Double Indemnity

Before entering into an evaluation of the characters in Double Indemnity, I think I need to preface the discussion with an explanation on my perspective towards morality in my own words and with minimal knowledge of preexisting philosophical concepts. I believe that we each create our own ideals and in turn, invent our own idea of morality. From what I have read about nihilism, this seems to be a primary tenet. Although typically I see nihilism broadcast as a negative philosophy, I see this as total freedom which also can lead to the most beneficial outcome possible, assuming we’re using the zeitgeist of today to dictate our idea of morality. It is also very plausible for this to segue into anarchy, however it could just as easily transition into any other style of thought. Simply put, I believe that the dissolution of morality by way of nihilism allows for true freedom, encompassing every possible point on our moral spectrum.

Taking this into account, it becomes very difficult for me to boil it down to one reason that Phyllis and Walter are dissatisfied. Maybe these two characters came to a nihilistic conclusion of sorts and figured that any route has just as little moral significance as the next. If Walter is believed to have an accurate idea of his own motivations, then we can trust him when we says, “Yes, I killed him. I killed him for money – and a woman – and I didn’t get the money and I didn’t get the woman. Pretty, isn’t it?” However, deceit is a central theme of the film so that may not be the most valid assumption. A case could be made for boredom being a strong motivator for Walter killing Mr. Dietrichson as well. Walter appears to have a fairly easy life, pleasant living conditions, money to spare, and good looks, so why even choose a path that involves murder? Then again, our knowledge of Neff’s past is insufficient to exempt him from the possibility that he is clouded by trauma. This brings me to another problem with assuming that morality is objective, it assumes that the immoral are conscious and not misunderstood. We can use Phyllis as an example of these opposing outlooks. One could look at her actions and immediately declare her an awful person, worthy of nothing more than time in prison. Though this denies her any ability to change and destroys any opportunity she possessed to be productive to society. If we look into her personal reality, then we begin to unravel what reasoning led to those actions and the notions that brought us the decisions that the majority regard as immoral. Forming a rigid definition of morality makes it impossible to predict behavior, forever blind to the root cause. Perhaps Phyllis was responding to the traditional subservient matriarchal role she was expected to conform to. Having those ideals hammered in led to her using her sexuality to gain control over her own life. Phyllis may have reasoned that if men will only view her as sexual fulfillment then she may as well view men as a means for financial fulfillment. 

Fate is another reoccurring theme in this film and we are made aware very quickly that there will be no escaping what waits for us. Walter confessing in the opening scene and his narration throughout heighten the feelings of claustrophobia, further stressing the looming judgment awaiting our characters. Keyes himself could be seen as a personification of fate, especially when we remember the “little man” that presides within him. “Listen, Walter. I’ve been living with this little man for twenty-six years. He’s never failed me yet. There’s got to be something wrong.” There is no escaping what is to come.

625 words