Here I bring the week of pieces on the morals of film to an end with a few thoughts for debate.
Playing Tricks
What are the issues surrounding a film which pretends to be fiction and isn't or pretends to be real and is fictional or fake. Think of the ambiguous natures of Abbas Kiarostami's Shirin, of Catfish or Exit through the Gift Shop. Do we need to know whether a work of art is 'real' or 'unreal'? Is it our right? Are we being betrayed?
Do we need to be more aware of how documentary film-making skews reality in conscious and unconscious ways?
Special Editions, 3D, Directors Cuts....
The rapid advancement of technology has facilitated the creation of many variations of the same work. Does greed play a part? Is our sense that only watching all the versions would represent a proper knowledge of the work being exploited?
Altering Films
To what extent do we own or have a stake in films that we have seen? Think of E.T. and of Star Wars.
Back from the Dead
What are the moral implications of revivifying the image of dead actors and actresses?
Censorship
What should be censored? Should we allow the worst things imaginable be screened, as long as what is filmed remains fictional/simulated? When, if ever, can the unchecked exercise of freedom be damaging?
Piracy
Are the lines blurred, in a world of easier and easier access to media, between right and wrong? Do rights holders exert too much control?
Inspiration vs Theft
Where does homage become plagiarism?
Moral Messages for Children
Are films in general perpetuating the tyranny of groups and cliques? How are friendships, parental relationships, love stories and sexual relationships presented, coded and resolved? Are they imprinting the right things in children's minds? Are children's films coarser than they were? Do we need to be more careful in children's films where the audience may be more impressionable and the conscious filtering of fictional from real less sophisticated?
How do we navigate the need of art to reflect the real and explore the unreal, to remember the world as we forget it? Should artists be encouraged to offer enlightenment?
Most importantly, how much of an impact do films really make on us? How much (if we take modern film as one entity) of us as we are is on the screen? How much of us as we will be?
I may pick up on a couple of these questions in the future.
I just want you to know, sir, I admire what you've done here. I know it's not easy running a blogathon and it can be very easy to feel things have not lived up to expectations. Contacting various blogger friends and hoping you've got a good timespan, etc. etc. But I really like what you've written and may respond to this and other posts more explicitly if I have time. I would have offered my services with a blog post of my own, but unfortunately I have fallen massively behind in schoolwork as well as behind in my blogging, and I simply have not had time.
ReplyDeleteThese are fascinating subjects, though, and they deserve to be more discussed in the blogosphere. Thank you and good luck!
Stephen,
DeleteThanks very much.
There wasn't much interest on the writing side but the most important thing to me was to raise issues that aren't consistently addressed. Maybe they would be touched upon with regards to individual films but not to the industry/art form as a whole.
Thanks again.
After watching Star Wars ep I recently in 3D I felt ripped off for paying more for an inferior product. My heart sinks a little each time the franchise is re-released knowing that the improvements in technology have little chance of imrpoving the films. While obviously the director/studio owns a film I think they have a duty to their audience to keep them as intended. Artists don't go to galleries to touch up their work on the walls. Film Makers shouldn't do either.
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteThis is a complex issue. They do own the film at it is theirs to do to as they wish. Maybe the onus is on them to be aware of the effect their decisions make (and really how popular and loved some of their work is as it was first shown), to realise that these touch ups may sometimes be alienating, frustrating and unconsciously taking advantage rather than a little bonus gift.
Just because something is liked doesn't mean we necessarily want/need more of it. By the same token we must also bear in mind that it isn't just up to the film-maker. The studio is king here.
Another thought : Director's Cuts are always packaged as his chance to show what he wanted before everyone else got their hands on the product. And yet they aren't acts of rebellion but studio-released and sponsored.
Of course, improvement is the crux of the matter, as you say, though that doesn't tell us what the motivation was. Personally I don't think greed is behind it. It's more like good business sense (they like this, let's give it to them again).
"Artists don't go to galleries to touch up their work on the walls. Film Makers shouldn't do either."
Haha! Good point.
Correction :
Delete"Directors' Cuts".
I also was a little harsh here. There's nothing wrong with perfection and an artist wanting to get it just right. I also do enjoy different versions of the same thing (remakes, adaptations etc.).
However, toes can be stepped on in the artist's pursuit of the best he can do.
Interesting questions raised, I look forward to future blog posts concerning these.
ReplyDeleteI do have a lot of opinions and thoughts on the case of piracy, but I don't know if this is the place or time to take these, so I think I'll wait until a day should arise when you bring up the subject.
Cheers Batman.
Delete"I do have a lot of opinions and thoughts on the case of piracy, but I don't know if this is the place or time to take these..."
You can raise them whenever you wish. Like I said, I don't know for sure if I will write about it or not.
I really do wish I could have contributed as I had promised Stephen, but the past two weeks have been hectic for me with a film festival to consider and a run of out-of-house movie going.
ReplyDelete"When does homage become plagerism"?
This is a hot one, with a preponderence of charges always leveled at a director who "canibalizes" for good intent. Just recently the composer of THE ARTIST, Ludovic Bource was taken to task for his use of Bernard Herrman's VERTIGO score in his Oscar-winning THE ARTIST. Adherents of the film like myself saw the homage and the astute use of the piece, while others who weren't big fans of the film cried plagerism. Everyone makes application for their own needs it seems.
By the way, morality in the American pre-code era would be a fascinating study for obvious reasons.
Sam,
ReplyDelete"I really do wish I could have contributed as I had promised Stephen,"
I don't think you actually did promise Sam(!). It would have been no problem anyway, though a contribution would have been most welcome.
"Adherents of the film like myself saw the homage and the astute use of the piece, while others who weren't big fans of the film cried plagerism. Everyone makes application for their own needs it seems."
Oh, indeed!
"By the way, morality in the American pre-code era would be a fascinating study for obvious reasons."
As I said before, this is a period I know little about. I'd like to explore it some more.
Thanks.
These are important, fascinating questions you ask & frankly I think I'm going to have to wait until I can give the time and attention they deserve. Which might be months down the line - but I've mentally bookmarked these posts and will return to them. I really like the ambition and thoughtfulness of what you've done with this series.
ReplyDeleteBtw, lately there's been a bit of storm in a teacup over whether Wes Anderson's TV commercials count as part of artistic output and whether filmmakers doing commercials are "sellouts." It's not exactly a "moral" issue but a lot of questions about artistic integrity do arise. I find it a fascinating tangle.
Here's Richard Brody's posts on the subject with links to some Twitter feedback and a Guardian piece in response (the Guardian piece is really worth reading, in fact I'll link that too). Unfortunately, New Yorker comments are kind of screwy right now - I left a bunch of comments on these pieces but most of them don't show up for some reason. I'll just say that, for me, the Guardian gets closer to it though I don't agree with everything he says (I think his assessment of Aronofsky's ad and its relation to selling out though is way more on the mark than the Slate piece he was responding to)
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2012/03/wes-anderson-hyundai-commercials.html
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/movies/2012/03/the-anderson-tapes-redux.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/mar/16/wes-anderson-car-ads-sellouts
Thanks Joel and thanks for the links too.
DeleteI will say that that people seem very preoccupied with the artistic 'integrity' (whatever that really is) of others. I think there's snobbery, selfishness (disappointment in people we want to be doing what we want them to do), and no little confusion involved here.
I will read up on this particular business.
My take is that it's a little silly to scold Anderson or Aronofsky for taking advertising commissions - they want to pay the bills, or keep their hand in, or whatever, and if they do/don't want to bring their sensibility to bear on the proceedings eh, why not. With the caveat that it is disappointing to see something ephemeral reduced to a commodity (meaning that a style which seemed to put to something beyond banality is now yoked to banality - in this sense Anderson is more egregious than Aronofsky) but on the whole it's a minor thing.
DeleteHowever, at the same time I blanch at praising these commercials on the same level as their films. I think that trivializes their films somewhat and misunderstands what makes their visions vital in the first place - it isn't just a series of aesthetic touchstones (duplicated in the ad) but a marriage of theme and presentation, and a creation of a meaningful whole - whereas the climax of the ad is the "money shot" of the product. Imagine if Royal Tenenbaums ended with a dull shot of a car or soda can. It's kind of an artistic emasculation (not sure what the female equivalent of that term would be if, say, Sofia Coppola dabbled in commercials).
Maybe the best I could say for the Anderson ad is that the opening sequence is artistic, but the ad as a whole is not. Sort of like using the Mona Lisa in an advertisement doesn't make the ad itself some great work.
I should also point out there are different kinds of ads. There's the Aronofsky-type ones, where it could be anybody in the driver's seat. The concept and execution, while flashy, are totally indistinct.
DeleteThen there are the Anderson sorts, where a definite directorial voice is in play, but it's totally dependent upon/connected to the aims of the advertisement and usually contains a moment when the product overtakes the rest completely.
Then there's a third kind - the only kind I'd really consider "art" in the same sense as a movie - which is basically just a short film sponsored by the company. The product has little to do with what we see, or only coincidentally so, and the work has a life of its own. Generally in this case we'd just see a logo at the end but the commercial could stand on its own as a short film - it is not directed toward promoting the product but used to add prestige to the product, with the company as a patron hoping to get something out of the deal. I don't think either the Aronofsky or the Anderson commercials fit this third category.
We can wish that someone would concentrate their talents in a certain direction but it's their career/life and not ours.
Delete"However, at the same time I blanch at praising these commercials on the same level as their films."
I haven't seen the ads yet (I will soon) but in general I see no reason why a great advert cannot be somewhat on the same level. The fact I have only seen a handful of excellent ads of top class artistic + advertising quality is by the by.
"Imagine if Royal Tenenbaums ended with a dull shot of a car or soda can. It's kind of an artistic emasculation"
The only difference is that the purpose and aim of the work is someone else's and not yours.
I don't think the product need "take over completely", nor do I think that this makes it any less worthwhile as a project. Artists have always adapted their 'unique' voice to commissions.
"third kind....the product has little to do with what we see, or only coincidentally so, and the work has a life of its own. Generally in this case we'd just see a logo at the end but the commercial could stand on its own as a short film - "
I find this more unappealing if anything (though still it doesn't particularly bother me) because the art you've just seen and got involved in is revealed to have no greater truth to it than to sell something. Right at the end it pops up "ta-da!".
On the subject of auteurist commercials, my basic opinion is this: It's perfectly all right for any director to make commercials if they want to, to pay the bills or because it's fun. No one seems to disagree with this. Why, then, if they wish to actually invest their creative personality in the ad, is that wrong? Are they not taking what could be simply a boring, soulless work-for-hire job, and making it personal, creative, and interesting?
DeleteJoel's point seems to object to the ability of commercials to be art at all, and therefore any attempt at being art by a commercial is suspect and disturbing. I understand that, and I don't look to commercials for artistic meaning. But for cleverness and creativity and even a display of behind-the-camera personality, why not? It's only when the commercial becomes artistically ambitious/pretentious and/or attempts to milk emotion from me that I get irritated, because I know it is so baldly mercenary and manipulative. Anderson's ads are humorous, and therefore they are completely fine by me.
Stephen,
DeleteI agree, although I do understand Joel's qualms. There is only a slight problem for me (and it's not a moral one) when they try to trick you into thinking it's not a commercial at all.
When all's said and done there's nothing wrong with an ad, so why have an ad that acts as if there is something wrong?
Since you asked of 'Morality' methinks ye needs some YouTube guidance
ReplyDeletefrom The Pope, and here it is
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfNJWOZPbSw
SOGS,
Tor