Brutus and The Punisher
Created | Updated Nov 12, 2008
There is no such thing as out and out Good and Evil. Everyone in the world has both of what we shall call “light” and “dark” sides, with varying degrees of dominance. Hitler, for example, was perhaps the “darkest” person in written history, but he was not always so. In his early life he had little to no grudge against Jews, and he aspired to be first a painter and then an architect. In contrast, Mohatma Gandhi, likely the most peaceful person humanity has ever produced, followed his policy of pacifism to a fault, having this to say in response to the likely invasion of England by Nazi Germany:
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."
Gandhi, Mahatma (1972). Non-violence in peace and war, 1942–[1949]. Garland Publishing. ISBN 0-8240-0375-6.
However, standard theatrical practice for the last 3,000 years has commonly shown very clear “good-guys” and “bad-guys”. While the plays themselves remain perfectly valid and thought provoking in their own right, only relatively recently have playwrights at large embraced a more all-encompassing view of human psychology. Beginning, along with every other innovation, with William Shakespeare.
400 years later, what Shakespeare began is now taken very much for granted, as our own theater has evolved to incorporate a myriad of psychologically and emotionally complex characters who do not even claim to represent a kind of universal good or a universal evil. While their motives may be pure, their methods can be highly questionable. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, for example, Brutus participates in the murder of his closest friend, believing, rightly or wrongly, that it is the only way to prevent the fall of Rome from democracy to monarchy. And Like Brutus, The Punisher kills in cold blood, not out of a desire for any personal gain, but in order to protect those who are incapable of protecting themselves.
While not explicitly mentioned in the play Julius Ceasar, the historical figure of Brutus was a member of the Roman Senate. In the beginning of the 2004 film The Punisher, Frank Castle is an undercover FBI Agent. Both men have chosen careers that oppose anarchy and corruption. Brutus by something, something, and Frank Castle by a more direct route of personal intervention. Neither of them, however, advocate operating outside of the law or adopting overtly violent measures to acheive what they believe to be the right thing. Brutus spends the whole of the First Act wrestling with his own conscience over whether such an action could even be justified. Frank Castle clearly prefers to arrest people alive, as evidenced when after busting an illegal arms dealer he says “No one was supposed to die out there.” at you’ll find the time code eventually.
In the end, however, both of them come to approve of the use of extreme measures to achieve “good” ends. Cassius successfully convinces Brutus that Caesar intends to transform Rome into his own kingdom, something Brutus cannot, in good consciense, permit. Cassius further convinces Brutus that because of the overwhelming public support that Caesar holds, it would be impossible to convince the citizens of Rome not to accept him as their king, and therefore the only solution is to kill Caesar.
Contrary to Cassius and his co-conspirators though, we can be sure that Brutus isn’t acting out of jealousy towards Caeasar, because when Cassius suggests they should kill Antony as well, Brutus further reveals his more noble intentions by refusing to do anything of the sort.
Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius,
To cut the head off and then hack the limbs,
Like wrath in death and envy afterwards;
For Antony is but a limb of Caesar:
Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius.
Julius Caesar, Brutus, Act II, Scene I
In many ways The Punisher is quite similar to Brutus. Of course, in many other ways he’s quite different. One example being that in place of his given name, Frank Castle, he gives himself the moniker of The Punisher. Although this is clearly used as an intimidation tactic for his war on organized crime, it’s also rather symbolic of his taking on a new identity, considering his old self to be dead.
Both Brutus and The Punisher believe that in certain circumstances, the law is insufficient to deal with matters of justice. No court of law could have been used against Julius Caesar for the simple reasons that
a.) He hadn’t actually done anything wrong, and
b.) He was the Caesar, and as such was too powerful to really have to submit to the law the way others did.
Brutus knows this, and so takes part in the conspiracy. While Brutus’s motives must be inferred, and are thus subject to interpretation, The Punisher makes his motives very, very clear. As a material witness he could provide testimony against the Saints in a Court of Law. The case is never even heard by a Court though, because the Saints have too much money with which to bribe their way out of due processes. As a result, The Punisher comes to believe that
In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law, to pursue natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it’s an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment.
The Punisher: Extended Cut, (1:58)
His comment that revenge is not a valid motive is also interesting, as it serves to illustrate that he doesn’t think of himself or the world in classic terms of good and evil. If he did, than he would behave much more like Batman or Spiderman, doing the gruntwork of bringing the criminals in and then trusting the law to handle them. The fact that he doesn’t, and that the movie defends him for not doing it, is clear evidence that good and evil are not the black and whites they’ve been made out to be.
The Punisher is perhaps much more dedicated to his cause than even Brutus is. While Brutus was content with killing Caesar alone, The Punisher wipes out Howard Saint’s whole family. In fairness, however, Brutus is killing Caesar before his fall from grace, and Caesar’s family has done nothing wrong. But Howard Saint’s family is fully aware of his “business”, and The Punisher knows full well that they’re participants in it, making them accessories to the murder of his family.
Unlike Brutus, The Punisher expanded his mission beyond the original goal of only killing one man. The reason for that is not that The Punisher is any more dedicated to his good side than Brutus is. Rather, because Brutus is only trying to prevent Rome from becoming a monarchy, and because Julius Caesar is the only person with enough popular support to become a King in Rome, he only needs to kill one man. Whereas by the end of The Punisher, The Punisher has committed himself to an unceasing war against organized crime, and there just isn’t any one man he could take out to put an end to that.
His experiences as a soldier and as an FBI Agent will have taught him that “darkness” and “evil” are an inherent part of the human condition, and as a result, he knows going into it that he will never achieve his goal. But he can never bring himself to stop or give up, because the murder of his family has made him totally obsessed, and unable to find any other kind of inner peace. His whole meaning in life now is to act as sole judge, jury, and executioner.
But as we know, the responsibilities of the judge, the jury, and the executioner are so important and so powerful, that to give them wholesale to any one man is incredibly dangerous. Therefore, The Punisher is inevitably hunted by our own government’s law enforcement officials. While he tries not to kill uncorrupted officials, he clearly has no compunctions about killing the “crooked cops.” Not only that, but he also shows them little, if any, mercy even if they were just and honest cops once upon a time.
At no time is this more clearly demonstrated than in The Punisher: Extended Cut. It showed that the film originally contained a subplot, cut for time, in which The Punisher mirrors the actions of Brutus by killing his best friend, Jimmy. When Frank Castle’s death was faked, Jimmy was assigned to “investigate” his case. Jimmy knew that there was nothing to investigate, and his involvement was only to act as a smokescreen so that criminals out for revenge wouldn’t think to target the supposedly dead Frank Castle. But as it turned out, Jimmy had recently stolen money from the FBI’s evidence locker to pay his gambling debts. Howard Saint discovered this and used it as leverage against Jimmy to learn who Frank Castle was.
Once The Punisher begins to suspect that it was Jimmy who set him up, he sets a trap for him. He’s unwilling to kill Jimmy until he’s absolutely sure that Jimmy was responsible, so he accidentally on-purpose leaves a gun on an armchair and turns his back to Jimmy. Jimmy picks it up and points it at him, asking how long he’d known that it was Jimmy who gave him up. The Punisher replies that he didn’t know for certain until that moment, and Jimmy pulls the trigger. Unbenownst to him however, The Punisher had removed all of the bullets from the gun.
Jimmy makes no real effort to defend his actions, being himself tortured with guilt over them. The Punisher says to Jimmy that he’s “sick” and “I’m here to help.” He then gives Jimmy a single bullet, allowing him the dignity of enacting retribution himself.
It’s at this moment that The Punisher’s dual nature is best emphasized. Although he’s presiding over the execution of his best friend, he’s incredibly somber while he does it. More importantly, he doesn’t come across as one who’s seeking vengeance; his vengeance is entirely directed at the Saints. Instead, it’s as though he’s there to save Jimmy from the soul destroying corruption that he sees as a kind of malignant cancer.
Which leads to another difference between The Punisher and Brutus. Brutus killed Julius Caesar to protect and preserve the country of Rome. The Punisher, on the other hand, killed Jimmy in order to preserve his own memory of Jimmy as a man who had fought, and fought strongly, against the very thing he was turning into. What’s more, by allowing Jimmy to pull the trigger himself, he was able to retain his own virtue.
"I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions...If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."
Gandhi, Mahatma (1972). Non-violence in peace and war, 1942–[1949]. Garland Publishing. ISBN 0-8240-0375-6.
However, standard theatrical practice for the last 3,000 years has commonly shown very clear “good-guys” and “bad-guys”. While the plays themselves remain perfectly valid and thought provoking in their own right, only relatively recently have playwrights at large embraced a more all-encompassing view of human psychology. Beginning, along with every other innovation, with William Shakespeare.
400 years later, what Shakespeare began is now taken very much for granted, as our own theater has evolved to incorporate a myriad of psychologically and emotionally complex characters who do not even claim to represent a kind of universal good or a universal evil. While their motives may be pure, their methods can be highly questionable. In Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, for example, Brutus participates in the murder of his closest friend, believing, rightly or wrongly, that it is the only way to prevent the fall of Rome from democracy to monarchy. And Like Brutus, The Punisher kills in cold blood, not out of a desire for any personal gain, but in order to protect those who are incapable of protecting themselves.
While not explicitly mentioned in the play Julius Ceasar, the historical figure of Brutus was a member of the Roman Senate. In the beginning of the 2004 film The Punisher, Frank Castle is an undercover FBI Agent. Both men have chosen careers that oppose anarchy and corruption. Brutus by something, something, and Frank Castle by a more direct route of personal intervention. Neither of them, however, advocate operating outside of the law or adopting overtly violent measures to acheive what they believe to be the right thing. Brutus spends the whole of the First Act wrestling with his own conscience over whether such an action could even be justified. Frank Castle clearly prefers to arrest people alive, as evidenced when after busting an illegal arms dealer he says “No one was supposed to die out there.” at you’ll find the time code eventually.
In the end, however, both of them come to approve of the use of extreme measures to achieve “good” ends. Cassius successfully convinces Brutus that Caesar intends to transform Rome into his own kingdom, something Brutus cannot, in good consciense, permit. Cassius further convinces Brutus that because of the overwhelming public support that Caesar holds, it would be impossible to convince the citizens of Rome not to accept him as their king, and therefore the only solution is to kill Caesar.
Contrary to Cassius and his co-conspirators though, we can be sure that Brutus isn’t acting out of jealousy towards Caeasar, because when Cassius suggests they should kill Antony as well, Brutus further reveals his more noble intentions by refusing to do anything of the sort.
Our course will seem too bloody, Caius Cassius,
To cut the head off and then hack the limbs,
Like wrath in death and envy afterwards;
For Antony is but a limb of Caesar:
Let us be sacrificers, but not butchers, Caius.
Julius Caesar, Brutus, Act II, Scene I
In many ways The Punisher is quite similar to Brutus. Of course, in many other ways he’s quite different. One example being that in place of his given name, Frank Castle, he gives himself the moniker of The Punisher. Although this is clearly used as an intimidation tactic for his war on organized crime, it’s also rather symbolic of his taking on a new identity, considering his old self to be dead.
Both Brutus and The Punisher believe that in certain circumstances, the law is insufficient to deal with matters of justice. No court of law could have been used against Julius Caesar for the simple reasons that
a.) He hadn’t actually done anything wrong, and
b.) He was the Caesar, and as such was too powerful to really have to submit to the law the way others did.
Brutus knows this, and so takes part in the conspiracy. While Brutus’s motives must be inferred, and are thus subject to interpretation, The Punisher makes his motives very, very clear. As a material witness he could provide testimony against the Saints in a Court of Law. The case is never even heard by a Court though, because the Saints have too much money with which to bribe their way out of due processes. As a result, The Punisher comes to believe that
In certain extreme situations, the law is inadequate. In order to shame its inadequacy, it is necessary to act outside the law, to pursue natural justice. This is not vengeance. Revenge is not a valid motive, it’s an emotional response. No, not vengeance. Punishment.
The Punisher: Extended Cut, (1:58)
His comment that revenge is not a valid motive is also interesting, as it serves to illustrate that he doesn’t think of himself or the world in classic terms of good and evil. If he did, than he would behave much more like Batman or Spiderman, doing the gruntwork of bringing the criminals in and then trusting the law to handle them. The fact that he doesn’t, and that the movie defends him for not doing it, is clear evidence that good and evil are not the black and whites they’ve been made out to be.
The Punisher is perhaps much more dedicated to his cause than even Brutus is. While Brutus was content with killing Caesar alone, The Punisher wipes out Howard Saint’s whole family. In fairness, however, Brutus is killing Caesar before his fall from grace, and Caesar’s family has done nothing wrong. But Howard Saint’s family is fully aware of his “business”, and The Punisher knows full well that they’re participants in it, making them accessories to the murder of his family.
Unlike Brutus, The Punisher expanded his mission beyond the original goal of only killing one man. The reason for that is not that The Punisher is any more dedicated to his good side than Brutus is. Rather, because Brutus is only trying to prevent Rome from becoming a monarchy, and because Julius Caesar is the only person with enough popular support to become a King in Rome, he only needs to kill one man. Whereas by the end of The Punisher, The Punisher has committed himself to an unceasing war against organized crime, and there just isn’t any one man he could take out to put an end to that.
His experiences as a soldier and as an FBI Agent will have taught him that “darkness” and “evil” are an inherent part of the human condition, and as a result, he knows going into it that he will never achieve his goal. But he can never bring himself to stop or give up, because the murder of his family has made him totally obsessed, and unable to find any other kind of inner peace. His whole meaning in life now is to act as sole judge, jury, and executioner.
But as we know, the responsibilities of the judge, the jury, and the executioner are so important and so powerful, that to give them wholesale to any one man is incredibly dangerous. Therefore, The Punisher is inevitably hunted by our own government’s law enforcement officials. While he tries not to kill uncorrupted officials, he clearly has no compunctions about killing the “crooked cops.” Not only that, but he also shows them little, if any, mercy even if they were just and honest cops once upon a time.
At no time is this more clearly demonstrated than in The Punisher: Extended Cut. It showed that the film originally contained a subplot, cut for time, in which The Punisher mirrors the actions of Brutus by killing his best friend, Jimmy. When Frank Castle’s death was faked, Jimmy was assigned to “investigate” his case. Jimmy knew that there was nothing to investigate, and his involvement was only to act as a smokescreen so that criminals out for revenge wouldn’t think to target the supposedly dead Frank Castle. But as it turned out, Jimmy had recently stolen money from the FBI’s evidence locker to pay his gambling debts. Howard Saint discovered this and used it as leverage against Jimmy to learn who Frank Castle was.
Once The Punisher begins to suspect that it was Jimmy who set him up, he sets a trap for him. He’s unwilling to kill Jimmy until he’s absolutely sure that Jimmy was responsible, so he accidentally on-purpose leaves a gun on an armchair and turns his back to Jimmy. Jimmy picks it up and points it at him, asking how long he’d known that it was Jimmy who gave him up. The Punisher replies that he didn’t know for certain until that moment, and Jimmy pulls the trigger. Unbenownst to him however, The Punisher had removed all of the bullets from the gun.
Jimmy makes no real effort to defend his actions, being himself tortured with guilt over them. The Punisher says to Jimmy that he’s “sick” and “I’m here to help.” He then gives Jimmy a single bullet, allowing him the dignity of enacting retribution himself.
It’s at this moment that The Punisher’s dual nature is best emphasized. Although he’s presiding over the execution of his best friend, he’s incredibly somber while he does it. More importantly, he doesn’t come across as one who’s seeking vengeance; his vengeance is entirely directed at the Saints. Instead, it’s as though he’s there to save Jimmy from the soul destroying corruption that he sees as a kind of malignant cancer.
Which leads to another difference between The Punisher and Brutus. Brutus killed Julius Caesar to protect and preserve the country of Rome. The Punisher, on the other hand, killed Jimmy in order to preserve his own memory of Jimmy as a man who had fought, and fought strongly, against the very thing he was turning into. What’s more, by allowing Jimmy to pull the trigger himself, he was able to retain his own virtue.
