SPOILERS FOR IN THE SHADOW OF THE MOON
“If you were given the opportunity, would you go back in time to stop a war, even if you had to kill?” This is the question that the movie In the Shadow of the Moon asks itself by its climax, and answers with a resounding yes. The time-bending mystery begins with a streak of mysterious murders, but as it progresses through its 9-year jumps it becomes a superficial commentary on police brutality, race relations, and the ethics of travelling through time to prevent disaster.
Unfortunately, that declaration is simply accepted as right just… because. When our lead Thomas Lockhart (rightfully) points out that this crusade has a price in blood, this is chillingly brushed off as necessary collateral damage. Our heroes are in the right because they are certain the deaths will bring peace and prevent war, so long as the correct people are killed at the correct time. They are so convincing that Tom is convinced to raise his own granddaughter into becoming a serial killer on a suicide mission. Nobody sees this as wrong, and the movie ends with him carrying the infant girl, fully aware that her future will lead to her own demise and the deaths of many others.
So let’s take this as an opportunity to ask an important question. If you could go back in time to right the wrongs of the world, would you?
In 2015, the New York Times tweeted out the following:
We asked @nytmag readers: If you could go back and kill Hitler as a baby, would you do it? (What’s your response?) pic.twitter.com/daatm12NZC
— NYT Magazine (@NYTmag) October 23, 2015
To say the response was divisive is an understatement. Those pro-infanticide said that one life was nothing compared to the suffering of millions exterminated during the Holocaust. By their logic, if you stop Hitler’s rise you then stop that suffering and that of future generations. He would be necessary collateral damage. Sacrificing one for the lives of millions.Then there is the opposite side of the coin – those who wouldn’t kill the infant. After all, babies are babies. They haven’t done anything wrong yet except be born, cry, and occasionally throw up on somebody. Killing baby Hitler would be like killing baby Gandhi – they’ve not done anything yet, right?
But it goes further than that. When we as people take action, we cause ripples in the world. Now imagine a world without Hitler. Yes, it is one where the Holocaust never happened. But it might also be one where the Soviet Union takes over the world. Where Mussolini has waltzed through Europe like he owns the place. Where there’s no wi-fi, no computers, not even cellphones because the technology that lead to these never needed to be created. Or it could be one where World War 2 still happens, except Goebbels, Himmler, or even the communists were leading Germany. Any of these futures is possible, along with a million others. There’s no certainty to what you’ll accomplish by going back in time except killing a baby.
Even so, those of you reading this might still be willing to take those odds, and you wouldn’t necessarily be wrong for it. Change is often instigated by violence. Revolution at the cost of death. But if you’re talking about stopping war, it’s never just one person who starts it. At that point, it becomes a question of “how far back do we have to go and how many lives have to be taken to get what we want”? Within In the Shadow of the Moon, although we are not told the full number of female lead Rya’s victims, it is implied that by 1988 she has murdered her way through dozens, if not hundreds, in order to ensure that the future does not come to pass. Family, friends, lovers, anybody who could have influenced the ideology of her first targets – she could hypothetically need to go back hundreds or thousands of years to affect the change she wants, and it could still not be enough.
But I digress. Let’s talk about John Brown, and another civil war. A real one.
John Brown was a businessman, an abolitionist, and a proud advocate of armed insurrectionism against slaveowners. He once said that “These men are all talk. What we need is action—action!”, and proved it by leading anti-slavery forces for the abolitionists. His biggest claims to fame are killing five slave hunters with a broadsword during the “Pottowatomie massacre”, and attempting to raid the Harpers Ferry armory in Virginia. For the latter he was executed, after one of the most widely publicised and influential trials in US History. He could have run, could have been smuggled out, could have bargained with the goodwill of Victor Hugo petitioning for his release (yes, it’s Les Mis and Hunchback Victor Hugo). But instead, Brown chose martyrdom, and his death helped spark the American Civil War.
You read that right. Violence begetting not just violence, but one of the bloodiest wars in human history.
Historians have had a hard time placing Brown. Was he a madman? Was he resentful because he was a bad businessman and the slaveowners were more successful? There’s a lot of evidence to suggest this might be the case, especially after his wool businesses started going under. But then again, there’s the other side of this. The side that argues he was a visionary. A hero. This was a man angry at the state of the world, angry at the people and powers in charge, and angry that the ones who should have moved to stop it weren’t doing so. So he decided to take up arms to make a change, and he’s not alone. For as long as humanity has existed there have been revolutionaries. People tired of the status quo and taking active steps to fight it, not only in words but also in deeds and violence. Guy Fawkes. Che Guevera. Boudica. Robespierre. All influential figures whose purpose was to prevent bloodshed, oppression, and all-out war. All figures whose revolutions ended in violence, although not always success.
For the last time, let’s go back to In The Shadow of the Moon. Rya is our deuteragonist, our heroine, and the one going through time “killing baby Hitler”. The movie tries to make it more palatable by replacing “baby Hitler” with “a group of white supremacists”, which… does actually change the dynamic somewhat. This is no longer an innocent. This is a group of people who are actively spreading racist propaganda, so as you watch her murder her way through them it’s easy for it to feel justified. Earned. They’re getting what they deserve. She is a catalyst for change and hope for the future. You can cheer for her and revel in the movie’s ending, happy that it pats you on the back for supporting Rya’s mission.
But.
If that was you, in her shoes, would you be able to do it? Would you be able to bring yourself to kill? Even if you knew that there might be a sliver of hope for your future, could you act to ensure the death of not only one but potentially hundreds? Even if it might instigate another war – a different war?
If you can say yes to all of those questions, then you might just be the world’s next revolutionary. Or, the world’s next madman.
The Catalyst 