Critical Acclaim of Realism, but Sacrifice of Morality

Critical Acclaim of Realism, but Sacrifice of Morality May 22, 2017 12:07:37 GMT spiderwort and london777 like this

Quote

Post by THawk on May 22, 2017 12:07:37 GMT

May 22, 2017 1:21:55 GMT london777 said:

May 21, 2017 10:39:43 GMT THawk said:

One of my biggest issues of a very dominant trend in both filmmaking and TV shows in the past few years is the overbearing strive and subsequent critical acclaim for material that is heavily realistic, presents "complex and flawed" characters, but there is a complete lack of central morality or moral lens for the viewer. If anything about good and evil, right or wrong, morality in general is touched upon, it is strictly restrained to moral relativism, where it's always "up to the viewer" to form their own feelings, the filmmaker tries not to offer the slightest clue about his or her stance on the issues. Pretty much every last "critically acclaimed" TV show these days falls under this category, and a plethora of movies, Manchester by the Sea being the most recent example of the ones I have seen, though it's really not about one or two examples.

The issue I have with this "non judgmental" trend is that I firmly believe art, truly great art, should in some shape or form benefit society, not simply present it "as is." When society celebrates stories of moral relativism, it adopts moral relativism. Things that were, and for good reason, seen as clearly wrong, suddenly become "complex," up for personal interpretation, depending on "circumstance." And if challenged, the excuse is always "oh I'm not endorsing this, I'm just portraying real life without judging. This is what people do."

But when art abandons teaching moral messages, that contributes to society becoming morally anchorless and losing its scope of what's right or wrong. No, this definitely is not an argument about "violent movies influence violence in real life" or anything of the sort - it's not about what is portrayed, but how it is portrayed. And morality seems to have been sacrificed by many filmmakers on the altar of realism, with both public and critical acclaim embracing this with both arms.

This is a very interesting and complex topic and, while I am probably nearer to faustus5's stance than to yours, I think you both need to spell out your positions more clearly as you both make big assumptions. Besides, faustus cannot just dismiss your arguments out of hand. You have such deep thinkers as Plato, Goebbels and Lenin on your side in stating that art should serve society and refuting "art for art's sake". The problem comes as to who decides what line art is supposed to be taking (The Vatican? The Fuehrer? The Central Committee of the Communist Party? Ann Coulter?)

I just want to pick up on a detail for now. You only specifically mention one film, "Manchester by the Sea". I find this a surprising choice to illustrate your argument. I cannot remember any ambiguity or disputes in that film about what was right or wrong. The film was murky psychologically, but not morally, as far as I can remember. I expect to be watching it again fairly soon, so I would appreciate your advice as to what to look out for.

Well spoilers obviously for those who haven't seen it -

The nephew, Patrick, is shown to be playing two women, having at least two girlfriends, and there is not the slightest hint anywhere in the movie that that is a morally wrong thing, instead it's just portrayed as a normal teenage thing, part of who he is, part of growing up. Just there, no commentary. Now, for liberals cheating and teenage sex may be perfectly ok under the whole "sexual revolution" thing, so for them I suppose there is nothing to argue here - but the hope remains that there are some sections of society who disagree with this sort of thing.