Chain of Command - About The caine mutiny court-martial

 The film "The caine mutiny court-martial" is about a justified reason for a wrong decision because a captain that puts the ship at risk during a storm.

In other words, the approach of respect for the hierarchical chain (or chain of command) necessary to maintain the organization and its purpose.

The film presents an excellent proposal and develops well, but the ending is very mediocre.

The question arises when the person most responsible for this compliance is failing.

Should we get involved in challenging the chain of command in such cases?

This question clashes with the meaning of democracy and dictatorship.

In a democracy, leaders are judged by the people, an example of politics through voting.

In a dictatorship, there is total submission according to the level of authority in the chain of command (top-down approach).

The army and police organizations are autocratic by nature, and thus we find ourselves in an ironic situation where democracy seeks refuge and protection in autocracy to maintain order.

Is there any plausible solution to this irony?
Or will autocratic regimes be justified?

A solution to this counterproductive dichotomy arises when we take into account another principle, where authority must emanate from competence, which, once compromised, is revoked.

Nature evolves by replacing those who fail to adapt in order to preserve the species.

It is necessary to bring to a sense of respect for the hierarchy also a sense of respect for criticism that is supported by reason, regardless of its level.

We also need to consider that there is no assisted evaluation of command without multiple feedback from lower to higher positions, throughout the entire chain of command.

It is precisely this multiplicity of feedback that authenticates and qualifies the perception of the organization's performance.

Without "democratic feedback" the short-sighted perception is supported by those responsible who only see those to whom they delegate, that is, they only see through the eyes of their immediate subordinate and through their filter according to their interests.

In a top-down control system, the truth only emerges when an event shakes the structure of the organization, which is precisely the theme of the film.

This doesn't work!

It's not proactive!

Once the milk is spilled, it's gone.

After the house is robbed, is it time to put a lock on it???

The end of the film becomes mediocre from the point where the defense attorney says he is ashamed of what he did.
So, why did he do it?!!

If the justification was lack of choice, then he should be mixed with the weak who always claims contingent situations to avoid responsibility for his choices because he doesn't want to pay the price for what he knows he should have done, but did not.

The figure of the defense attorney grows throughout the film and incongruously plummets at the end.
It would be more plausible if instead of feeling embarrassed, he had said he was extremely uncomfortable and dissatisfied, as this would be consistent with his final words and the justification for the outcome when he then throws the contents of his glass in the face of the person he says should have been judged instead.

After all, what would the defense attorney prefer?

To preserve his comfort in the face of the past values ​​of a good officer or to endure the eventual deaths of a ship that sinks?

The treatment given to the subject is hypocritical and even inhumane because it places lesser values ​​above greater ones with its "almost brilliant" ending, maybe not so brilliant at all, only contributing to strengthening the incompetence that is preserved by authoritarianism through the unquestionability of the command chain.

The film follows a great plot, but just like the marathon runner who maintains the first position throughout the marathon, he stumbles and falls two meters from the finish line.

Total surprise and disappointment!

The film is worth watching for its purpose, but it ends very badly, leaving a very negative and deconstructive message like we should accept incompetence in managing life, penalizing it for the sake of something that has lost its purpose!

The entire social chain, productive or not, cannot give in to the privilege of error and incompetence when it does want to build a fair and harmonious society.

The incompetents see the reply as a threat.

The competents seize the reply as an opportunity.