The two Pirates of the Caribbean supporting stars Murtogg and Mullroy switch sides throughout the blockbuster series, and there is a thematic justification for this franchise decision. The Pirates of the Caribbean movies may be well-liked by fans as fun, light-hearted adventure stories, but the franchise is not often taken seriously in terms of its metaphorical message. However, the journey of two minor characters from the Pirates of the Caribbean series does prove that the franchise actually has something to say about moral relativism.

While it may seem unlikely that Johnny Depp’s lovable antihero Jack Sparrow and company are interested in passing comment on society as a whole, tracking the story of Murtogg and Mullroy proves that the Pirates of the Caribbean movies make a cogent point about the difference between law and order, and right and wrong. Murtogg and Mullroy are introduced as soldiers in the original Pirates of the Caribbean movie, The Curse of the Black Pearl. The duo is tasked with guarding the docks of Port Royal from pirates, yet by the fifth movie, Dead Men Tell No Tales, they are members of a pirate crew. Across the intervening Pirates of the Caribbean movies, Murtogg and Mullroy switch sides from Norrington’s company to the East India Trading Company, to the Black Pearl under Barbossa’s captaincy, to the Black Pearl under Jack’s.

SCREENRANT VIDEO OF THE DAY

A “heroic” mirror of the franchise’s recurring henchmen Pintel and Ragetti, Murtogg and Mullroy serve as living embodiments of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise’s recurring thematic preoccupation with moral relativism. Murtogg and Mullroy appear as a pair of minor supporting characters in the first, third, and fifth movies of the series, but their roles gradually change along with their allegiances. Their motives and characters, however, stay the same—which is precisely the point that the franchise is making. The message behind this transition (which never sees their attitude or dynamic change, even as their allegiances do), is to remind viewers that no one is faithful to anyone in the Pirates of the Caribbean series.

Like Jack Sparrow’s cut backstory, which explained that the pirate once worked for the East India Company until they asked him to ferry slaves as cargo and he refused, Murtogg and Mullroy prove that the law enforcers and lawbreakers of the franchise’s universe are not so different at the heel of the hunt. When Murotgg and Mullroy opt to (metaphorically) jump ship and switch their allegiance from Cutler Beckett to the Pirate Lords in the third movie, At World’s End, the canny choice is depicted as being clever and resourceful, rather than a moral failing.

See also  DC Admits That Comic Multiverses Are More Trouble Than They're Worth

The Pirates of the Caribbean movies don’t depict loyalty as something worth aspiring to precisely because none of their characters survive by being loyal. The only ones who can maintain an alliance for a longer than a few moments without backstabbing are portrayed as obsessive and unhinged, like Bill Nighy’s Davy Jones. Meanwhile, in contrast, characters who can change their allegiances and loyalties on a dime are portrayed as not only justified in their choice but smart and virtuous (or at least, as close to virtuous as anyone in the morally murky world of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies can get). Murtogg and Mullroy’s journey from soldiers to pirates across five Pirates of the Caribbean outings encapsulates this, as they move with the prevailing wind instead of staying steadfast and dying for someone whose cause they never even believed in.

Star Wars Redeemed Leia’s Worst Return Of The Jedi Moment

About The Author


Cathal Gunning
(1459 Articles Published)

Cathal Gunning has been writing about movies and TV online since 2020. His obsessions include The Simpsons, Stephen King, the Scream series, and the horror genre in general. He has spent more time thinking about Stranger Things than the writers of Stranger Things, and he has never seen a Star War.

More From Cathal Gunning