Critical Acclaim of Realism, but Sacrifice of Morality

1. That isn't "moral relativism".

2. You want art to treat people like mindless children who need to be instructed by those who are wiser than them and know better. The art you are whining about is for adults who are intelligent enough to draw conclusions on their own. It respects our intelligence rather than talking down to us.

3. Most of the art you are whining about presupposes at least minimal commonality between artist and viewer regarding moral values, so that a skilled artist wishing to support a particular view can do so merely by presenting situations without obvious comment, with the expectation that an intelligent viewer will draw the desired conclusion, assuming there is one to draw. I'm reminded of the way Wittgenstein taught physics to children when he was a teacher--instead of having them mindlessly memorize formulas and laws handed to them from on high, he would point out crucial observations and get them to tease out the conclusions themselves in much the way scientists discovered the laws themselves.

4. Real life contains many situations of deep ethical complexity where there is no obvious right ethical position, but a variety of stances with their own merits. Art which addresses this complexity and allows the viewer to draw his or her own conclusion rather than lecturing them makes the viewer wiser, and thus enriches society.

Even if the movie is telling the viewer how to think, it is still up to the viewer whether he agrees or not anyway. Almost every movie takes a moral stance, it's just I guess some people aren't smart enough to notice it. 

It seems that you want filmmakers to treat the viewer like a child.

If you mean by that, "almost every movie assumes a certain set of moral values", then I agree with you. "Takes a moral stance" suggests a conscious decision. "Assumes" suggests a subconscious decision. 

Sometimes these implicit, unstated values may conflict with the intended message of the scriptwriters and/or director, but that is another issue, getting away from innmouth's OP.

OK, that is a clear statement. I apologize for trying to twist it into something else.

LOL. No-one has ever accused me of being smart before. I am just very old and have picked up a lot of stuff over the years, though these days I am forgetting it quicker than I acquire it.


Is there a difference between "message" and "moral commentary". I guess there is, but it would need spelling out.


If his/her film includes a moral stance, is that not the same as providing a moral commentary, whether explicitly or subliminally? 

That is your position. I suppose it is most people's position in the liberal West. But it is not the only possible position. There has always been a strong case that art should serve society. That has been the position of most, perhaps all, religions, and of most authoritarian regimes, whether of the left or right. It was Plato's position and of many great philosophers influenced by him. In fact I would say it has been the normal view in most countries for most centuries, and our liberal Western position of "art for art's sake" is the exception to the norm and may be short-lived.

Interesting that innsmouth saw the conflict as between realism and idealism. Historically, those who say that art should serve society have often favored realism and eschewed idealism, which is the opposite to what he is saying. 

But then it gets even more complicated. Soviet Russia favored "social realist" art. But today those paintings of gleaming white new constructions and muscular bronzed construction workers look very unrealistic and closer to an idealistic fantasy. Maybe some of the movies he calls too realistic today will look very different in fifty years time and the moral stance you wrote of will shine through any outdated coating of realism.


Maybe that is the kind he wants, but it is unfair of you to assume it. And do you call education "talking down"? The beautiful stained glass windows in cathedrals which we admire as art today were not created as such but as tools to educate or give moral guidance. If we are religious we would not regard that as "talking down". And even if we are not religious and see them as brain-washing, are we not glad to have them?

Many thanks for your prompt reply and for giving me a specific example to look at. Of course I remember that subplot but need to re-watch the film (hopefully soon) before giving a considered response.

So what you're really whining about is not so much that films lack a moral message, but rather that they have a moral message that you don't agree with.