Training Day is full of moral ambiguity, at least in the first two acts. Consistently the situations in the film play out exactly the opposite of what is expected of a cop movie. Denzel Washington’s character Alonzo, is the experienced leader, the Yoda. However, everything he says is crude and everything he does appears to be criminal in nature. The student Jake (Ethan Hawke) is new to the game and unsure if Alonzo is a crooked cop, or if his actions are vindicated by the results. In other words, do the ends justify the means, utilitarianism, or are actions bound to the law, deontological ethics. 

Unfortunately, despite the perfect build up nothing so interesting is explored. The end is just a complete mess full of action movie clichés. Questions that I will investigate in this analysis: what is a moral dilemma; why this film is initially so successful in presenting an enjoyable ambiguous atmosphere; and finally, what went so wrong in the end. 

A moral dilemma is a scenario where one must choose between two or more conflicting actions, each option having equal moral weight. Here is one famous example: 

“There is a trolley coming down the tracks and ahead, there are five people tied to the tracks and are unable to move. The trolley will continue coming and will kill the five people. There is nothing you can do to rescue the five people EXCEPT that there is a lever. If you pull the lever, the train will be directed to another track, which has ONE person tied to it. You have two choices:

(a) Do nothing and the five people will die
(b) Or pull the lever and save the five people, but that one person will die."

The problem can be refined to read, actively kill one person, or passively kill five. The first option being do nothing. The act of pulling the lever is essentially killing someone, an action that holds responsibility. It could be argued that the deaths of the five people are not as much of a moral concern because one should not be held fully or perhaps even partially responsible for action by omission. The other option is save a net of four lives. Maximizing the greatest amount of utility for the greatest amount of people is utilitarianism’s basic principle. A great discussion about different ethical arguments could continue, but this is just an example of a moral ambiguity. 

Uncertainty in film is rare. Generally, people do not like feeling confused, or conflicted. Unsurprisingly a lot of films have clearly defined good and bad guys, in addition to a linear plot. In first two acts of Training Day this notion is consistently subverted. Not only is it unclear whether Alonzo is a good guy or a bad guy, its unclear who Jake will side with, and furthermore the entire story may just be “a day in the life” rather then a traditional plot. 

For example, the scene where the white college kids get caught buying drugs. First, Alonzo is extremely aggressive and abusive towards the young adults. Then he confiscates the contraband with no intention of reporting anything. Both his mannerism and actions superficially point to him being a crooked cop. However, by being overly harsh its possible Alonzo is purposely trying to discourage the college students from a bad lifestyle. Moreover, he needs the drugs to teach Jake a different lesson. 

One could argue that a narcotics officer must know the products intimately. Initially Jake resists, but ultimately he buys in and ingests an illegal substance while on the job. Symbolically by taking that hit Jake is starting to buy into the amoral world view of his teacher. See Alonzo’s actions have a rhyme and reason, divorced from the white collar justice system, but possibly still aligned to the greater good of society. Think a darker more realistic Batman or Han Solo. 

The last good moment of the film has Alonzo killing his friend Roger. But its not so simple, Rodger may have been a big drug dealer immune from the normal reach of justice. He had to be taken down in such a way. At this pivotal point Jake doesn’t know what to think, robbing and killing a friends is pretty scummy, but stopping a drug lord is impressive. The end justifies the means, right? Kill one to save five, or perhaps save a hundred young children. This is a real question that holds tension. No need to suspend disbelief here, just think about it. 

Unfortunately, uncertainty in film is rare. The audience I guess needs a true hero and a villain, more importantly they need to know which is which. So after Rodger dies Alonzo stops making any internal movie sense. He tries to kill Jake in a bizarre way, despite having many easier more convenient ways to off him earlier in the film. Jake does the good guy thing and overcomes. An obvious outcome with no substance.