|
|
Post by london777 on May 22, 2017 16:43:43 GMT
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. 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.
|
|