Our commentary on  Dirigible   (“Dirigible”), the last of Frank Capra’s films that make up the so-called technique trilogy or of The adventure—following  Submarine  (1928) ^[3]  and  Flight  (1929) ^[4] —begins with a question. Many will wonder: what relationship can be established between bioethics and the desert? If one closely follows the plot designed by Capra, one will see that only when the protagonists are thrown into the desert—a polar one, in Antarctica—do they manage to redirect their lives. They rein in the intoxication to which their excessive passion for technological advances had subjected them and recover the priority of recognizing people in love, the personalist norm.

Twenty-six years later, another director with frequent personal concerns, Henry Hathaway, brought to the screen a similar dilemma starring two legendary figures: John Wayne—as Joe January, a man trapped by his alcoholism—and Sophia Loren as Dita, a young prostitute. In this film, they experience a profound redemption, this time in the Sahara Desert. Once again, the personal principle that allows us to see ourselves with the dignity we deserve emerges in circumstances that, at first glance, seem unfavorable for well-being, yet are entirely conducive to the rebirth of the best in people.

We believe that a parallel reading of both films allows us to extract their deeper meaning.

The race rivalry for technique and the challenges of the heart

Let’s begin with  Airship.  The plot introduces us to two friends, again Jack Holt—this time as Jack Bradon, the commander of the airship—and Ralph Graves—in the role of ‘Frisky’ Pierce, an exhibitionist airplane pilot. The rivalry between them is twofold: one open and the other secret. The first stems from their shared ambition to be the ones to accompany explorer Louis Rondelle (Hobart Bosworth) on his quest to become the first man to reach the South Pole in Antarctica. The second concerns Helen (Fay Wray), Frisky’s wife: Jack is secretly in love with her, and she often feels ignored by her husband. Her resentment opens the door for her to divorce, potentially giving Jack his chance.

The context in which Brandon and Pierce operate is one of enthusiasm for technology. As in  Submarine  and  Flight,  a significant part of the film’s narrative revolves around the artifacts themselves: hot air balloons, airplanes. Their exploits are followed by the public and newspapers as emblems of progress that is visibly advancing by leaps and bounds.

Frisky, in particular, is so absorbed by his successes that he seems to have forgotten the vital priority his wife should have in his life. Dietrich von Hildebrand masterfully explained it:

The categorical particularity of spousal love, its decisive character, its peculiar surrender, the gift of the heart it entails, are things that imply the demand to occupy first place in the lover’s heart. It is not even merely a right, but this type of love formally contains the tendency to be first. We expect Romeo to love Juliet more than anyone else… [S]oportive love, by its very categorical particularity, has within itself the legitimate right to first place, a right which, normally, while love is in its splendor, is spontaneously guaranteed ^[5] .

At first, thanks to a technical feat that Capra demonstrates in great detail—the airplane’s attachment to the lower part of the balloon, much like threading a needle—it seems the two friends will be able to collaborate on the expedition. But Helen intervenes. Distressed at the prospect of losing Frisky’s company for another long period and aware of the affection the commander has for her, she begs Jack to stop it. The balloon’s captain agrees and feigns rivalry to dismiss the pilot.

Personal crisis and the extreme test of the desert

A storm causes the airship’s Antarctic expedition to fail. Frisky then gets a new chance with Rondelle, this time without Jack’s involvement. Helen, overcome with despair, chooses to leave Frisky and begin a relationship with Jack, while her husband searches for the South Pole, facing an imminent divorce in Paris. The situation of the three characters is one of complete breakdown: Frisky, insensitive to his wife’s needs, acts like a detached bachelor; Helen feels liberated from marital fidelity and opens the door to adultery; and Jack allows himself to be drawn into committing a double betrayal with Frisky, both as a friend and as a husband.

That profound personal crisis will be transformed through the Antarctic desert. There, the pilot and his companions suffer a The accident was caused by Frisky’s overconfidence in his abilities. From then on, the young man witnessed the anonymous heroism of his comrades, in stark contrast to the cheers and praise his exploits garnered from aviation enthusiasts. The situation became so dire that he lost his sight due to the impact of the white snow and collapsed, disoriented.

While Helen and Jack, who were planning her divorce and subsequent marriage, read about Frisky’s mishap in the newspaper, she begs him to forget old grudges and come to his aid. He does so and finds him in his dire situation. Upon boarding the plane, the pilot and Frisky reconcile, and Capra masterfully sets everything right. Frisky had a letter from Helen in his pocket, meant to be opened only in the moment of his triumph, which remains sealed. He asks Jack to read it, as he is still blind. The captain understands that she intends to leave him to marry him. But he quickly changes what he reads to his friend: that Helen loves him deeply and wants to be reunited with him. Frisky listens with joy. But when he asks for the letter back to keep it, Jack pretends it’s blown out the window. The young man says it doesn’t matter, as he has memorized Helen’s words.

The extreme situation has changed the characters. Reading the letter is the first sign of confirmation, which is completed when they return to the United States. Frisky doesn’t attend the celebratory parade, leaving Jack alone to receive the accolades. The pilot goes to reunite with his wife, foregoing everything else. He thanks her for what she wrote in the letter, which Jack read to him and now repeats. Helen takes those words to heart, and their reconciliation is complete.

The desert, the extreme situation, has allowed everyone to encounter their true self. Not the self that awaits redemption through technology, but the self found when one truly gives oneself, in friendship or in marriage.

A redemption of more deteriorated characters

Legend of the Lost  presented a parallel process of redemption, but with much more deteriorated characters. A doctor, Paul Bonnard, has gone to Timbuktu to find a guide to lead him through the Sahara Desert. He wants to find the city of Ophir where his father discovered a fabulous treasure, although the lack of news from him suggests that he has dead. He sets out on a search guided by the best expert, Joe January (John Wayne)—according to the enclave’s police prefect (Kurt Jaznar). Paul makes a point of talking with Dita (Sophia Loren), a local call girl, whom he forgives for stealing his watch. They spend the night talking together, and she wants to join the expedition because of the respect she received from the doctor. Although Joe is initially opposed, she eventually manages to join them, thanks to a Tuareg desert caravan.

The journey is marked by tension between the three. Joe snaps at Paul, saying that two men and a woman are a problem in any civilized world. But little by little, the guide’s attitude toward Dita changes. His initial insults fade, and he manages to treat her with consideration. Paul, on the other hand, who had been impeccable with her, undergoes a radical transformation. When they arrive in the city and he discovers that his father has been murdered, his image crumbles. He wasn’t a heroic man who would use the treasury’s proceeds for an orphanage, but an ordinary man who would spend it all on a woman. When she cheated on him with the guide, a confrontation ensued in which all three died.

Disappointment drives him to force Dita’s favors, which she resists. Joe defends her and begins to understand the devastating impact of men abusing her or buying her services. Fearing that Joe and Dita will do to him what others did to his father, he flees into the desert without their knowledge. When they discover him, they search for him, finding him nearly dead. Taking advantage of Joe’s momentary distraction, he rises and stabs him. Dita shoots him down with a pistol and remains beside the wounded Joe until, just as the situation seems most desperate, a wagon train appears and rescues them.

Before this happens, we witness Joe and Dita’s redemption. As they walked wearily through the desert, she lay down, thinking how awful she looked, and he leaned in to kiss her. She told him he had kissed her like never before. He replied that he had always longed to do so. When Joe was already wounded, he confessed to Dita that he held no grudge against Paul. That thanks to his madness, they had been able to find each other in a way they never had before. And that it was worth ending this way.

Conclusion: the beauty of art and film to free oneself from the utilitarian

In 1931, Western civilization, emerging from the Great Depression, could place all its hopes in technology and neglect human development. By 1957, prosperity could act as a narcotic, masking the very essence of human life.

Both films represent, yesterday and today, the need for horizons that go beyond the utilitarian, because that is the true wisdom of living that nourishes personalist bioethics.

Art is meant to free people from the traps that diminish their aspirations, Emmanuel Mounier pointed out.

Man is not made for utility, but for God, that is, for the unusable. The best of himself lies in this primal need, his true daily bread: the development of an inner life within a communal life. Life according to art and poetry is one of the essential dimensions of this disinterested activity, something we must affirm… against the encroaching utilitarianism. Every man should participate in this kind of life, dedicating a large part of himself and his time to it. ^[6]

Something that cinema has been particularly able to do at the end of the 20th century and at the beginning of the third millennium.

It remains to be seen whether man’s flaws are not more superficial than is believed, whether a fresh spring of grace does not well up in every heart for those who wish to reach it. The success of certain high-quality films in the most popular theaters would be a positive indication of what we are saying. The public is often more incapable of detecting bad taste than of showing its joy at good quality. And, referring to the art that is most accessible to them, I do not believe that if some unforeseen grace were to flood the theaters with good films, they would suddenly be empty. ^[7]

This is the fresh source that cultivates film personalism and that gladly puts itself at the service of personalist bioethics.

Gracia Prats-Arolas  . Professor and researcher in Philosophy and Film. Catholic University of Valencia

Jose Alfredo Peris-Cancio  . Professor and researcher in Philosophy and Film. Member of the Bioethics Observatory. Catholic University of Valencia

***

 [1]  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHheQLT6NYc

[2]  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXch2JweY8Q

[3]  https://www.observatoriobioetica.org/2025/05/la-alianza-entre-amistad-reconocimiento-del-otro-y-tecnologia-en-submarine-1928/10004059

[4]  https://www.observatoriobioetica.org/2025/08/fracaso-humano-tecnologia-y-redencion-en-flight-aguilas1929-de-frank-capra/10004668

[5]  Von Hildebrand, D. (1998). The essence of love. Barañáin (Navarra): Eunsa, p. 416.

[6]  Mounier, E. (1992). «Preface to a rehabilitation of art and the artist». In E. Mounier,

Complete Works I (pp. 291-305). Salamanca: Sígueme, p. 292.

[7]  Ibidem.