Because I think it would be fun, I propose a stock-take of everything that has to do with ethics and morality in modern film.
As long as it has a moral dimension you can write about whatever concerns you, interests you, gives you hope, no matter how big the pressing issue or how small the pet peeve. Hopefully this can get people thinking and create various debates.
Once you have a piece ready you can leave a link to it in the comments section at the bottom of this post or send me the link by email at srgfilmstuff@hotmail.co.uk. Alternatively (if you don't have a blog, for example) you can send me the full piece and I can post it on the site in its entirety.
Here are just a few of the subjects you could tackle:
The responsibility of film-makers towards us; our responsibility towards a film as viewers; relationships (sexual and otherwise); censorship; the ratings systems; normalising and glamourising; shock value; torture porn; where a film might be immoral or moral; the rating system; what is being shown to children; profanity; dealing with real historical events and people; piracy; what we do with old films and how the moral rules of engagement have changed over the decades...
The blogathon will run from the 6th to the 14th of March.
Thank you.
Count me in, but I don't know what I'd talk about.
ReplyDeleteGood to hear!
ReplyDeleteAs I said, you can talk about anything and everything.
My mind keeps going back to that pre-code festival I attended a few months back. The tie-in to that of course is compelling.
ReplyDeleteSam,
DeleteI've seen precious few pre-code films, I'm afraid. Maybe this is an opportunity to watch a couple. If you can think of anything, and have the time, to contribute, that would be great.
If I wasn't taking a break from blogging, I would definitely participate in this - maybe I'll end up doing a way-late entry when I do come back. At any rate, I think it's a great idea. I'm glad you included piracy in the discussion too, as that's been in the news a lot lately, at least in the U.S., with SOPA (which would have had a widespread effect). It's a fascinating example, to my eyes, of moralism (how dare you threaten the livelihoods and intellectual property rights inherent in our industry) cloaking what is actually, by and large, immorality (asserting an iron control over a work as a product, usually not be the actual creators; instituting scarcity and control beyond fair limits). Don't get me wrong, I don't think someone should profit of someone else's work, but the line is drawn way too far right now, and some want to draw it even further.
DeleteBut beyond that, in terms of content and particularly form's relationship with content (back to the old Cahiers comments about tracking shots & morality), this I think is one of the most fascinating topics in art, and one that has probably preoccupied me over the past few years as much as any other. Simply put, I am against moralistic judgements of film but strongly for analyses which take morality into account. As for the duty of filmmakers, all I ask is that they not be hypocritical, which I regard as an aesthetic matter as much as an ethical one. A film can be as immoral as it pleases as long as it's fairly honest about what it's doing. An immoral movie can be psychologically compelling, ethically challenging, aesthetically rewarding, and sociologically fascinating - I see no reason to proscribe certain views from the cinema screen although that doesn't mean they should pass without critical comment.
I quite liked your first post, on Torture Porn, but for some reason, Blogger is preventing the comments page for it from loading.
As you can see, the torture porn barrier finally lifted and I was able to comment. Regardless of my own participation, I will be following this blogathon closely, particularly your own entries.
DeleteJoel,
ReplyDeleteIt would be good if you could contribute, even if it's something short.
"Simply put, I am against moralistic judgements of film but strongly for analyses which take morality into account."
Characters can be bad, violence glamourised, evil-doing go unpunished but I still wouldn't call the film immoral. I would see it as a world in which the stars are aligned a certain way. That is not to say that morality isn't right there in the foreground of these works.
I am not concerned about accusing film-makers (or non-existent people) of immorality but, as you say, investigating the interplay of us, art, the world as a whole and morality woven through all.
For me the film is immoral if I see the material presented in a way that seems to relish or approve of, aesthetically or narratively, material that is not moral. I think what you are describing could be either moral, amoral, or immoral depending on how it's presented. Some filmmakers approach material with a more hands-off attitude, observing without really judging (to a degree anyway), others step right in and make it clear what they think. Not that films can't get away from their makers
DeleteAn example of an immoral film which I think is also hypocritical might be Silence of the Lambs. It encourages us to sympathize and root for a sociopathic killer but it sugarcoats him in a way to make him more palatable - his victims are either anonymous or unlikable. Sort of like the torture porn films you describe (I wonder to what extent that film is an inspiration). Functionally, this comes off as elitism (Lecter is articulate and charismatic, so we're supposed to approve of his eating the uncouth) cloaked in political correctness (the film makes sure he's chivalrous toward women and that his victims are all bumbling or arrogant men). It wants to taste the fruit of brutality without having the courage to follow through it. I find that cowardly and objectionable.
Another interesting contrast is Gone with the Wind vs. Birth of a Nation. The first cloaks its racism in folksiness and evasion, while the second is so baldly bigoted that it force the viewer to confront its vile ideology (though this was not the intention at the time). Essentially, the second film is more honest than the first and less objectionable.
"For me the film is immoral if I see the material presented in a way that seems to relish or approve of, aesthetically or narratively, material that is not moral."
DeleteIt is hard to untangle maker from material. Is it immoral if a film is presenting a set of circumstances even if it has the hallmarks of a 'positive' spin? Does the maker have to agree? Even if he does (and this is ignoring the fact that it wouldn't be objectively immoral anyway) would it still be immoral? It is fiction.
We bring our own morality to the table. The film's 'morality', if it exists or not will not just overwrite ours.
"Some filmmakers approach material with a more hands-off attitude, observing without really judging (to a degree anyway), others step right in and make it clear what they think. Not that films can't get away from their makers"
This is another aspect of film-making that can be confusing. I believe that this is basically an illusion created by the various modes of presentation that bring various associations with them over time. However, the illusion still has power and I might be writing something soon (for the blogathon) about films in which the film-maker seems to be suddenly intervening in an unfair or scrupulously fair way (a sort of deus ex machina).
"An example of an immoral film which I think is also hypocritical might be Silence of the Lambs. It encourages us to sympathize and root for a sociopathic killer but it sugarcoats him in a way to make him more palatable - his victims are either anonymous or unlikable."
I can see how the text and pith of the film could be called immoral but it is just loading the dice in a certain way for the better of the narrative. It might feel nasty but can this be called immoral. It's more a slanted amorality. Maybe a film is only really immoral if its express desire is to misrepresent real things and skew facts in the service of questionable ideas and ideals. The way Silence of the Lambs is presented (and here's the issue - how can you separate presentation of a reality and the base reality in a film) may feel distasteful but it's not immoral.
"Functionally, this comes off as elitism (Lecter is articulate and charismatic, so we're supposed to approve of his eating the uncouth) cloaked in political correctness (the film makes sure he's chivalrous toward women and that his victims are all bumbling or arrogant men). It wants to taste the fruit of brutality without having the courage to follow through it. I find that cowardly and objectionable."
I like the reading. I don't find it cowardly or objectionable but exciting story-wise. It does feel loaded or unfair but at the same time, one must forget about the maker and think that he happens to be articulate and clever and they happen to be dumb and arrogant. Characters make stories and there doesn't have to be too much else to it.
Here Lecter is like the devil who is said to have great trickery and deceit (I can't remember if he's said to be intelligent but he is clever) and the others are humans who have to beware.
Birth of A Nation is different. That does seem immoral because it is a direct address to reality and, with little veneer, has the pungence of propaganda. I didn't notice any racism in Gone With The Wind but that is probably because I can easily slip into the mindset of the film/times and take it in that spirit. Birth of A Nation is aggressive.
Again we must separate characters from makers (if possible). Birth of A Nation is so strong that it feels like the Director's own unmediated thoughts.
These are v.complex issues partly because we are tieing ourselves up in knots unnecessarily. We must think of effects and not whether something is immoral or moral.
To a certain degree, it is semantics. Obviously since I think an immoral film can be a great one, the fact that it's "immoral" isn't necessarily pejorative. Why may be discussing similar phenomena, but wanting to use different wordings.
DeleteWith Silence, I feel that to a certain extent it's "cheating." And it's "easy." That's what I don't like - when I write something or consider ideas, I try to hold myself to a certain standard. When I see something else not holding themselves to that standard, it seems unfair. That's one way of looking at it...
I just have a very strong aversion to "having your cake and eating it too", and Silence seems to be doing this. I mean I like it all right, I enjoy watching it if it's on TV, but I think it's overrated. Another film like this would be Mystic River. It's worth pointing out that both films are aesthetically far less compelling than equally troubling films like A Clockwork Orange or Birth of a Nation. A film is most importantly an aesthetic/visceral experience, I think, and when that element of the film is complex and compelling it can go a long way toward mitigating troublign aspects of the content.
"To a certain degree, it is semantics."
DeleteSure.
"A film is most importantly an aesthetic/visceral experience, I think, and when that element of the film is complex and compelling it can go a long way toward mitigating troublign aspects of the content."
This is not too dissimilar to when people say that an offensive joke isn't offensive if it's funny.
I do agree about films seeming unfair and I will probably post something on a couple of examples of this.
Joel,
ReplyDeleteI forgot to respond to your comment on Piracy. I think we get too caught up with legalities here in that one inch to the left is OK and one inch to the right morally speaking is plain wrong.
There are people who make money from true piracy, those who benefit themselves at the artist's expense and then those who are tiptoeing around not quite knowing what to do. In an age of ready media (mp3s, YouTube, downloads of all kinds authorised and not) it can get confusing.
One thing that does baffle me is the iron grip held over coverage of the Olympics. You see the coverage live on TV, and it's coverage of a world event that you feel should belong to the world, and then footage is taken down off YouTube because it is said to belong to NBC or somesuch.
I haven't heard of SOPA but I will look it up ASAP.
True, it's a tangled web. Personally I try to avail myself of straightforward ways to see media if possible. If a title is locked up away from DVD markets or streaming, I certainly don't feel any shame in seeking out through torrents or another avenue. I do know that at this point when a DVD opens with its draconian FBI warning (not sure what equivalent you have in the UK) with its harsh intoning of 5 years in prison or hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines for even copying a film without profit (of course there are fair use exceptions to this, but the language is still draconian) I feel a kind of instinctive revulsion.
DeleteDefinitely look up SOPA, it was a major controversy in the U.S. about two months ago. Wikipedia even blacked out for a day in protest.
Your Olympic example is well-stated. I think one of the heartening things about (otherwise often disheartening) political developments in America is that the libertarian movement, with its distinctions from mainstream conservatism and occasional alliances with elements of the left (see the OWS protests which were, for the best I think, a mishmash of different oppositional ideologies), reminds us of a way to object to the power of corporations without falling right into the arms of nanny-state or anti-individualist thinking. As you put it: why does this world event belong to an exclusive organization instead of everybody - which is a different question than filtering public through the state (i.e. why isn't it broadcast on BBC/PBS etc). Which is a problem cultural critiques have fallen into in the past 40 years, I think.
DeleteKind of a tangential point, which I'm not at all sure I've made clearly, but related to the overall discussion. Another aspect of it too: I think a heartening development in filmmaking will be when artists stop complaining about Hollywood "not letting them in" and start taking advantage of avenues which currently exist outside the industry. Don't demand from power, create your own alternatives to it. Just a thought.
Joel,
DeleteDVDs tend to open with a simple warning against copying or exhibition on oil rigs. A few have a little advert about how piracy is wrong ("would you steal a car...").
I have nothing against this. The language in adverts about benefit cheats can be a lot more intimidating.
I haven't used torrents or downloaded any film. If you're not selling on, though, what is the difference between downloading onto your computer or downloading into your brain via a YouTube stream? If a film is unavailable on DVD I will check it out on YouTube.
"Wikipedia even blacked out for a day in protest."
Oh, yes, I remember now.
"As you put it: why does this world event belong to an exclusive organization instead of everybody - which is a different question than filtering public through the state (i.e. why isn't it broadcast on BBC/PBS etc)."
The Olympic organisations want to sell rights (it's all their fault!) which I suppose gives broadcasters the right to control the privilege they paid for. It's a shame. You would have to find a happy medium between not selling rights (and finding another way to get money such as not spending so much in the first place) and having a massive media scrum of channels showing the same thing.
Here in the UK the BBC take the Olympics but they still pay (I think). There are so-called "crown jewels" sports events in the UK which have to be shown on terrestrial, free channels - Wimbledon, Football World Cup, Olympics etc.
Satellite channels can still show them but they must be on terrestrial.
"I think a heartening development in filmmaking will be when artists stop complaining about Hollywood "not letting them in" and start taking advantage of avenues which currently exist outside the industry. Don't demand from power, create your own alternatives to it. Just a thought."
Uhuh. Anyway, you always hear of successful artists, deemed maverick or a risk at the time, who 'forced' their way in. I always find it amusing watching interviews of 'older', famous and acclaimed actresses who all complain about the lack of good roles for older women as they promote exactly what they say doesn't exist.
Joel,
DeleteWhy don't you write something on Piracy for the blogathon? You seem to have thought about these things at length already and you've expressed yourself well here.
Not as much as I would need to, in order to write on it I think (I would want to read all the articles I could find and at least a book or two) though I probably will eventually (albeit less on piracy per se than on intellectual property). Basically, I've taken a step back from blogging and want to adhere to it at present - probably my participation will be limited to comments which, at the rate I'm going, if you add them up will count for several blog posts anyway, haha!
DeleteI didn't mean to force you out of retirement(!)
Delete"...probably my participation will be limited to comments which, at the rate I'm going, if you add them up will count for several blog posts anyway, haha!"
Haha! Busman's holiday.
Ha, I'll be back eventually but not until I've been able to refocus my energy elsewhere in the time off. And when I return I hope to have renewed emphasis on video pieces and formal analyses; reviews will probably be short pieces meant to quickly address something - more than ever the focus of the blog will be visual. And hopefully I'll have something of my own to show on there! That's the main reason for redirecting my energy though right now practical considerations have to be taken care of first...
Delete