“MORALITY BITES”: HOLLYWOOD… A HEALTH RISK?
By Ronan Wright on June 29th, 2011
Below is my first contribution to the “Morality Bites” blogothon. I might post something else if I can come up with something worthwhile. This’ll have to do for now. It’s far from perfect but the idea of this here little exchanging of views was to do just that, exchange views, as opposed to trying to establish a definitive arguement one way or the other.
Here is a list of those who have weighed in so far, with more to be added as and when I get them. Check out DirtyWithClass as well for Julian’s piece and for some more links.
Cheers, Ronan.
Scott from FrontRoomCinema
Univarn from A Life in Equinox
Anna at SplitReel
Michael at It Rains… We Get Wet!
Max from Anomalous Material
Julian at DirtyWithClass
Entry by TheScarletSp1der
Nikhat at Being Norma Jean
Entry by iluvcinema.com
Darren at the m0vie blog
Ruth at Flixchatter
Andrew at theFILMblog
Paragraph Film Reviews
Stu at Undy-a-Undy
Chris at moviesandsongs365
Phil at icedcoffee
Between dude-fests and crass crowd-pleasers, is the movie world setting us up for an ethical heart attack?
“Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought. Let us have faith that right makes might and in that faith let us; to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” – Abraham Lincoln.
There have been murmurings in the media in recent years — though undoubtedly by a vocal minority — about the lack of professional integrity and moral awareness within the money-greased machinations of Hollywood’s movie machine.
I say “murmurings” because anything above a whisper when speaking of “morality” or even “integrity” in Hollywood is almost immediately drowned out with raucous shouts of “freedom of expression” and “artistic licence” or, lest we forget, “personal choice”. This is all very well and good and probably looks all right on paper, but once we actually get in the car, or on the bus, and make our way down to the local multiplex, what is it we are actually left free to spend our hard earned cash on?
As a conscientious film critic I’m often left with the quandary of having, by professional obligation it seems, to see and review unpalatable cinematic fare purely because “that’s what critics do”. This might explain a few of the perplexed looks I’ve received from friends on deciding to avoid this or that because it’s not really my box of popcorn.
A question of professional freedom
“If you are not free to choose wrongly and irresponsibly, you are not free at all” – Jacob Hornberger.
Long-time film critic and professional film historian William Park has written about his career as a critic. He remembers a time in his life when he had to decide that he wasn’t prepared to compromise his professional integrity for the price of a cinema ticket. “No longer did I require myself to see everything, no matter how dull or vicious, in order to be ‘au courant’ and to have a clever opinion about it. And no longer did I feel that I should see nothing in order to avoid the ‘contamination’ of the world. In short, I found a new freedom to pursue my profession.”
This freedom to create whatever he or she sees fit to create gives the filmmaker great power in communicating to the world what is important to them. As our friendly neighbourhood Spiderman knows only too well, such power brings with it a great responsibility and too many filmmakers today wield the camera irresponsibly, like a kid who’s found his dad’s gun.
My bedtime reading at present (I was going to call it “light” though it actually weighs about the same as a small child) is a book designed to identify, ultimately, the “films you must see before you die”, and it does put the current box-office cache into a rather harsh perspective. Take, for example, the recent tide of pop culture trash to wash up on our screens.
You only have to run your eye down the “now showing” column of your local paper – which at the moment includes morally bereft gems like The Hangover Part II and Bridesmaids – to see that Hollywood knows which side its bread is buttered on. After all, if we didn’t go see it they wouldn’t make it. Or is it the other way around?
American author and film critic Michael Medved in his book, Hollywood vs. America, although sympathetic to a suggestion from some quarters of a return to the Hay’s Production Code of the 1950s (which spelled out what was deemed acceptable and unacceptable content for movies produced for mass consumption in the United States), admits that his attitude might at best be described as sympathetic scepticism: “While I understand — and applaud — the concern that gives rise to such a proposal”, he says, “I don’t believe that a new production code could ever work in today’s Hollywood.”
Although such a code of ethics is a reasonable recommendation, it does seem unlikely in Hollywood’s current moral climate, where the temperature never seems to rise above an obligatory family-friendly matinee — invariably something involving dogs, cats, aliens or all of the above.
What Hollywood needs is a counter-cultrural creative revolution!
In days gone by it was not considered “out of touch” to produce a film that fostered traditional values and espoused a positive moral code with a truly human ideal. The so-called ‘Golden Age’ of Hollywood is often regarded as a nostalgic footnote on cinema’s page in history, and although the studio system and the films it produced didn’t always come up smelling of roses, they represented an innocence which has long since disintegrated in the modern movie age.
Much more common today are the morally ambiguous films which dominate Hollywood and fly the flag for a trendy moral relativism which argues that one man’s Anti-Christ is another man’s Wizard of Oz. Market appeal driven theme and content tend to produce dude-fests like 2009’s The Hangover and crude crowd-pleasers like Paul and Bridesmaids. In an industry where money talks and bullshit — or in this case professional integrity — walks, it is difficult for the conscientious objector to easily, or freely, object.
The movies Hollywood supplies are undoubtedly influenced by the demands of the market it serves which is in turn shaped by popularly held attitudes and beliefs. These cultural norms and values are then feed back to the audience like so much sugar-coated, artery-clogging popcorn. It seems a reasonable question then to ask, couldn’t some of the more unwholesome content on the movie market menu eventually give us an ethical heart attack?
Nobody’s bucking any trands in at the moment, and why would they. The Hangover II films made an easy $244 million, just a little shy of the first film’s heft haul. But if Hollywood wants to protect its considerable financial investment, as well as the future of its industry, we need a change. Surely Hollywood must look after its heart: the audience. This could mean producing films which could help to increase ethical awareness within the industry by empowering the filmmaker to raise the moral temperature of their work and prick the collective conscience of our consumer driven society.
So what’s the bottom line?
The crucial consideration here is one of desire and means. We all know Hollywood has the means to make this progression from where it is now to a system based on quality and integrity. But does it have the desire? A quick look at the box office charts for this week would suggest not, with Terrence Malik’s contemplative epic The Tree Of Life being the exception to the rule. Recent honourable mentions must go to The King’s Speech and True Grit but for the most part any box office mentions are generally dishonourable.
I’m not suggesting for a moment that the people in charge in Hollywood have a bottom line where their conscience should be, but rather than merely giving the audience what the market research says they want – which is certainly the easier and the more lucrative option – might it not be more worthwhile to give people a choice between the cinematic equivalent of fast food and a wholesome home-cooked meal?
There are those who would argue that the best way to protect the viewer is to champion their right, as responsible adults, to freely choose their own entertainment. I would argue that the best way to respect the personal freedom of the individual is to produce films which promote and display our dignity as human beings. They are out there, but in a tiny minority. Like the mass produced, vacum-packed, super-market produce we pile into our trolleys every week, this over-manufactured approach to making movies has unsurprisingly sucked most of the good out of the films we consume.
The solution to this particular problem is to be found not in the public forum of debate but in the dark of the matinee, between the individual and his conscience. But Hollywood needs to take the initiative and give us a better quality of film to choose from. Otherwise, everytime we stay awake in the dark, alone in the midst of strangers, we are risking our health. Freely, but irresponsibly nonetheless.
Hey there, thanks for stopping by. I write film reviews and cover Irish film stuff. Why not subscribe to my blog using RSS or email. You can also follow me on Twitter.
June 29th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
“as opposed to trying to establish a definitive arguement one way or the other.”
…i think i did this wrong
But anyways, i personally wouldn’t be a fan of a production code. If someone really wants to to create something wholesome they have a right too, although i would argue that there are still movies being made that would fit what your trying to promote(127 Hours, and underdog movies like The Fighter)
[Reply]
rtm Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
127 Hours and The Fighter wholesome?? Ehm, am I missing something??
Anyway, great piece Ronan, I’m on your side in this matter as you already know. Interesting that you put that Clockwork Orange in this as my colleague just saw it for the first time last night and someone said that movie was banned because people were copying the violent behaviors depicted in the film. Wow, talk about life imitating art!
I hope you’re ok if my piece won’t be as eloquent as yours. I have so much I want to say but trying to get it all down on paper is pretty challenging
[Reply]
Julian Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 5:54 pm
Both 127 and The Fighter were basically about not giving up, which i would count as a wholesome message. And on the blue-ray for A CLockWork orange one of the special features mentioned that Kubrick underwent a guilt trip of sorts because of people copying A Clockwork orange…I have a hard time understanding how anyone could have seen the movie and thought about copying it in real life, but maybe thats just me
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:56 pm
It does seem incomprehensible that someone could see that kind of behaviour in a film and then decide to copy it but I guess these films just the deranged psyche of some people in society. Thankfully they are in a minority. I can understand how groups of young boys can come to the point that they vandalise property and beat people up. They’re just bored frustrated for the most part and in some cases poor education and upbringing plays a part but in A Clockwork Orange Alex was from a good home so that arguement doesn’t always work.
[Reply]
Irina Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
Hi Ruth! It’s fantastic you’ve decided to participate, I know Ronan is particularly looking forward to your post.
Have you ever heard of Dexter, Julian. I used to love watching this show. Well, apparently there were a number of copycat murders throughout the world. So I would agree with Ruth when she says:’the reality is there are a lot of people who do become a victim of what they watch… especially young people who may not have the best moral judgments.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
I would agree with that. With the best will in the world there will always be some people who are just easily influenced and will want to emulate the actions of the people they admire, whether positive or not.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
I would actually prefer to be less “eloquent” and more straightforward. Custard did a lovely, personal piece which put the whole debate in the context of his own experience and listening to someone’s story (especially someone you know) is much more convincing than reems of opinion or rhetoric. Looking forward to reading your piece Ruth, I’m loving getting everyone’s different views on this, it is such a good topic to have a debate about. It is challenging getting your views down into words but someone told me once that if you illustrate the points you want to get across with a story it is much harder for people to argue with you. Maybe I should start taking that advice
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:41 pm
Of course, there are diamonds in the rough, The King’s Speech is a perfect example of a film with a positive message and 127 Hours was very contemplative in relation to those it shared the billboard with but unfortunately these are exceptions to the rule. I understand that it is generally accepted that not everything can be a profound and affecting cinematic experience but movies can be entertaining as well as being formative. I haven’t seen The Fighter but I heard someone on the bus today talking about it and even from what they were saying I got the impression that they thought it was “message” film, it certainly had them talking.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
You didn’t do anything wrong. I think what is liberating about this exercise is that there isn’t really a right or wrong answer. Everyone has their own take on it. It reminds me of a quote I heard recently that goes: “I seek not find the answer, but to better understand the question.” Don’t know if that makes any sense but it sounds appropriately deep
[Reply]
June 29th, 2011 at 7:08 pm
This is my entry-
http://beingnormajean.blogspot.com/2011/06/morality-no-thank-you.html
This was a very interesting blogathon to take part in.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Hi Nikhat, just read your post, very interesting, gives a new perspective to the idea of morality in light of understanding the behaviour of others. Nothing can justify evil acts but recognising the act itself as bad and detaching it from the individual is the challenge, though free will attaches a responsibility to all of our actions, no matter what the circumstances. We all have a moral conscience and duty to act accordingly for the welfare of those around us and for ourselves.
[Reply]
June 29th, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Mine posted a few hours back Ronan. here ya go! http://scarletsp1der.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/morality-bites-is-hollywood-a-health-risk/
thanks for the opportunity.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:20 pm
Cheers man, looking forward to reading.
[Reply]
June 29th, 2011 at 10:32 pm
I think that most of what you write here can be countered with a pretty simple argument: “film” does not only mean “big-budget Hollywood films”.
Although I am impressed by how well-written your article is.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 29th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
It’s weird you should say that Max because I was just having a coffee with a friend of mine today after work at Starbucks and we were discussing the blogothon and one of the biggest issues he had with it was the fact that it seems to assume “Hollywood” to mean all movies. There are of course lots of great film traditions around the world which aspire to be more than just toilet humour and a frat-house sensibility but unfortunately Hollywood is the mainstream. It’s the cinema most take our kids to. It’s the movies that are most most accessible to us and most widely promoted, to the extent that Hollywood and its movies has permeated our culture.
[Reply]
Max Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:35 am
Well, what about independent American cinema? I assume a lot of people have seen something like, say, American Beauty or Fight Club, and I’m pretty sure that whoever saw them remembers them. Of course Hollywood movies are drivel at times, but the people who make them hardly qualify as “filmmakers” anyway.
[Reply]
Ronan Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 6:55 pm
Let’s just say, for arguement sake Max that the ‘filmmaker’for the sake of this discussion is anyone who has responsibility in producing, directing, editing or greenlighting a film that will be seen on general release. If cinema is genuinely to aspire to art – ‘Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature’ – then it must have a moral quality. “Moral” being a concern with ‘the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character’. It is the relationship between human nature and freedom of expression which I think illustrates the responsibility of anyone involved in the mass production of cinematic content.
[Reply]
Anna Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 11:02 am
I also concentrated on Hollywood film in relation to violence, largely because
-the phenomenon of aesthetication of violence mostly considers Hollywood film, it’s not that big of an issue in independent cinema
- when the main motivation behind the film is money, morality gets often disregarded on purpose
- the audience of independent cinema is by definiton more analytical and critical of film and its content, whereas people who see Hollywood blockbusters often only see one or two films a year in the theatres.
[Reply]
Ronan Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Well, I for one am an exception to that rule because I regularly see both mainstream and independent films, but I get what you’re saying Anna. I think independent cinema often aspires to a higher ideal than the mainstream, whether or not it achieves it is a question for another day but I don’t think the mainstream audience should be short-changed. I’d compare it to going to McDonalds or going to having a wholesome, freshly prepared meal, with healthy ingredients. One is certainly more financially lucritive and convenient and it may fill the gap for a while but the other could actually provide nourishment. So which is more beneficial? We know which is more popular.
[Reply]
Julian Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 10:05 pm
I would just like to point out there are indie films with graphic sexuality and/or violence in them. It may be less common, but its still there
[Reply]
Julian Reply:
July 3rd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
There are indie movies with graphic violence/and or sexuality. Maybe less than mainstream cinema, but its still there
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
July 7th, 2011 at 7:15 pm
Hey Julian, you won’t believe this but your comments were stuck in my spam filter! Eek. No hard feelings though right?
I’ve approved them no so they should appear. Thanks for being so persistent 
[Reply]
Julian Reply:
July 8th, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Well, commenting on your blog has become something i can’t live without it seems
[Reply]
June 29th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
[...] is part of the “Morality Bites” blogathon being hosted by the always awesome Ronan over at filmplicity. It is, as ever, a joy to be [...]
June 29th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
‘It’s the cinema most take our kids to’ YOu dont even have kids yet, baby and you already sounds like an old fart
)
I really impressed with the article though. Glad so many film lovers decided to participate as I too believe it’s an important issue. I am kinda anticipating ‘What is Morality?’ and ‘your morality is different from mine’ arguments so i am very much looking forward to reading everyone’s articles on it.
Even though we do differ a lot in our understanding of ‘good/bad’ movies, I agree with you on this issue completely and so I answer’ Yes, they do!!!’
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:22 am
Yay! Your opinion is the one I value the most so although it’s not about justifying my opinon, I’m glad you agree with me
Thank you.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:23 am
And I know I’m a prematurely “old fart” but it works for me so I’m just going to keep working it
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 12:32 am
I have to admit that I sometimes find going to the cinema a rather numbing experience these days, although that’s probably as much to do with the all the pixels my brain is forced to ingest as it is with the pie f***ing and tendon slashing.
I don’t think any perceived lack of morality is the film-makers’ fault though. Remember it is the focus groups and marketing departments that hammer out most of the plots of the big American films, not the writers or director. Fair play to them, they make money for their shareholders like it’s their job to do, but we shouldn’t confuse this with the film-maker’s prerogatives as an artist.
Besides, the ball is thoroughly in the audience’s court with respect to whatever movie they wish to see, as I have demonstrated throughout a lifetime of avoiding the crap out of whatever I like (although I admit it’s a bit different for critics who don’t have a choice, no wonder they’re all a bit curmudgeonly).
I think “morality”, such as it is, is much too narrow and subjective a concept to be within the artist’s remit. We have a ratings system to protect children and beyond that adults should be able to enjoy what they choose. It is not a crime to have poor taste after all. Most of these movies are pure escapism anyway. Be it Bond popping a cap in Blofeld’s arse, or Meg Ryan climaxing in a cake and bun shop, any consenting adult failing to distinguish between moral universes will quickly have life disabuse them of the notion.
For me personally, I find the Walls of Jericho scene from It Happened One Night way more interesting and titillating than any amount of Sharon Stone related bonking. But that’s just me; to each his own.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 11:19 am
I agree with you to a point but artistic license doesn’t justify films like Anti-Christ or The Human Centipede in my opinion. The fact that the BBFC rejected the sequel to The Human Centipede illustrates just how explicit a film has to be to get rejected by our film council which says alot about our society and the content we put out on general release. It is one thing to say that artistic expression must be free of any consideration of what is moral and people are free to see what they like. But the motivation for behind such extreme and unwholesome content is worth looking into as it could tell us something about ourselves as a viewing public. The more we know about ourselves and our viewing habits the better we are able to make positive decisions about the films we see to ensure that we grow as individuals and that cinema contributes in a meaningful way to the way we live and treat others which, escapism and entertainment notwithstanding, surely represnts the true and most beneficial potential of the medium.
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 1:06 am
Here’s mine!
http://the-book-thief.blogspot.com/2011/06/morality-bites-do-directors-have-moral.html
Kinda faffed and digressed a bit but got my two cents in…
[Reply]
Ronan Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Everyone’s two cents are valuable. If we do a whip around we might have a enough for t-shirts
I take it you’re going to The Tree Of Life on Saturday?
[Reply]
Andrew (theFilmblog) Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 12:11 am
Yup I’ll be there! Very interested to see how Tree of Life pans out…
[Reply]
Ronan Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 4:45 pm
Me too, hope it lives up to all the hype. I have a feeling it will either way.
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 1:32 am
Got to the party a little late, but here’s my tuppensworth!
http://paragraphfilmreviews.com/2011/06/29/does-the-filmmaker-have-a-moral-responsibility
1/2 way through the list and some really interesting articles!
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 5:30 am
I enjoyed reading all of these wonderful posts. I have a contribution, albeit quite late, if you’re interested.
http://www.undy-a-hundy.com/?p=1807
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Better late than never Stu
We”l keep on going with it as long as people are willing to chat about it, great fun getting so many different views on the same topic, especially one which is usually personal to each person.
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 8:42 am
I guess I missed the entire point of this blogathon? ah well I am such a dunce
[Reply]
Irina Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I thought yours was one of the best posts for far. It is from a personal perspective, so it’s always interesting to read!
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
I agree, mine was very “academic”, which is fine but it does feel like reading an essay from Uni or something like that. I might do a very short post just on why I think the filmmaker has a moral responsibility, from my own experience watching movies.
[Reply]
Custard Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Thanks Irina, I haven’t studied Film or Media so all I can do is talk about what I know….:-)
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 10:09 pm
I sometimes wish I hadn’t studied film. I have had more than one person say to me recently that my writing is ‘academic’, which sounds like a compliment but is really just a way of saying that it is a bit too serious and difficult to read. I want to be able to connect with people naturally and simply, like you and Ruth do Custard. So talking about what you know is a good idea as far as I’m concerned. We can only really speak from our own experience because that’s what makes us all us.
[Reply]
Phil O'Kane Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 6:18 am
I can’t agree with this, it should only be a good thing that you studied film, though sometimes, your appreciation of it, and other art forms seems to be difficult to pick out beyond the surface of what it is you’re looking at.
However, I don’t feel that your writing in this piece is too academic at all.
[Reply]
Ronan Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Well that’s good to know Phil, thanks. The less academic the better in my opinion.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
You are taking part aren’t you? That was the point, to get a debate going, we’ve done that. You’re not a dunce
[Reply]
Custard Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Oh yes I am here, present and correct….Just felt that I was banging on about the wrong point. So different from others…
Thanks for letting me be part of this awesome meme
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Thanks for taking part Custard, it was a pleasure to read your experience as a parent. That’s what the blogothon was meant to about, sharing stories and opinion, and I feel like we are doing that.
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
We are getting some really interesting and varied responses. Haven’t had a chance to read them all yet but I am getting round to it, want to give each article due attention so I can respond appropriately.
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 1:48 pm
Well organised, and thanks for accepting my ratehr belated entry.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 10:05 pm
The organisation was made alot easier as a result of all the help we’ve had from our friends. To all those who have helped make the blogothon a success I wanted to thank your for your time and energy. It wouldn’t be what it is without each and every person who has posted or commented (or both) on the topic. So thank you all. Looking forward to continuing to read all your great responses
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
The issues of morality, Hollywood, cinema, filmmakers, “right” and “wrong”, “good” and “evil”, religion, marketing and essentially what is a good and bad film has been on my mind for a few weeks now, and as such I’ve had a number of discussions about the topic both online and off as I have attempted to put together my own views.
My views are largely in disagreement to yours, though I am often stumped at your use of “morality” and “Hollywood” in your line of questioning. For me, morality is different to everyone, and so voiding the question altogether. One definition of morality states “a particular system of values and principles of conduct, esp. one held by a specified person or society”, my question then becomes, who’s system of values and principles are we to abide by?
Then there is the issue of “Hollywood”. Hollywood is one place, where much of the film industry in the USA is based, and therefore the largest in the world, but still, just one industry. What about the British film industry with the likes of Trainspotting — I’m certain there’s a message there about the negative effects of drug use — or Four Weddings and a Funeral — I’ve certainly cried at that a number of times — or indeed any number of Bond films.
Film today — and at any time in history — is about escapism, entertainment and portraying the lives of others, fictional or otherwise. The media today is an awful place, and in some ways I fear for the children of tomorrow who will grow up in a world where it is only worse. But the sooner we learn to believe in nothing but ourselves the better; nothing we read or see on a screen is real. News is fabricated. Famous people are not special.
Ronan, you have mentioned to me that often “morals” may refer to integrity and remaining truthful and honest to the audience, in that case I would say that The Social Network is one of the most immoral of recent films as it is so dishonest that Aaron Sorkin himself said, “I don’t want my fidelity to be to the truth; I want it to be to storytelling.”
If you need someone to tell you what you want to see or do not want to see, read, hear, smell, touch then there is a problem. In essence, that is a dictatorship. Cinema is entertainment. What we need, and this goes for many things, is better education not to ban everything that may be against the teachings of a particular group or person.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Hi Phil, thanks for taking the time to comment. You make some interesting points here and I understand where you are coming from in many respects and would like to agree with you but unfortunately we clearly have very different aproaches to the question of what is moral and what is not. I agree that everyone has their own standards when it comes to what is acceptable entertainment and what is unacceptable. We all have a moral conscience and, in answer to your question, I would say that we have to use our own reason and judgement while doing our best to do what we believe is right.
I see were you’re coming from Phil and I understand your point of view, even though I have a different one. Though I have issue with the statement: ‘the sooner we learn to believe in nothing but ourselves the better’. I think that is a very self-serving attitude. What we need is to look beyond ourselves to others, to seek to ‘understand rather than to be understood’, understanding is key. I think the sooner we can agree to make the effort to understand one another and what drives each other, what makes us do the things we do and live the way we live – in this case make the films we make and watch the films we watch – as soon as we can understand each other and respect our differences, only then will we begin to make any progress in answering a question like: Does the filmmaker have a moral responsibility?
As you rightly said, ‘morality is different for everyone’. Accepting this is often a challenge but it is crucial when approaching a debate like this. But in no way can it be seen to “void” the question. We are all individuals with our own reason and our own set of values and judgements and we can only speak from our own experience. So it is in light of our own experience and precisely because of it that we all have different ideas on morality. This is why it is such an important question, a question we must ask our ourselves when examining our conscience. How we respond to it will necessarily decide our position. It is a question of priorities. Do we wish to make decisions based on what we think the consequences of our actions might be or do we wish to make decisions based on our principles?
“Hollywood”, for me, represents the entertainment industry as a whole but the issue here is not a question of: where is a particular film made? Or ‘what about this scene in in this film’. Each film has to be taken on its own merits, or lack therof. An important aspect of the issue is the responsibility of the media and I think you hit the nail on the head when you said: ‘The media today is an awful place, and in some ways I fear for the children of tomorrow who will grow up in a world where it is only worse’. The production companies and those responsible for marketing and promoting of mainstream films must take responsiblity for the way they go about doing their job and the ethos and standards of practice they abide by.
Escapism? Perhaps, but what are we escaping from? Or to? Film as entertainment does not justify irresponsible content, regardless of how messed up reality is. Cinema is that it is only as real as we enable it to be. If we take to heart the messages of some of the films on general release and try to live according to their values, we would either be “good” “bad” or “indifferent” in our treatment of other people. We don’t need cinema for that. Society is good, bad and indifferent on its own without the influence of cinema.
People get out of a film what they bring to it. If I bring the idea that ‘the filmmaker has a moral responsibility’ to every film I watch, the chances are that I will appraise each film according to how well I may percieve the filmmaker to have fulfilled this responsibility. Someone else might come in with the opinion that it doesn’t really matter what they show because at the end of the day, it’s just art, and it is up to the viewer to judge it according to his own value system.
The fact is that some films contain troubling content that ‘some viewers may find offensive’, and some don’t. Then again what ‘you’ find offensive might not offend ‘me’ or vice versa. When I choose whether or not to watch a film I base my decision, not merely on the ‘teachings of a particular group or person’ but on whether I think it will postively or negatively effect me. Will it help to form me into a better person. Naturally my principles and my own set of values and beliefs come into play but they inform my opinons, I don’t let my opinions form me. I try to live according to the truth as I find it and I don’t find it the majority of films on general release today.
Albert Camus said: ‘Freedom is nothing else than a chance to be better’. Well, I don’t know about you but I have spent too much time in the past watching films which didn’t give me this ‘chance to be better’ and in many cases they represented wasted opportunties to develop, to become more fully human by helping me to be a better person.
The filmmaker has a moral responsibility because the individual has a moral responsibility, to society at large and to himself. A responsiblitiy to be the best version of himself. To be ‘fully human and fully alive’. Nobody is talking about banning anything but, as you say, to improve educate children as to what constitutes a real understanding of “morality” and what doesn’t and helping them to make informed and responsible decisions about what they watch. It’s getting harder and harder to do this. There needs to be a meeting of minds on the production side and the consumer’s end. We don’t have this now but we desperately need it. And that’s where the burden of responsiblity lies.
[Reply]
Phil O'Kane Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 9:51 am
What bothers me about many of your statements here is that you feel that people are often going against their own standards or moral conscience. Have you thought about the fact they are being true to themselves, and that you are going against theirs?
Lets try a different approach, lets think that in every instance you are the one that is wrong, not the filmmakers who produce material which is “unsuitable” or the artist who paints a nude for no purpose than the fact that the human body is beautiful or that a woman swears because expression of emotion through our elegant language is utterly profound. That the words or indeed imagery created can be something so original, never seen before, and indeed may be replicated for years to come.
So hypothetically, you witness each of these instances of life through art, or simply just art for the sake of art; for the sake of telling a story or making us think about something. Remember that it is doing just that: telling a story or making us think. A Clockwork Orange shows us a lot of violence, but only through seeing that can you learn that what the film tells us is that it is wrong, by showing us inside the mind of someone who would commit such atrocities as performed by Alex. No it isn’t pretty. It’s not pretty at all, but the film has a purpose and a meaning: society, choice and free will, evil; nature vs society.
There is no reason why this should not be made into a film. A brilliant, yet shocking film. Based on a book. This film also has the highest classification given to mainstream film and is intended for the viewing by adults only.
Nothing should be looked at simply on face value. And, for the most part, Art does
have some purpose and reason.
I understand that you say you respect other peoples’ values, beliefs and faiths, yet even contemplating the idea of enforcing a moral responsibility or set of rules on artists shows that you are in fact willing to take away the right for people to make decisions on what they produce. An huge industry it is, but think of the cinema like a museum. Each cinema exhibits around 10 shows, a few new ones each week. The artist sits back and wants as people look at the art work; either go home disgusted, or enchanted. Based on the knowledge we have, we can choose whether or not to go to it.
Our news and broadcast media is a whole other ball-game.
As an artist, I have no responsibility to make work that stays within the confines of what people consider decent. But to make work that is based on my principles, and what I feel is good and right. And neither does a filmmaker.
I would say that most filmmakers will stand by their art.
[Reply]
Chris Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 11:19 am
“One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”
We all have different morals and beliefs, Sometimes we have to agree to disagree.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I agree
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Great online event and discussion, Ronan. Lots of great reading. Thanks.
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
June 30th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Hi Michael, it is so fascinating to see so many different people coming together over a such a great topic, thanks for getting involved. Looking forward to an evening of intense reading
[Reply]
June 30th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
[...] just last night I was delighted to submit a last-minute article on Transformers 3 to the superb Morality Bites blogathon. It’s always great to be asked to take part, even if I’m rarely the most [...]
July 1st, 2011 at 10:33 am
[...] This question was been posed by Ronan at Filmplicity [...]
July 1st, 2011 at 11:34 am
My blog post on the topic is here.
[Reply]
Ronan Reply:
July 1st, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Cheers Phil, thanks for taking part
[Reply]
July 1st, 2011 at 10:23 pm
[...] some of you may know, Julian from DWC and myself have been hosting the “Morality Bites” blogothon since Wednesday. I’m by no means finished with it and look forward to spending the weekend [...]
July 3rd, 2011 at 11:06 am
I enjoyed taking part in this interesting blogathon!
I couldn’t agree more, there should be a choice for audiences between more arty films and mainstream light-hearted fair, depending on your mood. (Although at times mainstream and conversation-starter films are one and the same)
If you live in big cities you often have a choice, but places with only one multiplex can struggle to offer alternatives to blockbuster movies. So the answer I think in terms of selection is probably to live in a bigger city if possible!
I guess the director would always defend his/her movie having a message(to sell the product), the thing is sometimes you can guess the message after 5 minutes into the movie.
Avoiding morally bankrupt films is tough, I get an idea from the trailer most of the time if it tickles my fancy or not.
An escapist night out is enough for many, who just want to relax and watch a no-brainer. Taste is often a question of fitting in with your friends, and being able to talk about the same movies I guess.
[Reply]
July 3rd, 2011 at 10:38 pm
I agree with what you said Chris but I don’t think entertainment and art are necessarily mutually exclusive, quite often the most artistic and inspiring films are the most entertaining, like The Shawsshank Redemption for example.
[Reply]
July 9th, 2011 at 2:18 am
I came a bit late for the discussion.
I have only read 2post so far, yours and Julian’s. I think yours is much mature than Julian, age probably plays big part here.
It is an enjoyable long read…and to my surprise I didn’t even fast read it. You have cover all the points there. Holywood has indeed lacking in ethic and moral, I didn’t watch Holywood movies as much as I used to because of this problem. They are now emphasizing more in (only) entertainment and hardly any value could be found. You provide good example there, people find hangover as a hilarious movie…I was lost in its humour, it was just plain dumb. Whatever happen to smart comedy?
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
July 9th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Hi Novia, thank you for joining the debate. You aren’t late at all, you are right on time as this is a debate that, as far as I’m concerned, can go on indefinitely
As long as people are prepared to debate the issues, they are a lot of fun to discuss. Which is surprising, you might not think that discussing these issues would be as enjoyable as it is (maybe it’s just me) but I had a lot of fun doing it and it was great to be able to get together with Julian to make it happen. I also owe a huge thanks to you and to Ruth and Scott for helping me promoting it, and Scott in particular for giving me the banner.
I think Julian’s arguement is made very sincerely and I can say that because knowing him a bit as I do I can say that what I know of him is very sincere. The difficulty with sincerity is that it is possible, and is quite often the case, that someone is very sincere in their views and opnions though at the same time, sincerely wrong. I’m not saying for a minute that I’m right and anyone else is wrong but it is worth bearing in mind that the truth exists outside of man’s understanding or interpretation of it and can’t be constrained or reshaped according to his whim’s and ideas.
I think there is definitely something to be said for ‘smart comedies’ as opposed to those which exploit the lowest common denominator and use it to get cheap laughs from the audience. It’s not really surprising why it is such a popular genre, the ‘gross-out’ comedy. What is your idea of a smart comedy Novia? Any examples?
[Reply]
Novroz Reply:
July 10th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
I agree with you,Julian is always straight forward and very sincere. That’s why I enjoy his reviews.
My idea of smart comedy is when the laughter comes form the way they talk rather than their stupidity. A friend told me that Hangover was so hilarious,and I was like ‘what’s so funny about this movie? just a bunch of guys doing stupid things’. The same thing refers to reality show such as Jackass and parody such as Scary movies. when it comes to parody, the smart ones are Hot Fuzz and Shaun Of the Dead,those two movies really emphasize on the character’s behavior rather than the character’s stupidity.
for the same reason…I never found three stooges as funny TV Series.
An example of movie, which is not a parody, is The Boat That Rocked http://bokunosekai.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/british-invasion/ , it was a flop movie in market and yet I found it very funny, I laugh so hard at their jokes.
[Reply]
December 30th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
BTW, Ronan, I recommended this post and you for a well deserved 7×7 Link Award: http://wp.me/pR4QP-1X8
[Reply]
Ronan Wright Reply:
December 31st, 2011 at 5:18 pm
Thanks for that Michael, I left a comment on the post. Well deserved on your part. Happy new year my friend!
[Reply]