From the Film Watching, Criticism, etc. forum:

QUOTE

It would be helpful and instructive for me, in terms of understanding where all of you are coming from, for some brief reactions to the morality of certain movies. I throw these particular titles out because I’m genuinely interested to know what you think about them in moral terms: Antonia’s Line, Do the Right Thing, Natural Born Killers, Requiem for a Dream, The Sweet Hereafter, and Vertigo. Thanks for indulging me.

Well, people?

I don't think this question works very well. As if responding to the "morality" of a given movie is always in a different category than reacting critically and intelligently to the movie itself (eg. past reviews of Irreversible).

Perhaps CS could clarify his question a bit more, otherwise in answering this question I would feel like I was just setting myself up as a straw-man to be knocked down. There is a long-standing tradition in the history of criticism to see Christian and/or theological readings of cultural texts as purely reactionary. Having to answer the question: "What do you think about the morality of Requiem For a Dream" can only add to this unfortunate stereotype.

In Requiem For a Dream for example we have a collection of immoral people and images that work together in a narrative that in itself isn't de-humanizing. It forces the audience to come in contact with a desperation that leads to a re-assessment of what it means to be human in the first place. It is little more than a modern retelling of The Lost Weekend. Though it arises from the dirtiness of people at the end of ethics, it points outside of itself at more lingering and important questions. Is Leaving Las Vegas immoral because it is nothing other than the story of a man drinking himself while a prostitute watches? Is Camus' The Stranger immoral because it's lead character murders someone? Or is Notes From Underground immoral because the narrator is so cynical? We could go on and on like this with examples of how silly it is to reduce our readings of things to purely moral readings. And I don't really know of many Christian critics that are unaware enough to do this.

Good criticism simply encounters texts and ethical systems embedded in texts. Even better criticism is the interplay between a reviewer's world view and the world view that has been intelligently encountered in the text itself. I just have trouble trying to reduce the critical process to one system of ethics encountering another.

I've been wondering this too. The more I think about the question the more I wonder if aesthetics and ethics are not so intrinsically wrapped up in each other that one can exist outside the other. They are both parts of Axiology in the philosophical categories. And before now, I'm not sure I understood why, but its starting to become more obvious to me.

A couple random connections, that I have yet to connect to each other.

Goethe lists three questions for artistic criticism:
1.What is the work trying to accomplish?
2. How is it trying to accomplish it?
3. How successful is it?
I guess we're trying to decide if Christian critics should be adding a fourth question: 4. Is it worth accomplishing?


I think it may come down to truth. For something to be aesthically good, it must indeed be true in a sense. A true reflection of some aspect of the universe in which we live. Therefore, moral judgment of art is simply: "this movie says this... and its not true, so its not good." Perhaps.

QUOTE

Perhaps CS could clarify his question a bit more, otherwise in answering this question I would feel like I was just setting myself up as a straw-man to be knocked down.

This inquiry came in the context of a larger discussion on the topic of whether movies can be judged in moral terms. I have argued that they generally cannot be, and I've run into fierce resistance.

My goal in posing this question is to have a basis for further discussion on that subject. Personally, my interest is not to knock down straw men, although that might be part of the process; I simply want a better sense of how the people on this discussion board evaluate movies in moral terms, using specific examples. (The comments on Requiem for a Dream provide useful fodder, by the way.)

Helpful?

The morality question needs to be carefuly phrased. Inasmuch as moral behavior is observed by choices, there is no morality of movies. There are moral choices made by the production team, actors, and viewers/participants. For example, an otherwise excellent movie might tempt a person (to unrighteous anger, for example), and so that person makes a moral choice to not see a film.

Other choices are made in production, such as Steve's citation of The Last Temptation (and whose opinion of the film I share). However, you might be interested to know that the film was selected to be part of an annual Christian film festival many of us will attend (consider yourself invited). Mike_H on this board runs the Flickerings festival and may be able to comment on that film's selection.

The effect of these choices are varied. Some will merely have social effects, such as Tom Cruise's language in Magnolia excluding the film from many discussion groups uncomfortable with that language. Others effects may change over time, such as The Birth of a Nation now serving as an example of outrageous racial bias.

With regards to the specific films cited, I have only seen Do the Right Thing, Natural Born Killers, Requiem for a Dream, and Vertigo.

Do the Right thing has served me well in church discussion groups as an excellent example of the complexity of racial issues, anger, and just plain good film-making. The only troubling issues is the sex scene in the film, not becuase it's there but because it limits the film for group discussion. I'm not sure the scene really contributes to the film. The language isn't an issue, really.

I haven't used Natural Born Killers in a group, but it probably has the same issues as Kill Bill: Some people just won't "get" the use of violence. In my mind, NBK was a commentary on the media and violence (including local news, as I recall). It was a bit over the top, but how could a combination of Tarantino and Stone not be? As an example of the effects of violence in film, my church is running a discussion group based on The Passion of the Christ--for battered women overly affected by the violence on the screen.

I consider Requiem for a Dream to be a very good film. Startlingly original, wonderfully acted. It's a great example of how ugliness can be used to illuminate us and illustrate truth. I think the sodomy scene at the end might be too intense for many viewers (and warrant exclusion from some church groups), but it does serve to illuminate the utter humiliation and bondage of the characters. Not an easy film to watch.

Can you give me an idea what the moral issues of Vertigo are? It's been a while since I've seen it.

QUOTE

My goal in posing this question is to have a basis for further discussion on that subject. Personally, my interest is not to knock down straw men, although that might be part of the process; I simply want a better sense of how the people on this discussion board evaluate movies in moral terms, using specific examples.   Helpful?

Stellar. This is going to be a great thread. I want to make a nod here to Dan's point and maybe rephrase his "fourth question" as: What does it mean?

This would not be the same as the first of the three questions, but rather a consciousness that cultural texts in these days (as in: "the information age" for lack of a better term) are double edged swords. In one sense there is an increasing localization of meanings. Marxist, African-American, Gay and Lesbian, Post-Colonial non-indigenous Caucasian, etc... And just add female to any one of these and you have doubled your categories. Any more we encounter films or literature that are consciously written out of one of these perspectives and beg to be read from that perspective.

Thus it isn't reasonable for me to watch O Fantasma and criticize the awkwardly sexuality that is the point of the piece, because I am not playing by the rules of the text.

But these texts are double-edged swords, and while they are increasingly relative and localized, they all take part in the public arena that has been created by the information age. Whether they like it or not, African-American texts are taking part in the same discussion that Caucasian ones are. There is a competition involved, and critics these days are little more than Howard Cosell. We sit and comment on the action, sometimes cheering for who wins and sometimes groaning.

So I think your question about whether or not films can be judged in moral terms is extremely valid. I think though it helps to see that every system of interpretation brings with it an ethical framework, there is no "non-ethical" interpretation. Christian criticism operates according to the same mechanics that any other criticism does.

QUOTE

(The comments on Requiem for a Dream provide useful fodder, by the way.)

Could you elaborate on this? I also like what Dan is trying to get at in terms of the fact that the Church and the world are becoming more increasingly aware that aesthetics are ethics. That epistomology is virtue. This really changes the way that we read stories, and one of the biggest changes in Christian theology over the last few decades is that we finally have the vocabulary to articulate why watching something like Blue or The Sweet Hereafter is so important.

I think it would be helpful for you to suggest a possible "non-moral" way of reading any of these films (like you said somewhere else, it doesn't make sense to talk about theory outside of particularities), and I wonder if "non-moral" is really the best catchphrase for what you are trying to say.

(Great choices for discussion by the way.)

QUOTE

It would be helpful and instructive for me, in terms of understanding where all of you are coming from, for some brief reactions to the morality of certain movies. I throw these particular titles out because I’m genuinely interested to know what you think about them in moral terms: Antonia’s Line, Do the Right Thing, Natural Born Killers, Requiem for a Dream, The Sweet Hereafter, and Vertigo.

Great question, and one I haven't reflected on too deeply. My short answer is that each of the films (no comment on "Antonia's Line," which I haven't seen) depicts immoral behavior, and the motivations of the films' directors may be suspect.

That said, I'm a huge fan of Do the Right Thing, Vertigo and Sweet Hereafter, and I feel like I stand virtually alone in my admiration for Natural Born Killers.

I detested Requiem for a Dream, which I found to be an empty stylistic exercise (contrasted with Killers, which makes one point, with a sledgehammer, but isn't "empty" by my lights).

here's a question...

is it useful to gauge a film's "moral outlook" (ie, the moral lessons and/or implications of the narrative) based on what happens to the characters?

i ask because i was considering "Vertigo," and my feelings toward that film (at least on a moral level) are determined largely by what happens to Jimmy Stewart's character, and the devestation that befalls him and pretty much everyone who comes into contact with him.

can we determine a film's moral bias based on which characters prosper and which fail? can we say, "Hitchcock is condemning Stewart's moral choices because he loses in the end?"

i'd usually say "no," remembering Ecclesiastes, where the wicked prosper and the righteous falter, and everyone meets the same fate in the end - a character's fate needn't be linked to their morality. i believe a narrative can portray a character prospering while still condemning the morality of their actions/beliefs. an example of this, in my mind, is "Natural Born Killers." but such films usually spark controversy, and people often accuse the filmmaker of condoning the character's actions.

QUOTE

I feel like I stand virtually alone in my admiration for Natural Born Killers.

You do not stand alone. I think NBK is a sorely misjudged film. It's brilliantly edited and choreographed in its many and varied modes of storytelling. And it fits perfectly the Flannery O'Connor idea of shouting for a deaf culture.

It's not just about violence... it's about the media. It's about what we see happening more and more these days... the celebrity of the criminal. And it's about the way that entertainment shapes reality rather than the other way around, especially the way it affects the way we relate to our families. (I love the sitcom-spoof chapter about Juliette Lewis's family life.)

I mean, for crying out loud, Jayson Blair is being interviewed on Larry King and allowed to make commentary on the ethics of journalism. Those who are already celebrities use crime as just another way to get attention. Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction may have been a small transgression in the eyes of some, but guess what? She's getting a full-on televised concert on network TV now. Paris Hilton's sex tape "gets out," and suddenly she's the guest-star-in-vogue, appearing on everything from "Las Vegas" to "George Lopez." Kobe Bryant gets interviewed to ask "how he's coping" with the the courtroom dramas and basketball court dramas. Michael Jackson... need I say more?


As for the other films, I've admired each one of them, but they're all rather foggy in my memory.

Do the Right Thing

Haven't seen Do the Right Thing for a decade, but at the time I thought it was one of the most potent social commentaries I'd seen on film. It was vivid, well-acted, fair, sharply written, and willing to wrestle tough questions. The rough language and the violence were entirely necessary to adequately portray the situation in its messy reality.

And it confronted a question I haven't seen addressed nearly as well before or since (although Summer of Sam made a good try at it.)
What do we do when tensions rise to a fever pitch? What do we do when everyone is shouting and no one is listening? In some cases, sadly, we must assume that it's going to end badly, and we must hope that the crisis that finally bursts is one that involves the least collateral damage.

Spike's throwing the garbage can through the window seemed to me like a deliberate choice to make the target SOMETHING rather than SOMEBODY, and thus things turned out better than they might have.

FWIW, I don't remember the sex scene at all, which makes me think that if it was excessive or indulgent, that unfortunate misstep proved minor and didn't harm the film's overall impact. But that's just one viewer's take.


Antonia's Line

Never saw it.

Sweet Hereafter

I remember being deeply moved by the film's willingness to admit that the brutal reality of tragedy brings out the worst in everyone, that the truth is never simple and is often never available, and that sometimes we must hope that we can find the grace to forgive and to allow some questions to remain unanswered. Beautifully filmed, powerfully acted, and yet the film did not intrigue me or draw me back again and again the way that Exotica did. What a marvelously complex and saddening film that was. (And how reprehensibly packaged for video!)

Requiem for a Dream

I remember thinking this film was excessively stylish with some good ideas, but ultimately not a lot of substance. At the time, however, I was burning out on drugs-and-consequences movies, so perhaps I should revisit it.

It covered a lot of familiar territory: "Drugs are miserable, they mess up people's potential, self-control, and judgment. The more you do them, the less you can see your situation clearly, and the less you're able to do anything about them." But the triumph of the film is its boldness in exposing that drugs are just one addiction... that we all wrestle with compulsions that damage us.

This, to me, only serves to underline Scripture's claims that we all are fallen, and that nevertheless we all have built into us a sense that there is a higher way, a way we are supposed to be. We recognize that we have a hunger that self-indulgence will not appease, and yet, we keep on indulging, numbing the real need for nourishment by stuffing ourselves with whatever junk food the world offers us in place of soul food.

This idea runs so contrary to the contemprary philosophy that there is no absolute truth, that we are all free to decide whatever reality we want. No. There is a right way to live. We all know that, at heart, but the more we stray from it, the harder it is to perceive that path, and the weaker we become in our ability to get back to that path. Fortunately, our souls do not depend upon our ability to do the right thing. Our souls depend upon God's grace, which, when encountered, inspires us to live in a way that reflects that grace. That's where Requiem for a Dream takes me, even if the artist never intended to go that far. I think he was more focused on the problem, less on the solution.


It's been ages since I saw Vertigo. Usually with Hitchcock, I'm more enraptured by style than substance, but that just might be a blind spot for me.

This is a great idea for a thread. Welcome, CultureSnob! We're always looking for a good challenge and more intelligent perspective on film here. So stick around and bring your friends![/b]

There will always be a need for moral evaluations of film, for the same reason I change the channel if my kids are in the room while objectionable content is on TV: I want to protect them (and sometimes I want to protect myself).

TV itself uses ratings, and schedules 'heavier' content later in the evening. Heck, the whole G, PG, PG-13 and R ratings are essentially categorizing films the same way Decent Films does. The difference is the emphasis a Christian critic might place on subject matter and ideas, and not on content (i.e., nudity) alone. I realize that that is a significant difference, but I'm just wondering if CultureSnob would accept that any kind of ratings are a good idea.

'A mind, once expanded by a new idea, can never regain its original shape' according to (I believe) Mark Twain. Why would parents who believe in the power of ideas simply let anything into their homes? That would be like a nutritionist shopping at a grocery store where the cans had no labels on them.

but is CultureSnob asking for a moral evaluation, or a moral interpretation? ie, does he want to know if we think those films are morally good/bad, or does he want to know how we'd go about determining that in the first place? is he asking us to rate the films according to a "Christian rating system," or does he want to know how such a system would even be applied to those films?

if he's asking for a mere moral evaluation...well, i don't think any of those films represent immoral perspectives; they don't seek to undermine "traditional morality" as i understand it. i don't watch any of those films and feel that someone is trying to convince me to of immoral ideas. on the contrary, i believe the films are morally and philosophically engaging, and they (in the end) come down on the side of traditional morality. that's my evaluation, anyway...the aforementioned films represent traditional moral perspectives.

but it takes a bit more effort to interpret exactly what those perspectives are, how you find them in those films (without inserting them yourself), and how you go about reaching that evaluation. and i'm guessing that's what CultureSnob is more interested in.

-seth