The power of love is nearly inexplicable, and as I’m sure many of us can relate to, it can often lead people to go to some pretty inordinate lengths to satisfy their innermost desires. What does happen when love consumes us - when it consumes our minds and bodies to the extent that we no longer feel completely in control of our thoughts or actions? Can love be so all-consuming (and in some cases arguably possessive) that it can excuse us of behavior that would otherwise be deemed unacceptable, inappropriate, or even deadly?
Crime in detective fiction and film presents a whole realm of complexity in and of itself, so when love is factored into the equation, this creates an entirely new set of questions to be considered when reading a text or viewing a film. Playing to typical gender stereotypes, the author or director often depicts the male as the criminal in detective works, and therefore he is often portrayed as the character possessed by the allure of love. When love becomes an element within a detective story, it can take shape in the form of a distractor, a motivator, or all of the above. In various prominent works of crime fiction and film that influences the behavior of a global audience, love primarily serves as a source of motivation that drives detectives to solve a specific crime; yet with this motivation comes a source of complexity and entanglement that complicates the plot schemes in these works. Through referencing love as the core motivator driving a particular criminal act in a work of detective fiction or film, the narrator often evokes an enhanced degree of sympathy for the criminal in comparison to a portrayal of a crime that is solely motivated by the criminal’s self-interest.
Arguably one of the most iconic examples of the possessive complexities of love, Humbert’s love for the young girl in Lolita makes the crime appear to be more excusable than it would have been otherwise. In comparing Lolita’s relationship with Quilty, Humbert sees his own relationship with Lolita as one that is more than that of a rapist and a child being abused. Humbert thoroughly expresses his passion and love for Lolita throughout his depiction of their relationship together, and paints the story in this light. While the narrator undoubtedly draws Humbert out to be a criminal, his scandalous behavior is significantly masked by his deep love for the child. While Humbert is expressive of the fact that he is attracted to a certain type of young girl in general, he provides various reasons as to why it is that he will put himself in abundant risk to be with this one particular girl. As hard as it is may initially be for the viewer or reader to believe, many readers walk away with the clear impression that he loves her. Though it is almost unanimously inexcusable for a man of Humbert’s age to be engaging in this type of relationship with a young girl like Lolita, the fact that his criminal acts are motivated by his love for her makes the sequence of crimes appear to be slightly more acceptable than they would have been otherwise. The role of love in the story allows the reader to feel sympathy for Humbert through the way that he tells the story from his perspective; he expresses himself as a hopeless romantic for the first half of the novel, who will do anything within his power to call this particular girl his own possession. When she is taken from him and he assumes the temporary role of a detective, his deep love for her is ultimately revealed when he goes to her door years later and is extremely happy to simply have the opportunity to see her once again.
In the movie Memento, love further motivates crime, as Leonard will continue searching for who he thinks is his wife’s killer for years to come. Leonard’s vivid memory with his wife is the last thing that he is able to recall before he lost his ability to form new memories. With this deep love constantly replaying at the forefront of his mind, it is arguably all that is motivating Leonard to continue his search, which shapes him as both a detective and a criminal. Leonard’s story is slightly more complex than the previous motivator of love in the sense that his criminal acts are even further excusable as a result of his lack of ability to form new memories. When the viewer reaches the end of the film, only to see Leonard rip up the photo as the film comes full circle, he makes the conscious decision to continue to commit the crimes because it seems that it is the only way to continue to feed his obsessive love interest. While at that one moment, he tinkers with the idea that it could all be over, his love for his wife is so passionately consuming his emotions that he feels that the act of searching for revenge in itself is the only thing that will tie him to the memories and love for his wife. In this case, his love for his wife contributes to the sympathy the viewer feels toward Leonard, as it shows the viewer that he is committing these crimes in the search of rekindling a past love.
While the criminal offense depicted by the narrator of Time’s Arrow is not motivated by the same type of love as in the two previous examples, the love the narrator implies for his country and the family he left behind similarly makes the crime seem more excusable than it would have been if love were not the primary motivator of the crime. In Lolita and Memento, the criminals both come to commit a sequence of crimes that exist on a more personal level, as the protagonists are motivated by their personal love interests. The narrator and criminal in Time’s Arrow portrays the power of utilizing love as a means for justifying a criminal offense on a much larger scale. The Holocaust is one of the most studied ‘criminal acts’ of all time; yet, the narrator still finds a way to allow the reader to see his side of the story. He obtains some sympathy from the reader and is able to partly justify his criminal offenses through telling the story in a way that articulates his character as someone who is so closely tied to the love of his country and to his wife and child that he left behind. Though the readers may not find themselves being able to sympathize with this particular narrator to the same extent that they did in the other two works, the fact that an occurrence as violent as the Holocaust can be arguably ‘justified’ in any light whatsoever gives reason for the interpreter to believe in the power of love as a possessive means of rationalization.
While love takes different shapes and forms in the three works mentioned above, it similarly provides a means for the reader to create a space between the criminal and the consequences of the crime itself. If the criminal acts in certain disturbing, and otherwise inexplicable means, but they can attribute these acts to their all-consuming love interest, this makes the crimes slightly more justifiable than if the criminal were to have expressed an alternative primary motive for committing the crime. Love is something that many readers can personally relate to, and many readers and viewers understand the extent to which love is perplexing, frenzied, and often larger than life itself. Therefore, through depicting a criminal’s motives as ones that are primarily aligned with a significant and culturally relatable love interest, the criminal may not appear to be as rash as they may be in actuality.