Sorkin wrote A Few Good Men to try to communicate one major theme: what makes a person good or bad, hero or villain, altruistic or egoistic is all very subjective and depends on whoever is judging the person, and their personal life experiences and biases. This message shows up in almost every character, from the obvious protagonist Kaffee to the lesser side characters Ross and Kendrick. No one thinks they are the villain, and “villainous” people almost always think what they are doing is morally and logically correct.
Kaffee is the first character we see this theme in, from the beginning of the play he is care-free and irresponsible. These may be minor hiccups in anyone else’s character, but as a Navy attorney this is unacceptable. Kaffee …show more content…
Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.” (2,106) Jessep does what he thinks is right. His background as a serious Naval officer and his view of his responsibilities make his actions not only defensible, but the right ones. He will do anything to save lives, and to save lives he has to make his unit the strongest possible, and to make his unit the strangest possible he must get rid of weak links. Santiago was a weak link and ridding him from his unit strengthened it, in his eyes, an invaluable amount. However, to the majority of the readers and the non-battle hardened lawyers in D.C., the brutality of Jessep and how he controls his unit is unthinkable, and since they have no real idea of the lives saved by these actions, that is all it is to them: brutality. Whether what Jessep does with his Code Reds is honorable and necessary, or villainous and sadistic all depends on your point of view and what you value in this …show more content…
They execute the Code Red, and accidently kill Santiago on orders from Kendrick and Jessep. The argument of whether they are good men is debated by the characters throughout the play, Sam being the man that judges them most harshly. Sam - “They beat up on a weakling. And that’s all they did. The rest is just smoke filled coffee-house crap. They tortured and tormented a weaker kid. And it wasn’t just that night, read the letters, it was eight months. And you know what? I’ll bet it was his whole life. They beat him up, and they killed him. And why? Because he couldn’t run very fast.” (2,70) Sam hates these men because he feels that they simply killed a man in cold blood, he does not think the reasoning behind these actions can make up for the actions themselves. His hate of these men seem to be rooted in something from his past. It seems that, at some point in his life, Sam had to deal with bullying, either first hand or through someone else. His apparent past makes him more willing to chalk what these men did up to “bullying” without another thought. Another aspect of Sam’s perspective that makes him hate these men is his inexperience with life in a warzone. Kaffee - “They’re not permitted to question orders. Period.” Sam - “Then what’s the secret? What are the magic words? I give orders every day and nobody follows them.” Kaffee - “We work where there are softball games
Kaffee is the first character we see this theme in, from the beginning of the play he is care-free and irresponsible. These may be minor hiccups in anyone else’s character, but as a Navy attorney this is unacceptable. Kaffee …show more content…
Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.” (2,106) Jessep does what he thinks is right. His background as a serious Naval officer and his view of his responsibilities make his actions not only defensible, but the right ones. He will do anything to save lives, and to save lives he has to make his unit the strongest possible, and to make his unit the strangest possible he must get rid of weak links. Santiago was a weak link and ridding him from his unit strengthened it, in his eyes, an invaluable amount. However, to the majority of the readers and the non-battle hardened lawyers in D.C., the brutality of Jessep and how he controls his unit is unthinkable, and since they have no real idea of the lives saved by these actions, that is all it is to them: brutality. Whether what Jessep does with his Code Reds is honorable and necessary, or villainous and sadistic all depends on your point of view and what you value in this …show more content…
They execute the Code Red, and accidently kill Santiago on orders from Kendrick and Jessep. The argument of whether they are good men is debated by the characters throughout the play, Sam being the man that judges them most harshly. Sam - “They beat up on a weakling. And that’s all they did. The rest is just smoke filled coffee-house crap. They tortured and tormented a weaker kid. And it wasn’t just that night, read the letters, it was eight months. And you know what? I’ll bet it was his whole life. They beat him up, and they killed him. And why? Because he couldn’t run very fast.” (2,70) Sam hates these men because he feels that they simply killed a man in cold blood, he does not think the reasoning behind these actions can make up for the actions themselves. His hate of these men seem to be rooted in something from his past. It seems that, at some point in his life, Sam had to deal with bullying, either first hand or through someone else. His apparent past makes him more willing to chalk what these men did up to “bullying” without another thought. Another aspect of Sam’s perspective that makes him hate these men is his inexperience with life in a warzone. Kaffee - “They’re not permitted to question orders. Period.” Sam - “Then what’s the secret? What are the magic words? I give orders every day and nobody follows them.” Kaffee - “We work where there are softball games