Good Evening Friends,

I am of the opinion that the sociopath, as we have defined the term, is not without a conscience or "soul." They have human feelings and even "love" the people they kill, which is why they go to such lengths to escape the guilt of what they have done by trying to split into at least two personas (the "innocent" one and the "guilty" or evil one who "actually" committed the deed). They try to slough off the evil half once the deed is done and they have gotten what they wanted in the first place, which necessitated the death of his intended victim.

I ask people about the movie, Body Heat, with Kathleen Turner and William Hurt. Why did the femme fatale, Turner, try to kill her lover and co-conspirator in homicide, Hurt (of her rich husband for the insurance pay out)?

The usual response is greed. Turner's character was greedy. She wanted all of the money for herself. She didn't want to share the spoils with Hurt's character. My problem with this is the following: an attractive woman like Matty Walker (Turner's character) would presumably not going to spend the rest of her life alone (let us set aside the notion that she may have had a secret husband somewhere). Therefore she would end up "sharing" the money with someone.

Hard to believe though it may be, she may have wanted to marry and start a family. The money she got, its origin disguised of course, would come into play in establishing her new life. The sexual chemistry between this Matty Walker and Ned Racine (William Hurt) was electric in my opinion. It's too bad they couldn't end up together - from the point of view of sexual chemistry not morality!

People say to me that Matty never loved Ned. She was using him from the start and had always intended to do away with him. I can accept that she was using him from the start. I can accept that she had always intended to do away with him from the start and keep all the money for herself.

But it is also possible, at the same time, that "she" really loved poor Ned. How can this be?

Remember, she had to eliminate Ned because she could never be innocent again while he lived, as we have discussed. But if she loved him, why didn't this love preclude her from trying to kill Ned? Because she put her love of Ned to one side, more precisely in the "innocent" half of the Self, which she tried to split into two halves.

This has noting to do with her "evil" half, which she would have surely mythologized to herself (let us be clear about that) as an unfortunate, darkly invasive force totally external to herself which "took" her Ned away from her.

"Matty" is trying to encompass all the benefits of: loving Ned sincerely, lovingly manipulating Ned into conceiving (she made Ned think it was his idea) and executing a plan to murder her husband, and the feelingless evil creature or dark force that tried to kill Ned.

Note that I have given three elements:

1) the innocent lover - "Matty Walker" who really loves Ned.
2) the fused lover/killer - this union is necessary to ennabling Matty to convince Ned to kill her husband; the killer part of the persona provides the necessary ruthless impetus needed to inspire the needed ruthlessness on the part of her pawn, Ned, to effect the planned murder of the rich husband; and the lover part is necessary to reassure Ned that if he does this he and she, Ned and Matty will be "free," rich, and live happily ever after together.
3) the killer - the ruthless force that will do away with Ned after he has outlived his usefulness, and which the lover will try to mythologize as a darkly invasive force that stripped her of her true love (an attempt to set up a justificatory apparatus of "plausible deniability").

It is interesting to note that in one of the editions of Robert Louis Stevenson's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, there is an introduction by a fellow called Vladimir Nabokhov, which is an adaptation of a lecture he gave on the short novel. Nabokhov points out that there is such a tripartite structure at work concerning Hyde and Jekyll. There is not two personalities, there are actually three.

A. Jekyll the "good" (but he was never entirely good)
B. Hyde the "evil"
C. Jekyll/Hyde fusion aspect - the form of Mr. Hyde guided, more or less, by the intelligence and sensitivity, the mind of Dr. Jekyll.

I will go into this dynamic in more detail when we talk about the novel, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

This dynamic is present, I think, in all sociopaths, as we have defined the term. This pattern is present in all the movies concerning sociopaths: To Die For (Nicole Kidman), Double Indemnity (Barbara Stanwyck), Body Heat (Kathleen Turner), Insomnia (Robin Williams - it was the lover/killer William's character that killed the girl and it was the lover/killer that confided his secret, the fact that he murdered the girl to Al Pacino's character, a Los Angeles homicide detective, and tries to manipulate him into helping him get away with it), Secret Window (Johnny Depp), etc.

In The Godfather II Al Pacino as Michael Corleone acted specifically like a sociopath when he ordered the execution of his brother, poor Fredo. It was the lover/killer that tried to lure Fredo into his clutches when they make their escape from Cuba while the dictator is being overthrown by Castro. It was the lover who had grabbed Fredo by the sides of his head and "I know it was you, Fredo. I know it was you and it broke my heart."

It was the lover/killer who told Al Neri that he didn't want Fredo killed while their poor mama was still alive. But remember that scene when a crestfallen, broken down Fredo is led into his brother's presence at their mother's funeral and they embrace? Remember that look Michael gave Al Neri? I am haunted by that look to this day. That look was given by the pure killer!

Interestingly, it is in the third Godfather novel (yes, there are three Godfather novels: two of them written by Mark Winegardner with the permission of the Puzo estate) in which the precise motivation is given for Michael's order to kill Fredo. It has to do with Tom Hagen, the Corleone sons adopted brother, the German-Irish lawyer and consigliere of the Corleone (mob) Family. The fear = greed = violence equation holds.

Michael was fearful of Tom's disapproval if he failed to act decisively and with unwavering "justice" with regard to a "traitor." If anyone of you are familiar with the first Godfather novel, recall the scence near the very end of the book when Tom Hagen goes to convince Kate, Michael's wife not to leave him and to return to New York. He gives a justification for the things Michael had needed to do as the head of the most powerful mafia family in the country, if not the world, including avenging his brother, Santino's (Sonny) death.

Tom basically told Kate that if Michael had not done the things he had done, then this "Don Corleone" would have been shirking his duty to not only his immediate blood family but all the associates and members of the greater Corleone Family.

Michael had always been "greedy" for Tom's good opinion of him. And therefore, when it came to the Fredo situation there was only one thing to do.

wingedcentaur