Devil Wears Prada

In the 2006 movie "Devil Wears Prada," Meryl Streep plays a very Machiavellian character as Miranda Priestly, the editor of the most famous fashion magazine in New York (or maybe even internationally), Runway. She's the allusion of the title, and all throughout the film, she aimed nothing but obtaining, retaining and expanding her power as the editor of that very influential magazine.

Robin Hood

Robin Hood, another timeless character, has been portrayed in a number of films, books, comics and plays. There may be different versions of this subject, but the main story remains the same, wherein they refer to him as a medieval outlaw who was famous for "robbing the rich to feed the poor."

Robin Hood's character may seem Machiavellian at a more shallow level, because the question "Does the end justify the means?" arises. But for me, I find him resembling those of John Stuart Mill's heroes who seeks justice at the expense of others, to reach the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Even to this day, it is still debated on whether or not Robin Hood should be regarded as a criminal, having to steal to feed the poor. His actions may have been wrong (as we are taught that it is bad to steal), but he measured the righteousness of his doings by the result of his actions.

Some may say that Robin is similar to a modern-day thief having been caught, would state that he only pick-pocketed to feed his family. I think it's entirely different, because first, Robin did not include himself in his benefactors. In fact, he was at great risk, but that didn't stop him from trying to provide for those who could not, especially because of the high taxes being collected which he thought was unjust. Let's say the present-day thief does not include himself as the benefactors of his pick-pocketed money, but still it's different, because he's not aiming for the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. There may be hope for his family, as opposes to Robin's benefactors, the masses in his time, who has nothing much, yet taxes are still being collected from them. That was injustice.

Lord of the Rings Trilogy

“Unquestionably it is possible to do without happiness; it is done involuntarily by the nineteen-twentieths of mankind, even in those parts of our present world which are least deep in barbarism; and it often has to be done voluntarily by the hero or martyr, for the sake of something which he prizes more than his individual happiness.”

This passage from "On Utilitarianism" reminded me so much of those heroes who sought the greatest suffering for the happiness of many others. An example could be that of Frodo Baggins from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, in which he endured venturing for the sake of the destruction of an object (ring) that threatens the well-being of the entire middle-earth. He does all this voluntarily, knowing that he could have stayed in the Shire with his fellow hobbits. He put others before his own happiness, and the honor he actually possessed by doing so gave him a higher form of happiness, knowing that he contributed to the increase of the amount of happiness in Middle Earth.

Emperor's Club (2002)

The movie "Emperor’s Club," portrays a Machiavellian character in a young male student who becomes a successful businessman years after. I couldn’t forget this character’s name, Sedgewick (which I had to google for correct spelling).

The movie is about a teacher who believes in teaching history (or was it Literature?) to instill moral character in his students. He believes in being virtuous. That’s when Sedgewick enters the plot, wherein he didn’t see the purpose of being moral and thus being a negative influence on the other boys. The teacher saw potential in him and tried to pull strings to enter him into this Roman-themed quiz bee wherein two students battle out in answering the most number of trivia questions correctly. Sedgewick cheats and wins, and the teacher was the only one who noticed yet he didn’t expose Sedgewick, but instead confronted him. Sedgewick didn’t care, and years gone by. Sedgewick was now a successful businessman hoping for a position in the government as he invites this teacher to create a re-match of that quiz bee with the same audience and opponent. Again, he cheats and is seen by the teacher, and the conversation they had after the competition greatly showed the Machiavellian in Sedgewick.

The teacher confronts the grown Sedgewick: “All of us, at some point, are forced to look at ourselves in the mirror and see who we really are. When that day comes for you, Sedgewick, you will be confronted with a life lived without virtue, with principle, and for that I pity you.” (That, I believe, sounded Aristotelian.) Sedgewick responds: “Who out there gives a shit about your principles and your virtues? I mean, look at you. What do you have to show for yourself? I live in the real world where people do what they need to do to get what they want. If it’s lying and if it’s cheating, then so be it.”

V for Vendetta (2005)

The film “V for Vendetta” (based on the animated comics) is prone to many interpretations, especially the character that “V” portrays. Despite all these interpretations of him, I saw a hint of Machiavelli in him when he sought to kill those who were involved in his horrid unintentional transformation to the masked vigilante he is now known to be. His destructive acts not only include killing the people who were hindrances to his goal, but also blowing up different infrastructures, especially the parliament in the end. He saw these acts necessary to attain his goal, which are actually morally ambiguous. But mentioning this, he seemed more UTILIATARIAN as he believes that in order to have the liberty (or happiness) the citizens of his state is entitled to, he had to do those acts. He saw that it was the right thing to do as it would cause a greater number of people good.

In the same film, “V for Vendetta” actually portrays the fascist ruler (Chancellor Adam Sutler) being Machiavellian with his policies. He has killed all the homosexuals, criminals and destroyed all other people or things that he believes could corrupt a society, but moreover, make him lose the power he possesses as a tyrant. He saw these exterminations and enforcement of strict rules necessary for him to obtain, attain and expand his power. It did not matter to him that he was feared more than he was loved. He may not possess all the qualities a leader must be for Machiavelli, but indeed this fascist leader is a product of this philosophy.