MovieChat Forums > The General's Daughter (1999) Discussion > Is betrayal, like portrayed in this movi...

Is betrayal, like portrayed in this movie, really the worst deed of all?

posted 4 years ago by TheMan18 (13015)
13 replies | jump to latest

Worse than murder or indeed rape as told in this movie, even if perhaps, Travolta's characters, and Woods' one for that matter, meant it more metaphorically, as in the previous deeds, one can destroy a life and another one's honor but also can destroy directly or indirectly one's life and cause major health and other grievous issues etc, but then if a father betrays his daughter like that and decides for his own self interests not to help track down the people who violated her and shown no care and compassion for his victimized daughter so openly like that, that makes him almost as bad but perhaps in his own way as either the men who raped her or that man who killed her or maybe not necessarily worse than them but bad in his own way?

Also, I noticed quite a few reviews even back in 1999 when this movie was released, before internet and various focus groups and social media (although it also existed back then, but today it seems common place and everywhere thanks to our digital age), criticize this angle in thinking that betrayal and rape are on similar levels whereas rape is truly so horrible on its own with many people believing it is worse than murder etc but then it could also be that betrayal like shown in this movie is bad enough in its own way and perhaps although we don't want anything bad happening anyway, we often don't expect our relatives like our fathers to turn away like this and sink so low and maybe Travolta's character was also expressing a disappointment that there is no legal aspect as in a betrayal of that sort is not made illegal and he feels James Cromwell's character should also face consequences.

Anyway, what do you think?

[–] Philhelm (508) 4 years ago

I don't think the assertion needs to be taken literally, although the Ninth Circle of Hell is reserved for treachery, so there is precedent to the belief that betrayal is one of the gravest sins. I don't think it's so much of a matter as to whether betrayal is actually worse than murder, rape, etc., but that the act of betrayal compounds the egregiousness of the crime itself.

At least for the context of the film, Travolta told Cromwell that his daughter "died" seven years prior, and that Hutton only put her out of her misery. This was obviously metaphorical, but it could be argued that much of the psychological trauma, her reckless sexuality, and the final act that inadvertently led to her death were ultimately due to her father's one act of betrayal. Had her father not betrayed her, or even if he had not left her that night in disgust, she would have lived. From that perspective, it could be argued that years of psychological torment is worse than a rape or a murder, but it's always going to be subjective. Even the brief discussion of psy-ops within the film mentions that the fear of egregious injury can be worse than the fear of death, so it at least ties in with the theme.

[–] TheMan18 (13015) 4 years ago

Also, is it really realistic in terms of how they covered the original crime of rape against Elizabeth up? And given how Sunhill (Stowe's character) and Travolta's Paul Brenner claim to have found the culprits "with the minimum of trouble", why at the time were they so adamant on believing that "they will never find them and thus never know who did it" etc?

And was James Cromwell's character always a dark and greedy shady one with the rape incident and his ultimate indifferent reaction to it just ultimately bringing his true colors to light or could it be possible that he may have been at least a decent person before but somehow given his desire for power and career upgrade and an inability to properly handle an incredibly delicate and difficult situation after what happens to his daughter, he became rather gutless and ultimately chose the wrong option and has decided through a series of unfortunate incidents to simply not back down?

And let's say he was always a potentially dark and sinister person, when Travolta confronted him alone etc in scenes towards movie's end, could he have found the power in himself to strike back at Travolta's character and scare him off the investigation or fire him etc, so that he ultimately could get away with it or was he neither that sinister NOR powerful DESPITE turning away from his daughter like that and not hiding it and ultimately ending up responsible for her death?

[–] Philhelm (508) 4 years ago

I don't think that the rape cover-up was all that realistic, especially considering the number of witnesses that would have been involved with her rescue, transport, and medical treatment. Within the context of the film, my interpretation is that the Citadel Commandant knew the identity of the culprits but fed Cromwell the lie that they wouldn't be able to locate them, and that it would hurt the Army. I think it could go both ways that Cromwell believed that or that he got the hint that the assailants should be kept secret for the sake of the Army. At the very least, he seemed genuine within the flashback when he stated that he wanted justice, until the Commandant advised against pressing the issue.

Cromwell obviously chose career advancement over the crime committed against his daughter, but I also think that it isn't unreasonable that Cromwell was glad that Travolta identified the rapists. He seemed amicable until Travolta accused him of "killing" her years prior. I don't think there is anything that Cromwell could do against Travolta at that point, regardless of rank, since Travolta had the evidence he needed.

[–] crc32 (2584) 3 years ago

The point is she was raped and the father sold her out to save the military face. Its worse then rape because here own father threw her under the bus when she needed him the most, and also because it implies he pretty much condoned rape as west point was more important then his daughters trama.