You are on page 1of 7

Miller 1

Danielle Miller
Dr. Martino
SPL 210 01
May 2nd, 2017
Film Analysis: Flight

Who we are as people and who we want to become is an important consideration in the

discussion of ethics. Our actions shape this progression and either accelerate us toward our goal

or end up devastating our character. For Whip Whitaker, there is no consideration of person or

actions. I believe he struggles with understanding both himself and his behaviors. Because he

endures such an intrapersonal struggle, it is difficult for him to sympathize with the needs of

others. Whip’s struggle to become himself is evident throughout the movie, especially during his

final encounter with his son. During this exchange, his son visits him in jail to discuss “the most

interesting person he has never met: his dad.” At the beginning of the movie, if Whip was

questioned about himself, he would likely describe himself in terms of “what”, not “who” he is.

This reflects through his struggles to the truth of his actions.

At the end of the movie, it can be inferred that Whip would answer explicitly based on

his person, his “who”, not his actions, his “what”. However, this does not neglect the fact that

his actions and person are deeply interconnected and directly correlate to each other. Because of

the fluidity of humankind, we can be described as more than any nature we possess. For Whip,

this nature involves his tendencies toward addictions such as alcohol and drugs. By

understanding his problem, projecting an image of himself and becoming responsible for that,

Whip transitions through various stages of himself. Whip determines his existence by simply

living his life and continuing to make decisions he determines ethical, but he is quietly shaping

his nature.
Miller 2

Whip’s person and actions, both positive and negative in each form, can be viewed

throughout the movie and at some points, conflict with each other. For example, in the events

preceding the plane crash, Whip is seen waking up from a long night of binging on drugs and

alcohol with flight attendant, Katarina Marquez. As Whip uses more cocaine to alleviate his

hangover, it could actually be seen as a benefit. This action, while illegal, helps Whip to recover

and brings him back to a stable baseline. I think deep down Whip knows that without the drugs,

he would not have been able to fly the plane that day. Throughout the flight, Whip is seen

engaging in negative actions including but not limited to, speeding on the runway, sleeping

during the flight and drinking vodka in the cabin. We as viewers are unsure of which, if any,

actions contributed to the demise of the plane. If Whip was sober, it is unknown whether he

would have been able to land the plane successfully. However, the person that he is reflects well

in the positive decisions he made. During the being of the flight, Whip powers the plane through

a patch of bad weather to ensure a better flight for the passengers. His decision to suspend drink

service is one based on safety concerns. When the plane begins to malfunction, Whip keeps his

calm and instructs the rest of the crew, with competency on what to do. His order for Margaret

to say goodbye to her son in the black box is one to be admired. His decision to flip the plane

allows for a gradual descent, one that can be landed more easily. He chooses to direct the plane

in such a way that avoids the busy interstates and areas occupied by people and opt for an empty

field instead. While it will never be definitely known if Whip’s irrational decisions were those

that precipitated the damage to the plane, his underlying positive person steers him to make the

decisions that he does.

The person that Whip truly is depicted later during the NTSB hearing. I believe Whip

has every intention of performing any means necessary to escape from the penalty of his actions
Miller 3

before the meeting convenes. However, throughout the hearing, Whip gradually becomes less

and less content with his actions that include lying under oath during the first portion of

questioning. Whip finally admits that Katarina did not drink the vodka, it was him. He admits to

everything. He finally takes accountability for the fact that his actions are not who he is and that

he is willing to bridge the divide between the two.

The interactions Whip partakes in with the other characters shows not only who Whip

was as a person, but also what his actions reflect on him. Whip’s interactions with Nicole show

that he is a positive person with negative actions. He does try to save her from her own turmoil,

not realizing he is the one that needs help. He does this through the bribery and assault of her

landlord, however. In his defense, he later invites Nicole to live with him following the

breakdown of her car and inability to pay rent. During Whip’s encounter with his son, he is also

shown in the same way. Internally, Whip wants to be the type of father he had, one that was

caring and always there for guidance. On the other hand, his actions of drinking and drugs push

his family away. His decision to visit the family unannounced and drunk is not a positive one.

In the end, Whip is seen mending this relationship with his son as his actions reflect his person.

Hugh Lang, Charlie Anderson and Harling Mays show Whip the most negative person within

himself. This malevolent person is shown through Whip’s resulting actions. These men

continually support Whip’s addictions, especially Mays, who is his drug dealer. Together, they

are somewhat of an evil triad. Before the NTSB hearing, these men support Whip in supplying

him with cocaine, merely to save face for themselves. Instead, they should have called on an

ambulance for him to get the support he really needed.

It may be surprising at first to acknowledge that Nicole, a former drug addict is greatest

positive influence to come into Whip’s life. After Nicole’s near death overdose, there seems to
Miller 4

be a paradigm shift in her person and actions. Nicole begins living with Whip as she gets a job

and starts attending Alcoholics Anonymous with the support of her sponsor. When Nicole invites

Whip to a meeting with her, it forces Whip to confront all his inner demons. This confrontation

with himself is so intense that he ends up leaving the meeting upon the testimony of a former

alcoholic on the restraints that lies impose. It can be said that “it takes one to know one”, Whip

knows that while he did not self-identify as an alcoholic in the meeting, he is the very definition

of the word. It is not until Nicole returns home later to find Whip in his barn working on his

dad’s plane that Whip receives the best influence. Here, Whip is seen drinking beer beside a line

of cocaine. When he suggests that Nicole and he leave the country for Bahamas before his

NTSB hearing, Nicole addresses his impulsivity and addiction. She expresses her worry for

Whip’s condition, which leads to his furious response including his adamant tirade about how his

drinking is a “choice”. When Nicole leaves the next morning, Whip must face the reality of

losing the deepest connection he shares. He knows Nicole was justified in her concern and that

his drinking is no longer a choice, it is an instinct, a reflex for when he struggles. He then

confronts who he is as a person and how his actions reflect this. Nicole is his guiding, but silent,

support in prison that helps him to become clean.

It may also be surprising to conclude that the greatest negative influence in Whip’s life is

his lawyer, Hugh Lang. Their initial encounter displays the early tension in their relationship, as

mention of criminal charges are brought up following the toxicology report. However, Lang

eventually takes Whip’s side, he defends his negative actions and reinforces them with more.

First and foremost, Lang creates an arrogance in Whip that leads him to believe his actions,

regardless of how immoral or illegal they are, can merely be dismissed because of the presence

of money and power on his side. When Lang successfully gets the toxicology report ruled as
Miller 5

inadmissible, he only fosters Whip’s addictions to continue. Throughout the movie, Whip never

fears his addictions or their consequences because he is continually reinforced in his careless

decisions. During the scene in the plane hangar, Lang relays to Whip that vodka bottles were

found in the service cabin on the plane. While Lang assures Whip there were no fingerprints or

DNA found, Whip snidely comments his surprise because he drank three bottles, not just two. I

believe this arrogance in the direct product of the Lang’s continual encouragement, including his

statement that his clients never go to jail. Because of the authority and legality Whip sees in his

lawyer, he follows his orders. This seemingly grants Whip the permission to lie and continue his

path of destruction with no change.

To change, we first must admit what we did wrong in this first place. In the last scene,

Whip begins this process by acknowledging that he had “violated public trust”. This admission

leads him to be sentenced to jail for the crimes he committed and he faces “retributive” justice.

This form of justice focuses more on the condemnation, not conversion of criminals. However,

“restorative justice seeks to establish right relationships between victims, perpetrators of crime

and larger communities. It seeks healing for all parties” (Pope). When Whip addresses his

fellow prisoners, he recounts his attempts at redemption with the people affected by his actions.

His letters to the victim’s families, the crewmembers and the people who tried to help him

sometimes went unanswered. Perhaps, this is due in part to the fact that these people viewed

Whip’s prison stay as his “paying his debt to society” or the fact that they wanted to see him

punished in the name of maintaining the rule of law and deterring future crime. They may feel as

though he does not deserve acknowledgment for the positive actions he is trying to perform. His

feelings of guilt and sadness are rightfully deserved as a result of the crime he committed, an

illustration of retributive justice. His explanation for the lack of response is that these people
Miller 6

were not yet able to forgive him, however, he mentions he hopes they will someday and if not, he

understands. In this instance, Whip is focusing on the negative consequences of his actions and

the responsibility he bears for them.

As much as I would like to believe that I would have done the right and ethical action in

confessing on the witness stand at the NTSB trial, I am not sure this would be the case. For

Whip, he says “I was a liar all my life, if I would have told just one more lie (blamed Katarina

for the alcohol found on the plane), I would have gotten away what everything.” It seems in this

instance that the easiest way out is to lie, to blame the flight attendant posthumously and

continue living our life. But what kind of life would this lead us to? Certainly, not a moral and

ethical one. By admitting to our flaws, we address that we are indeed a negative person with

negative actions, but that we are also willingly and able to refocus ourselves to the kind of person

we want to be and the actions we wish to perform. This journey was undertaken by Whip in

prison. His truth regarding his actions led him to jail, where he could become the type of person

he always wanted to be: a respected, sober father.


Miller 7

Works Cited

“From Condemnation to Conversion: Seeking Restorative Justice in the Prison System”

Pope, Stephen J. America Magazine, 11/21/2011.

You might also like