Critical Acclaim of Realism, but Sacrifice of Morality

Critical Acclaim of Realism, but Sacrifice of Morality May 22, 2017 5:58:49 GMT spiderwort likes this

Quote

Post by london777 on May 22, 2017 5:58:49 GMT

May 22, 2017 3:06:42 GMT moviemouth said:

May 22, 2017 1:38:14 GMT london777 said:

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.

I meant it the way I said it - A concious decision by the filmmaker/screenwriter.

The problem I have with what the OP is saying is that it isn't a movies job to provide moral commentary, nor should it be. It's just the writers/directors take on life and society and that often includes a moral stance in some way. The kind of movies it seems the OP wants is movies that talk down to the viewer. Screenwriters are just people like everyone else, they aren't saints.

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

I'm not as smart as you are.

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.

Most movies have a useful message for me ... it isn't a movies job to provide moral commentary

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

The problem I have with what the OP is saying is that it isn't a movies job to provide moral commentary, nor should it be. It's just the writers/directors take on life and society and that often includes a moral stance in some way.

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

... it isn't a movies job to provide moral commentary, nor should it be.

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.

The kind of movies it seems the OP wants is movies that talk down to the viewer.

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?