incorruptible idealists usually wind up dead. Look at Gandhi, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King Jr. - all assassinated. Unable to get Josef to buy into their corrupt system and to accept a perpetual, indefinite, and tainted role within that system, they came for him too in the end. The cowards threw him into a proverbial pit of despair but hadn't the nerve to kill him up close and personal with a knife. So they tossed a bomb and cowered til the deed was done.

I WANT to believe that Josef K was laughing at their cowardice and of his victory at not having his ideals taken away from him and for being strong, unwavering, unapologetic, and unshakeable, and unbroken in those convictions right up to the end. He didn't throw the bomb. He picked it up and embraced death and continued to laugh in triumph. When it came right down to it, he'd rather die completely than to live in some diminished capacity in that realm.

But in actuality, I think that this film is a pessimistic one and that it portrays THE PROCESS many of us (perhaps including the author himself) go through internally when we let our own youthful idealism be destroyed in the face of the cold harsh realities of life.

Overall, I tend to think that "justice" and the justice system serve as a general construct for that greater narrative -- a man's internal struggle to hold onto and remain true to his ideals (which can lead to hardships) and avoiding compromise and giving in to some evils in order to have an easier time on this earth.

Finally, I absolutely love Orson Welle's direction in this film. The set designs and the dark and windy halls and passage ways seemed to mirror the twisting confusion and conflict going on inside Josef's mind. In this regard, the film reminds me of M. Night Shylamalans allegoric tale "Lady in the Water." I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if "The Trial" inspired M. Night to write that script. "Lady In the Water" even starts off with a fable just like "The Trial."

My rating for "The Trial" - 9.5/10. We are truely fortunate to have rare films such as this to watch that are great visual productions with superb acting in addition to being challenging philosophical examinations of the human spirit.

p.s. There was a particularly interesting question posed toward the end by the Advocate. Is it a form of insanity to cling to one's ideals when you are in a
completely hopeless situation with no supporters, and facing a dire outcome such as death? Josef responded that he wasn't crazy and that he didn't consider
himself a martyr. He wasn’t doing this for anybody but himself. But is that crazy? Is not being able to come to grips with the practical realities of the world we live in and refusing to effectively play the hand we're dealt (as opposed to playing the hand we wish we were dealt) a sign of insanity or psychosis?

I suppose life is what we choose to make of it and if our choices for how we wish to live our life are removed, then we will never be at peace. Still, it makes you wonder.