4 ms·

No, they're asking for it to be morally complex and uncomfortable. The moral lesson is being given in your comment.

jasmer 4y ago
Yes, this is my point, and the commenter is displaying exactly the moral tendency I'm wary of in cinema. Ironically, if you just watch the darn film, you see it for what it is. It's also not a morality tale, it's mostly just entertainment. They're all faulty people, and 'it's complicated'. You can hate them and sympathise with them at the same time. I suggest almost nobody has a problem with 'Casino' the way it is - I do however believe that it wouldn't get made today, for exactly the 'moral concerns' that the commenter indicated. Not only are studios risk averse, there's a culture of people who would just feel such a depiction immoral and 'problematic' as though everything we see is a morality tale, or, that these films directly influence behaviour a bit like Joe Rogan yapping on about vaccines when he probably should not be ... except that this is different. And possibly generation of writers who don't come across enough 'ugly people' in real life to provide fodder as writing material. We're just all becoming a bit too genteel without accents, colour, hints of ethnic orientation. Oh - and teeth. Look at the teeth. Everyone has perfect teeth on film. It's hilarious. It happened over a few years, but now it's unthinkable that someone doesn't have a perfect smile, even the bad guys. Compare it to British TV where they don't select for that and it becomes obvious. The baddies had braces and definitely use 'Crest Strips' and god forbid they don't smoke or drink coffee!
- watwut 4y ago
  Except that you specifically demand that audience ends up with specific moral conclusion in specific situation/scene. And that is the thing, I do watch movies and there is plenty of bad or immoral characters being depicted. It is just not true, at least for shows I watch on netfix, that they would be full of likable moral characters. But they are not enough, because I guess those movies do not have specific lesson you want there to be.
  - jasmer 4y ago
    I'm definitely not suggesting their should be a moral lesson and I indicated quite the opposite. Also, there are plenty of characters with moral ambiguity on Netflix, they're just not that good. 'Perfect Teeth, Perfect Smile' most often don't make good bad guys, unless those are the specific characteristics. It's been a while since 'Swearengen' from Deadwood or 'Chicurg' from No Country for Old Men. Game of Thrones had some baddies. But relatively spekaing I think it's thin pickings. Maybe it's just Netflix fomatting pushing us towards bland content ...
watwut 4y ago
Really not true. "Uncomfortable" is there, you can show uncomfortable and morally complex in many various ways. It does not require "making the audience 'feel' her 'culpability' in some ways:. What op asked for is literally specific moral judgement and lesson. Just not the one you (presumably) agree with.
- jasmer 4y ago
  I definitely did not imply there should be a moral imperative. Moroever, the 'making the audience contemplate her culpability' in having attacked a man before she was hit, is definitely the 'verbotten' form of depiction, the reason being too many people would feel that would somehow justify domestic violence. This is the essence of 'what cannot be put on screen' - ideas that are counter narrative or don't fit nicely. A man hitting a woman is tricky, but a man hitting a woman who is harrassing him is much worse because it might seem to imply the 'guy had a good reason to hit her', even if that 'implication' isn't necessarily obvious, lot of people would freak out anyhow. In 'Gone Girl' the film, you can see the woman was the villain, making 'fake claims' of being raped etc. - this was met with severe blowback, because some people didn't want to see the depiction (and therefore possible justification of the narrative) of woman lying abour rape. The 'social justice imperative' is to 'believe women' and so from their view, it's not something they want on the big screen. The blow back is strong enough that it pushes producers and writers away from those kinds of things. Nobody in the industry wants to be see as 'that guy' aka that 'guy' who may secrety be a 'trump guy' etc.. Unlesss they have a lot of power and people give them the benefit of the doubt, aka Scorsese.

Yes, this is my point, and the commenter is displaying exactly the moral tendency I'm wary of in cinema. Ironically, if you just watch the darn film, you see it for what it is. It's also not a morality tale, it's mostly just entertainment. They're all faulty people, and 'it's complicated'. You can hate them and sympathise with them at the same time. I suggest almost nobody has a problem with 'Casino' the way it is - I do however believe that it wouldn't get made today, for exactly the 'moral concerns' that the commenter indicated. Not only are studios risk averse, there's a culture of people who would just feel such a depiction immoral and 'problematic' as though everything we see is a morality tale, or, that these films directly influence behaviour a bit like Joe Rogan yapping on about vaccines when he probably should not be ... except that this is different. And possibly generation of writers who don't come across enough 'ugly people' in real life to provide fodder as writing material. We're just all becoming a bit too genteel without accents, colour, hints of ethnic orientation. Oh - and teeth. Look at the teeth. Everyone has perfect teeth on film. It's hilarious. It happened over a few years, but now it's unthinkable that someone doesn't have a perfect smile, even the bad guys. Compare it to British TV where they don't select for that and it becomes obvious. The baddies had braces and definitely use 'Crest Strips' and god forbid they don't smoke or drink coffee!

watwut 4y ago
Except that you specifically demand that audience ends up with specific moral conclusion in specific situation/scene. And that is the thing, I do watch movies and there is plenty of bad or immoral characters being depicted. It is just not true, at least for shows I watch on netfix, that they would be full of likable moral characters. But they are not enough, because I guess those movies do not have specific lesson you want there to be.
- jasmer 4y ago
  I'm definitely not suggesting their should be a moral lesson and I indicated quite the opposite. Also, there are plenty of characters with moral ambiguity on Netflix, they're just not that good. 'Perfect Teeth, Perfect Smile' most often don't make good bad guys, unless those are the specific characteristics. It's been a while since 'Swearengen' from Deadwood or 'Chicurg' from No Country for Old Men. Game of Thrones had some baddies. But relatively spekaing I think it's thin pickings. Maybe it's just Netflix fomatting pushing us towards bland content ...

watwut 4y ago

Really not true. "Uncomfortable" is there, you can show uncomfortable and morally complex in many various ways. It does not require "making the audience 'feel' her 'culpability' in some ways:. What op asked for is literally specific moral judgement and lesson. Just not the one you (presumably) agree with.

jasmer 4y ago
I definitely did not imply there should be a moral imperative. Moroever, the 'making the audience contemplate her culpability' in having attacked a man before she was hit, is definitely the 'verbotten' form of depiction, the reason being too many people would feel that would somehow justify domestic violence. This is the essence of 'what cannot be put on screen' - ideas that are counter narrative or don't fit nicely. A man hitting a woman is tricky, but a man hitting a woman who is harrassing him is much worse because it might seem to imply the 'guy had a good reason to hit her', even if that 'implication' isn't necessarily obvious, lot of people would freak out anyhow. In 'Gone Girl' the film, you can see the woman was the villain, making 'fake claims' of being raped etc. - this was met with severe blowback, because some people didn't want to see the depiction (and therefore possible justification of the narrative) of woman lying abour rape. The 'social justice imperative' is to 'believe women' and so from their view, it's not something they want on the big screen. The blow back is strong enough that it pushes producers and writers away from those kinds of things. Nobody in the industry wants to be see as 'that guy' aka that 'guy' who may secrety be a 'trump guy' etc.. Unlesss they have a lot of power and people give them the benefit of the doubt, aka Scorsese.