This blog post examines how extreme terror in The Mist clouds group judgment and leads to justifying cruel choices.
How do you evaluate your own life? Can you confidently say you’ve succeeded? Most people carve out their own paths and strive to achieve their personal goals. So what constitutes a successful life? The criteria for success can vary from person to person. Some might consider accumulating wealth a success, while others might see gaining honor or power as success. What exactly is success? This question is akin to wondering how a film like The Mist, depicting a desperate struggle to survive an alien lifeform invasion, relates to social psychology. Much like the concept of success, this film effectively illustrates how people within a group behave and think during crisis situations like disasters.
The movie begins with a scene where a strange mist rolls in from the mountain peaks after a violent storm hits a peaceful lakeside town. The protagonist, David, heads to the local store with his son and Norton, the lawyer next door. Many townspeople had already gathered there to stock up on food. Suddenly, a siren sounds, and an elderly man, bleeding, rushes in, shouting that something is in the fog. When an earthquake strikes, everyone inside the store falls into chaos. At this moment, a woman pleads for help, worried about the young children she left at home. When no one assists her, she disappears alone into the fog. Among the crowd were a successful New York lawyer, school teachers, and soldiers, yet no one helped her. Watching this scene, I recalled the ‘Good Samaritan Study’. Originally conducted to demonstrate humanity’s inherent goodness, it concluded that under time pressure, people fail to help those in distress regardless of their good nature. The people in the store similarly judged going outside to be dangerous and thus did not help the woman.
After witnessing the tentacled alien lifeform, the protagonist and some others propose staying calm and staying inside, arguing there’s enough food in the store rather than going out. However, the people inside the store split into different groups based on their proposed solutions, leading to even greater chaos. Norton argues that the claim of an entity outside the store lacks sufficient evidence, insisting that solving the problem rationally is better. He persuades people to go outside together. However, ultimately, everyone who followed his advice dies. I believe they followed him because, despite sensing danger, they trusted the rational argument presented by Norton, a renowned lawyer.
Meanwhile, Mrs. Camody, a fervent Christian, reads the Bible and declares this event to be the apocalypse, God’s bloody vengeance. At first, no one listens to her, but as people die from the alien attack, believers in her words emerge. As time passed, even those who had criticized her claims began to follow her. When she treated science as a challenge to God’s authority and blamed soldiers and scientists for the disaster, people killed a soldier in the store and offered him as a sacrifice to the monster. Furthermore, she incited the crowd to execute David and his companions trying to leave the store, and to sacrifice the protagonist’s son and a woman named Amanda as offerings to God. Gilbert argued that accepting a persuasive message is easier than doubting it. While persuaded by Mrs. Camody and complicit in murder, people feel no doubt or guilt.
I believe Mrs. Camody’s persuasion succeeded because it occurred during a life-threatening disaster. This can be explained by the peripheral route to persuasion. The peripheral route refers to persuasion occurring based on contextual information like the persuader and the persuasion situation, rather than the persuasive message itself. In other words, Mrs. Camody’s claim that we are being punished because we have sinned is neither logical nor rational, but it worked because the desperation and fear of death gave rise to a longing for salvation. The fact that attitude changes resulting from peripheral route persuasion are relatively less enduring is well illustrated in the scene where, after Mrs. Camody dies, no one threatens David and his companions.
Conformity refers to the phenomenon where beliefs or behaviors change due to group pressure. This can be unrelated to authority and may lack specific intent. Such behaviors depicted in the film would not have occurred under normal circumstances. None of Mrs. Camody’s fervent followers were fanatical religious zealots, and they likely knew their actions constituted clear murder. Furthermore, none of them harbored intentions to attack or kill others without cause. Amanda, a teacher, insists people are good, kind, and cultured, but David counters, “That’s only when everything is working properly. In darkness and chaos, they’re no different from savages.” As a viewer, I too hoped people would act rightly and uphold others’ dignity. Yet the film shows humans becoming monsters, seeking salvation by killing young Billy. Ultimately, they escape, but find themselves isolated in endless fog with no food or fuel. With only four bullets left, they decide to commit suicide. David shoots the remaining four, including his son, then goes outside in anguish. There, he encounters soldiers who have already killed all the creatures and is overcome with despair.
Watching this film made me reconsider how cruel people within a group can become. The sight of neighbors who lived together their entire lives attacking each other, driving one another to death, and turning away overlaps with the image of the Nazis committing inhumane and destructive massacres against innocent people. This film seems to effectively capture the reasons why conformity, persuasion, and group identity are important, and the consequences they bring. Numerous studies show that individual beliefs can be shaken by group pressure. In fact, David and his colleagues, who did not succumb to this pressure, faced even more tragic outcomes. The director may have intended to convey the message that adapting to the situation might be preferable. Regardless of the film’s intent, however, I believe it is crucial to stand firm in one’s convictions against group pressure when faced with something ethically wrong.
