Enzo

In 2025, when the film, Enzo, was released, Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine was still in progress before being overshadowed in the media by fresh American and Israeli military attacks in Iran. The film distinguishes the respective attitudes of two Ukrainian construction workers in the E.U. state of France regarding whether to return to Ukraine to join the army. This contrast implies that patriotism, and, moreover, duty, is a weak force in human nature, even when a citizen’s country is in serious, existential trouble in being invaded by an empire-scale military aggressor.

In the film, the Ukrainians’ dilemma is overshadowed by the salient class distinction between Enzo’s upper middle-class family and a vocation of manual labor, including construction work. Enzo’s father, Paolo, may even take Enzo’s desire to continue as a construction-apprentice as a personal betrayal. Even though Enzo is only 16 years-old, he is able to “hit” back during a family dinner at home by characterizing his father’s academic profession as utterly fake (for what use is “book” knowledge?), especially relative to construction because, Enzo says, walls continue to stand even when the human beings who dwell within them have died. That Enzo’s own natural proclivity to draw would, as a profession, which Paulo is urging Enzo to adopt, be one of manual labor goes unsaid in the film. By implication nonetheless, the intricate use of fingers is of higher social class than the sore, blunt use of hands. To be sure, getting rich by selling art is heard of, whereas how many construction workers get rich by overlaying brick and mortar?

Enzo is, as a typical teenager, lost, and therefore needs time to find himself. His crush on Vlad, one of the Ukrainian construction workers, attests to the boy’s jejune state. Even his claim at the end of the film, on the phone to Vlad who has called in the midst of a battle in Ukraine, of having “fallen in love” with Vlad cannot be taken seriously. The film’s political and economic ethical elements are so salient that Enzo cannot be labeled as gay cinema.

Even though the ethic of socio-economic class is more salient than is the political leitmotif, the stark contrast in an early conversation between Miroslav and Vlad, the two Ukrainian guest-workers in the E.U., is riveting and thus worthy of notice and elaboration. Whereas Miroslav strongly feels a sense of duty to return to Ukraine to take up arms against the Russian invaders because “I might not have a country to come back to,” Vlad recognizes no such duty. Of course, the Ukrainian government is not going to forcibly grab Vlad and return him to his native country, and Vlad undoubtedly knows this, so his disavowal of a basic duty in citizenship can stand. Both men know that Miroslav’s intent to return to Ukraine is entirely voluntary, and it is precisely in this regard that duty can be understood as being a weak force in human nature. For all that deontologically-oriented ethicists make a big deal out of duty per se (e.g., Kant), the force, like gravity, is actually weak. The fullness of emotion that people in the rapture of fulfilling a duty belies the fact that duty must be willed, and slavish attachment to momentary pleasure is actually a stronger force as an instinctual urge.

So it is interesting, as well as perplexing, that both of the Ukrainians tell their construction boss that they would be returning to Ukraine (implication: to fight) in two weeks without anything in the screenplay as to how or why Vlad changed his mind. The oversight, or leap, can be construed as an understatement concerning how much mental effort is involved in a change of will. It is not as if Vlad suddenly grew an internal sense of duty. Presumably Miroslav had said something that convinced Vlad to return to fight. It is precisely because duty is so voluntary, unless mandated by a government at gun-point or threat of imprisonment, that Miroslav’s rationale is so crucial to Miroslav’s change of heart—or is the rationale more practical in appealing to Vlad’s self-interest? In not furnishing an answer, the film falls short in terms of political theory, whereas the socio-economic ethical tension is more fully depicted and resolved as Enzo capitulates to his parents’ world after having tried to commit suicide at the construction site, for going to New York to learn English can be construed as being on track to eventually joining his parents’ echelon vocationally, even as an international artist whose art sales could benefit from connections made in New York. Such a world is miles way from that of a construction worker. 

In contrast, Vlad being scared to death by bombs exploding nearby in Ukraine—how he got to that point—is unexplained and thus unaccounted for. Next to such fear, and even the anticipation of such fear, the emotive sense of duty is weak. Even in Hobbes’ Leviathan, the instinct for self-preservation can legitimately be acted upon even against a sovereign power. Whether a “right” or not, self-preservation is an inalienable feature of human nature even after an alleged social-contract by a group of people to give up power (even to interpret scripture!) to a sovereign power, whether a king or legislative assembly.  

Iván & Hadoum

As the protagonists in the film, Iván & Hadoum (2026), neither Iván nor Hadoum, who fall in love, are heterosexuals even though by all appearances, save the long surgical scares under Iván’s former breasts, the couple is a man and a woman, and indeed Iván psychologically identifies himself as a man and Hadoum is a woman both biologically and in how she sees herself. To claim that Hadoum is heterosexual simply because Iván views himself as being a man, even though Hadoum is sexually attracted to Iván’s vagina, would be utter ideological nonsense. Besides being gay or bisexual, and thus easy targets for discrimination by agriculturalists in southern Spain, the two people are of different national origins, for Iván was born in Spain whereas Hadoum’s family hails from Morocco. Additionally, Iván is Caucasian whereas Hadoum is an Arab, and Iván is Christian whereas Hadoum is Islamic. Even in terms of labor-management relations, the couple is ripe for division by other people, for Iván is on a management tract—the warehouse being still owned by his uncle Manuel—whereas Hadoum is a greenhouse/warehouse worker, and a disgruntled one at that. It would seem that Ian de la Rosa has written and directed a film in which many ethical tropes are in play; which one is subject to the most unethical harm goes unanswered. Even so, by including unethical conduct on all of them, the film takes a step in the direction wherein audiences can think philosophically in weighing the ethical harms relative to each other.

Iván is a fork-lift driver in the warehouse when the film begins, and Manuel promotes him to being a line supervisor with an eye to possibly making him the warehouse manager. Iván wants the position because he needs it in order to get a loan. Meanwhile, Hadoum sorts vegetables on a line alongside other non-supervisory employees. Manuel’s attitude and labor practices incur resentment, and even resistance, from the line-employees, including Hadoum even after she has fallen in love with Iván. Perceiving that the two are “thick as thieves,” Manuel becomes suspicious of Iván and even uses him to manipulate Hadoum into stopping the workers from undermining Manuel’s efforts to sell the warehouse to an interested buyer. Iván reluctantly agrees, on condition that Manuel not fire Hadoum, but Manuel does not keep his side of the bargain and Iván confronts Manuel in front of the buyer at the warehouse. Hadoum, already fired by that point, learns of Iván’s valiant act in defense of her and the trust requisite for genuine emotional intimacy is achieved in spite of the efforts of other people to separate the pair.

Besides being on opposite sides of a tense labor-management situation, Iván is a “female-to-male” transsexual who has been taking estrogen and is breastless, though still a woman in having retained the reproductive organs. Regardless, Hadoum and Iván have a lesbian sexual relationship because both have vaginas, even if the denial ensuing from a contemporary ideological agenda fights like hell against such a claim, even labeling it as incorrect. Even though a person’s psychological stance towards one’s gender need not be in sync with one’s genitalia, two people who are sexually attracted to the other’s vagina are not heterosexuals. That the homosexual relationship (or Iván being a transsexual) faces prejudice in the film is evident when Iván’s mother says that that Hadoum’s parents would never accept Iván. Also, Manuel’s son threatens Iván with violence if Iván were “a real man.”

The film also contains allusions to the fact that Hadoum’s family is Moroccan rather than European. Again, Manuel’s son is an antagonist, referring to Hadoum’s family as “different,” rather than one of us here in Spain. To be sure, Hadoum feels no emotional attachment at least to the region, for she wants to move on even though she has fallen for Iván by the end of the film. She is indeed a nomad, and in this regard she may reflect the indigenous culture of her native land in Northern Africa.

Over all, the most ethical deed in the film is Iván’s standing up to Manuel for having fired Hadoum. Even if the firing were justified, for she had deliberately removed the required cap while the interested buyer was present with Manuel, Iván’s self-sacrificial act out of love for Hadoum is laudable. Another worker informs Hadoum of Iván’s unexpected heroic act, and Hadoum goes from only having fallen in love to something even deeper.

As for the most unethical act (or comment) by any of the many antagonists in the film, this question is much more difficult to answer, and arguably the film does not go far enough in this regard even though providing an answer as a fait accompli would be counter-productive to fostering philosophical thinking in viewers during and after viewing. Of course, the particular controversies—labor-management, nationality, sexual orientation (which is tied to genital-attraction even if “gender”-“identity” is not), and transsexuality—were in the West so steeped in ideology in the West by 2026 that ideological hubris could also be expected to be triggered by the film. So perhaps in addition to going a step further in providing some stepping stones to comparative ethical analysis, Rosa could have included dialogue wherein ideological prejudices or biases are made transparent so viewers could exculpate them from thinking philosophically in assessing which unethical statement is “worst” ethically speaking. A character, whether a protagonist or antagonist, could be made to state an opinion and then insist that it is a fact, and thus that anyone who disagrees is incorrect rather than just wrong. “How arrogant! My opinion is just as valid as yours!” The spreading category mistake wherein some ideologically-soaked opinions are misconstrued (and misproclaimed) as fact could thus be taken on, head-on.

As for comparing the unethical, prejudiced “slaps in the face” waged by antagonists in the film, one argument, for example, could be in favor of the anti-transexual statements being the most unethical. It could be argued, for example, that whereas nationality and union-sympathy are de-personalized, Iván’s breast-removal operation and treatment of female hormone is intensely personal as both pertain to Iván’s body. In other words, being said not to be a whole man could hurt Iván more deeply than Manuel’s anti-labor comments to Hadoum and other comments that she is a foreigner (which is only vaguely hinted at in the film). Generalizing, even disparate unethical statements can be compared along the axis of how deep the resulting emotional hurt is felt. Perhaps a utilitarian argument would come to the opposite conclusion, with aspersions against a nationality doing the most harm to the most people, even if only as generalized to a population from comments made to one person such as Hadoum. Manuel’s firing her could be found to be most unethical from Kant’s principle wherein rational beings should be treated not just as means, but also as ends in themselves. Manuel is far from treating his workers as ends in themselves, which is why Iván is advised to remember as a line supervisor that the workers on the line are human beings. At a well-managed workplace, such a reminder would not be necessary. In short, different ethical theories or principles can lead to different answers. So it is important that a filmmaker not impose one, for that would be dogmatic in the sense of arbitrariness. The objective should instead be to prompt audiences to think. To the extent that ideology has tended to override rational thought in the world, stimuli to rational, philosophical thinking are of particularly great value.

My Man Godfrey

If there is a time and context that shows dramatically how stark economic inequality can be, the years immediately following the Wall Street crash of 1929 cannot be beat. Wealthy men in the financial sector saw their wealth disappear overnight; the sudden move to the street from comfortable housing doubtless triggered many suicides. The 1936 film, My Man Godfrey, demonstrates the mental and reputational depravity of even once-wealthy investors (and stock brokers) relative to the still-rich, who look down with disdain such men as if they were no longer human beings. The stark change in the economic-determined normative stance is artificial and yet in terms of getting a job, it was very real.  In the film, Godfrey maintains good graces in using his low status even in the employment of a rich family as an opportunity to practice humility. He even saves the family, financially, and marries one of the daughters. Godfrey, she knows, is her man even in spite of his lowly station.

When the film opens, Godfrey is living at a city dump in a shanty-town. Before long, he is able to get himself hired as a butler because he had been willing to be the butt of a joke for five dollars. As if such treatment by the family were not bad enough, insults continue even as he is serving as the butler very well, and with the epitome of politeness. One of the daughters even tries to frame him so her father would terminate Godfrey’s employment. Faced with returning to the slum at the dump, Godfrey has a lot riding on avoiding being framed, which he does. He even maintains his politically-astute politeness to everyone in the family even so. It is as if he were a fiddler on a roof—poised in a way that he could fall at any moment.

Such precariousness being a function of economics is hardly novel, even if it is much more difficult to justify in a modern state that is capable of seeing to it that the poorest of the poor do not perish simply for lack of economic wherewithal. Even though Godfrey went to Harvard and is proficient enough to short the stock of the company in which Alexander Bullock, the head of the family, is too heavily invested, he could find himself, if fired, having to return to the city dump. That anyone would realistically fear having to live on the street is psychologically so ruinous that it could be said that any society without a safety-net capable of preempting such an existential fear could be considered not adequately civilized in the modern sense of the word.

In spite of my high educational pedigree, I have known such fear and have even experienced it being actualized in my case. I have witnessed the abject failure of even the spotty “safety-nets” of the U.S. member-states, including being the butt of passive-aggressive ethical lapses by employees in “social services” and even the medical profession. The fear being actualized can indeed have medical repercussions, especially for someone like Godfrey, who went to Harvard and worked in finance. I know Godfrey’s fear, and, intellectually, I understand furthermore that the existential fear of running out of money without a governmental safety-net to prolong life extends to every American whether one is conscious of it or not, and whether one is rich or poor. Even though this existential fear subtly saps “quality of life” throughout a person’s adult years, few Americans realize it and the enervating toll it takes on a person psychologically.

Underlying the insufficient safety-net in the American states, especially relative to the E.U. states, is the tolerance for having so much hinge on employment. For example, private health-insurance is typically contingent on remaining employed, as if the unemployed are necessarily healthy and thus do not need health insurance. The pegging of insurance to a job can be viewed as dogmatic in the sense of being arbitrary, for the need for health-care does not have anything to do with whether a person has a job or not. Yet so many Americans seem to take the artificial link for granted. In the film, Godfrey insightfully laments, “I discovered that the only difference between a derelict and a man is a job.” Behind the public policies that hinge so much in terms of sustenance to whether a person is employed is the pejorative normative stance that an unemployed person is tantamount to being sub-human. In the film, the family’s insults lobbed at Godfrey even though he is employed suggest just how low an unemployed person is in the eyes of the rich; not even being a very polite and effective butler can completely remove the taint of having lived at a dump in order just to survive.

Context can ensconce and even perpetuate the stark economic divide that takes advantage of the normative negative connotations of being unemployed (i.e., a derelict). In the film, Godfrey points out the extreme inequality in there being luxury apartments even as the unemployed starve. Even though the former may seem to evinced a civilized society, it is actually the tremendous economic and psychological distance between the two poles that undermine any claims that a society is civilized. Godfrey attended Harvard, a university that seems to be the epitome of civilized society (i.e., of learning), but that he had no other choice after the Wall Street crash but live at a dump belies such claims of civilization. The irony is that Godfrey personifies civilization by being polite to the family and even saving it financially with help from his old Harvard classmate even though he has sufficient reason to harbor inner resentment of the rude family and the cruel society that is fine with unemployed people living on the street to survive. Perhaps Godfrey’s financial help, amazingly out of gratitude to the family for having hired him and thus saved him from the dump, can be turned around as the question: why isn’t the enormous wealth of a society willing help the poorest of the poor who must live in a Hobbesian state of nature? On such a question civilization itself hinges.

All That Heaven Allows

Film is an excellent medium for displaying and wrestling with practical philosophy, which includes ethics, political theory, and philosophy of religion (as well as aesthetics, which is a rather obvious topic for film). A film that has a character personifying a particular philosopher’s thought and antagonists rejecting that philosophy, and goes so far as to have a character read on-screen from a philosopher’s book, is the epitome of film doing philosophy. The film, All That Heaven Allows (1955), is such a film.

In the film, a widow, Cary, dates Ron, who is younger and, to her country-club socialite friends and two adult children, a working-class man. Ron’s circle of friends is hardly of the country-club sort, for his friends are lower rather than upper middle-class, and his tree business includes manual labor. However, he owns the business and is free of any time-clock, so he is not a man in the working-class. Although more difficult to spot in the film, the resistance may actually be to Ron’s living out of Henry David Thoreau’s (1817-1862) philosophy. Douglas Sirk, the film’s director, relates this philosophy to nature, as it is on display from inside Ron’s living-room window of his newly renovated country house next to a stream. To what extent a return to nature is necessary in living out Thoreau’s philosophy is one question Sirk may have intended to raise with viewers. Even Thoreau himself did not view nature in idyllic terms; nor did he advocate having to be perpetually in it to be recharged from it. Indeed, living amid nature presents our species with challenges, as it does Ron in the film when he falls off a cliff on his property. In the film, this question is set through the lens of whether Ron could be content leaving his country house to live in Cary’s house in town.

Douglas Sirk (1897-1987) was a German (though of Danish parentage) film director who left Nazi Germany after his Jewish wife was prosecuted for being Jewish. At Hamburg University, he studied philosophy and history of art. Out of this background, it is no surprise that he would Jane Wyman to hold up a copy of Thoreau’s book as Cary in full view of a camera and read aloud in a scene. In his films, Sirk portrayed characters trapped by social conventions sympathetically. His genre was thus melodrama. Perhaps it was his rejection of Nazi social conventions that gave him such sympathy for characters who suffer from such conventions; indeed, once in Hollywood, he directed the anti-Nazi film, Hitler’s Madman (1942). Perhaps also his move from Germany to California showed him how artificial social conventions are—not only because they can differ so much from culture to culture, but also because those in “tinsel town” can be so utterly petty and fake. In any case, Sirk’s antipathy toward social convention does not necessarily mean that he favored a return or escape to nature, and thus the sort of life that Thoreau lived in New England.

In the film, Thoreau’s nonconformist individualism is made explicit as Cary reads from the philosopher’s book, Walden at the house of two of Ron’s friends, a married couple, who also live in the country. “The mass of men live lives of quiet desperation,” Cary reads out loud as Alida listens attentively. “Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed? If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it’s because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears however measured, or far away.” The desperation is quiet because the masses repress their expressive urges in order to conform to societal standards, which in turn is presumed necessary to achieving and maintaining position. For example, large companies in the 1950s favored managers who were married over than single for promotion.

After listening, Alida says in reference to Thoreau’s book and her husband, “That’s Mick’s bible; he quotes from it constantly.” Cary asks about Ron, and Alida answers, “I don’t think Ron’s ever read it; he just lives it.” The audience is left with the impression that this is clearly superior. Elaborating on her husband, Alida then says, “Mick thought, well, like a lot of people, that if he had money and an important position, it would make him secure. Ron had neither one and didn’t seem to need them. [Mick] was baffled. The answer? To thine own self be true. That’s Ron. Ron’s security comes from within himself, and nothing can ever take it away from him. Ron absolutely refuses to let unimportant things be important. Our whole life was devoted to keeping up with the Joneses. [Mick] decided to get off that merry-go-round.” Outsourcing self-esteem to be determined or even conditioned by what other people think or say does not bring the sort of psychological stability that is based on self-acceptance “as is.”

As for external crutches like wealth, position, and societal status, such things can be fleeting and are thus not really reliable. Furthermore, a person can always have more money, higher office, or societal status, so the “rat race” goes on and on. In his book, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Gregory Bateson refers to such maximizing variables, which increase without an internal limitation, as schizogenic forces, which he distinguishes from the homeostatic ecologizing forces that seek an equilibrium instead. The two types of forces are fundamentally different—qualitatively so, differing in kind. An equilibrium, as in perpetually feeling content in one’s own skin as Ron does, is a much better foundation for being at peace with oneself than is a maximizing approach to external assets, whether they be money, position, or societal status. In the film, Wall Street (1987), Bud asks his sordid mentor, Gordon Gekko, “How much is enough, Gordon?” The Wall Street investor replies, “It’s not a question of enough.” A person can never had enough money to satisfy the schizogenic desire for more. Were Ron asked that question in All that Heaven Allows, he would probably just shrug. Ron is unphased when Cary’s son, Ned, asks, “Is there any money in trees?” Ron owns a tree business.

Ron absolutely refuses to let unimportant things be important. Being true to himself and not trying to be someone else to please other people are important to Ron. Cary tells her daughter Kay, “Ron has no intention of fitting in; he’s content the way he is.” To the social-conformist, externally-oriented mother and her two grown children, Ron might as well be on another planet. Such different orientations to social reality and selfhood placed in contact can spark conflict out of fear (of the otherness of the other, as if it were inherently a threat), jealousy, resentment, and outright anger. Ned exclaims to his mother about the possibility of her marrying Ron. “The whole thing is impossible!” Although Ned incorrectly assumes that Ron is working class, and objects to that, and that Cary is only interested in Ron’s muscles, and objects to that, I submit that the real basis of the rejection by Kay and Ned is that Ron’s center of gravity is inward, and that is radically different than an outward, societally-oriented focus. Kay realizes how fundamentally different these two orientations are. “Mother desires group approval,” and she is conventional,” Kay explains to Ron. Such a fundamental difference dwarfs differences in wealth and age. Ned’s explosive threat to his mother evinces an eruption of strong emotion too disproportionate to be accounted for by an objection to Ron’s relative economic condition. “Don’t expect me to come visit you! How could I bring my friends,” Ned nearly shouts, “I’d be ashamed!” The age difference between Cary and Ron, and Ron’s financial situation are not so obvious that Ned’s friends would be embarrassed. Something more is going on: two fundamentally different orientations to self-worth are put in contact and are clashing.

Unwilling to adapt, emotionally stunted, and trapped as if in a tomb, Cary, Kay and Ned unconsciously may feel envious, threatened and perhaps even inferior standing next to Ron’s inner peace. Even Cary rejects Ron, and in so doing, the philosophy that he lives by. “The only thing that matter is us,” Ron pleads with Cary as he sees her being pulled by the gravity of the egos around her. Things that happen in the past are unimportant, Ron assures her. Which car the couple takes to the socialites’ party at Sarah’s house doesn’t matter. That a woman at the party says with disdain in seeing Ron’s car, “Just look at that car!” doesn’t matter. That a man says, “So that’s Cary’s nature boy” doesn’t matter. That Cary accidently breaks the tea pot that Ron has fixed does not matter. Finally, that Cary is staying late at Ron’s doesn’t matter. Ron’s ability to put things in perspective comes from the fact that he is true to himself and thus doesn’t not feel the need to become someone else to please others.

To people oriented to people-pleasing in order to feel accepted, and thus of value, Ron’s dismissiveness of the truly unimportant could be annoying. People do argue about what is important. Even though Ron and Cary can start a new life in the mill that he has renovated to create a home for him and her, I think Ron would move in with Cary at her house were she to insist. To live among people who are alike in how they are fundamentally different from oneself cannot be easy, even for someone like Ron whose sense of inner-worth does not depend on what others say or think about him. To be sure, being comfortable in his own shoes, whether boots or slippers, Ron doesn’t have to live in nature, and Thoreau would agree that it is not necessary; periodic refreshers are sufficient. However, socializing with Cary’s friends would be difficult. The only time Ron’s anger flares is at the party at Sarah’s house, which is filled with the wealthy socialites who know Cary. Those guests blame Ron for scolding Howard for kissing Cary against her will. It is actually Cary who pushes Howard back, so Ron is quite obviously being scapegoated. Whether caused by fear, dislike, or jealousy in others, being scapegoated can take a hard psychological toll on anyone, even someone such as Ron whose emotional stability does not rest on external acceptance. A person can take only so much, and Ron’s flash of anger at the party may suggest that Ron would ultimately leave Cary’s world, with or without her. There are limits even to what self-acceptance can tolerate in a hostile environment.

In the movie Animal House (1978), a “nerd” and a fat guy go to a rush party of a college fraternity; they are quickly directed to sit with the other “losers” while the actual potential pledges are allowed to socialize with the head of the fraternity and other members, which includes the editor of the student newspaper. The two guys would never be accepted in that fraternity; in fact, they would be teased and ultimately rejected where they to stay. Fortunately, they find a frat where they fit.

Fortunately, Cary enjoys herself at the party given by Ron’s friends even though she knows she is different. Yet unlike Cary’s friends of Ron, Ron’s friends are tolerant and include her in the fun. Furthermore, Ron and Cary can be a couple at that party. So even though Cary is scared and emotionally beholden to her children and socialite friends, she is attracted to Ron’s world. After all, it is her who reads Thoreau. Philosophy can indeed play a salient role in film.