Return to Paradise: Irrational Human Nature and Existential Choice

Daily, people make decisions about their lives. Some people seem very concerned with the consequences of these actions while others seem to possess a "devil may care" attitude. No matter how much a person thinks about their life and no matter how much care and thought is put into making decisions, people will end up making mistakes. How a person handles the consequences of these mistakes can show where a person is in their level of development, speaking existentially. Are they responsible for their actions? Do they face the consequences of their misdeeds with a stoic attitude? Or are they more cowardly, hiding behind other people and letting others take the fall for their actions? More importantly, are they living an authentic life? The movie, "Return to Paradise," sheds some light on this complicated issue in the portrayal of its characters.

All three of the young men, Lou, Tony, and Sheriff, had their role in illegal activities. All three were responsible for the drugs that were found at the house. However, since Tony and Sheriff were not present at the time when the police arrived, they were not held accountable for their actions. This does not mean that Lou was any more responsible than Tony or Sheriff. In my opinion, Lou was probably the most innocent of the three men. Because Sheriff threw the bicycle over the hill and into the field, the police came looking for the bike, and only then was the drug supply discovered. Had Sheriff done as Lou asked and returned the bike, the police may have never come to the house. Also, it was Sheriff who put the last bit of hash into the pot, which may have made it more than one hundred kilograms. That extra four kilograms classified Lou as a trafficker, which gave him the death sentence. Despite these facts, Lou was the one of the three who had to take the responsibility for the actions of all three men.

When called upon to take responsibility for their actions, Tony seemed very duty-bound. It was a decision that took very little thought for him. It seemed as though Tony had this idea in his mind that his duty required him to take his part in the punishment. Tony seemed to think that Lou should not have to bear the brunt of the punishment alone; however, there were limits to how far Tony would go to do his duty. Toward the end of the film, Tony left and was no longer willing to take his share of the punishment. He claimed that Beth's lie negated his duty to Lou. This tells me that Tony was only willing to go so far in his duty to Lou. Once he heard that Beth lied, he said that she might have lied about the arrangement. He claimed to be afraid that there would be more of a price to pay than she had originally promised because she would be willing to do or say anything to save her baby brother, including lying to Tony and Sheriff. Tony was obviously not willing to pay this price. There were limits to his valor.

As a viewer, we are drawn into the idea that Tony is a gallant hero-type of man with great principles who would risk his life without a thought to save a fellow human being. Simultaneously, we are shown that Sheriff is a selfish man who would let his friend die instead of doing what duty demands and sacrificing three years of his life. I find it interesting that, in the end, it is indeed Sheriff who makes the sacrifice, not only of three years, but is even willing to stay for six years, in order to save Lou. I think, in a way, the writer is trying to show that people should not be judged by what they say. Tony talked often about being willing to give his life up-- sacrificing years from his wonderful career and family. He even made his fiancee angry by telling her that he was going, despite anything she might say. Sheriff, however, took days to decide what he did. He even said no a few times before finally deciding to go back and take responsibility for his actions. For Sheriff, this decision, while causing him great physical discomfort, gave him the one thing he has been wanting for a while now: a feeling of responsibility. While conversing with his father about the situation, Sheriff saw the personality of his father, and, in that, he saw an image of himself. He did not want to be so self-involved and unfeeling anymore. After making the decision to return to Malaysia, Sheriff could finally look himself in the mirror and be proud of the man he was. The price he paid for this ability was quite steep, but for him, it was well worth it. It went beyond simply saving Lou. Even after Lou had died, Sheriff was still proud of his decision. He even told Lou in the prison that he did not return just for Lou's sake. Sheriff returned for Beth, as well, but even on a larger scale, Sheriff returned for himself.

I believe this movie shows us that human nature is erratic. The behavior of a person is quite unpredictable, and people are capable of things in a crisis situation that they would never even dream of in different circumstances. Tony would have never thought himself capable of allowing Lou to die, but when presented with the choice and an excuse to leave, he did exactly that. Sheriff would have never seen himself sacrificing a portion of his life for another man, but in the end, that was exactly what he did. Perhaps, it is difficult to see the true nature of a man in everyday reality. As the old saying goes, it is the crisis situation that brings out either the best or the worst in a person's nature. The question remains, should a person be judged on their behavior in everyday settings? Or is their true character found in the way a crisis situation is handled? There is no doubt in my mind that on a daily level, Tony was more responsible than Sheriff. He would have been seen as the hero in the absence of a crisis situation. However, when things got really tough and difficult decisions had to be made, it was Sheriff who came through. So, who is a better human being? Is it the man who wants to be gallant and feels a strong responsibility to society? Or does the man who slacks off most of the time, but then comes through in a difficult situation deserve more praise? In the case of Tony and Sheriff, I feel that Sheriff deserves the respect and honor. He fully understood the consequences of going to a third world prison, even entered the prison and saw the conditions and returned to save his friend. It took Sheriff longer to make the commitment, but once made, Sheriff did not back out. Tony decided quickly, not recognizing the completeness of the sacrifice he was to make. I believe he romanticized the whole idea of duty and thought he was going to do something heroic and great, but when he saw the prison with his own eyes and finally understood the scope of his three year sentence, he was unwilling to do as he had said.

In my opinion, this film really speaks to the existentialist point of view. The issues of freedom and responsibility run rampant throughout this plot. For Sheriff, he finds himself while experiencing the angst of his situation. He was not happy nor satisfied with his existence prior to his decision. His job was unfulfilling, he lived in a small home in a bad neighborhood, and he saw his life as worthless. Even Sheriff's father makes a comment about how unimportant his life is and even tells him, although kidding, that he should return to Malaysia because the other kid surely has a better chance of improving society than Sheriff.

Sheriff was not living life authentically. He had conformed to the life his father had lived and was unhappy doing so. Once he saw his father and realized that he was becoming just like him, Sheriff realized that he was not living his life on his own terms. Sheriff saw the decision to go to Malaysia as an opportunity to live life the way he wanted. The crisis situation of having his friend's life hanging on his decision prompted him to move beyond the life he had known and become responsible for his own life. The irony is, that in deciding to go to prison, for the first time in his life, Sheriff is finally free. He is creating his own essence and living life the way he believes it should be.

Also pertaining to the existentialist perspective, the characters in this film somewhat mirror Kierkegaard's stages of human existence. In the beginning, Sheriff lives for sensual pleasures: the many Malaysian women, alcohol, drugs, and life on the beach in general. He even referred to the beach as being "God's bathtub." Sheriff was living his life trying to satisfy himself with material goods and pleasures. At the end of the vacation, he was given the choice, by Lou, to go and save the orangutans. Sheriff was interested in changing the world, but he said, "That's just not me." He was not yet ready to let go of what he had been taught.

Tony seems to be in the ethical principles stage of development. He truly was trying to live a good life and do what society told him was best. In the end, however, he was unable to do what his principles asked of him. As he stood on the platform, watching Sheriff go back, he had the opportunity to decide to follow suit and live his own life on his own terms, but he decided to keep his comfortable life and return to his familiar home. Tony was unable to meet the demands placed upon him by his own set of beliefs. He turned and boarded the plane with what seemed to be a look of despair.

Sheriff makes the jump into the religious stage when he decides to return to Malaysia. The angst from having Lou's life on his shoulders and Beth's love in his hands gives Sheriff the opportunity to move beyond the life he is living and take the plunge into freedom and self-determination. The impending death of Lou created a boundary situation, as defined by Jaspers, for Sheriff and he suddenly felt very aware of his responsibility. With fear and trembling, Sheriff decided that returning to Malaysia was the only choice that would afford him freedom. Sheriff did not allow even Tony to interfere with his decision. He stood alone and did what he knew to be right.

In the end, we see Sheriff emerge as the hero of our story. He becomes the hero by finally becoming who he always wanted to be. From an existentialist viewpoint, another person could have chosen to not go back, and still been doing the right thing, as long as the person were following his or her own feelings and beliefs. Sheriff's search for freedom lead him into captivity, but he had finally reached his goal. He was finally living for himself, by his own rules. He was living responsibly. Sheriff was finally living authentically.