Moral Responsibility of Filmmakers

I think using the word "fascistic," even qualified with "tendencies," is way over the top. He didn't say "should" in conjunction with anything remotely controversial. He said they should emphasize hard work, respect, heroism and honesty. Who wants to argue these things are bad? Have at it.

What he's saying is no more moralistic or judgmental than the mere act of ever thinking any behavior is preferable to any other. If you're a total moral relativist who thinks teaching a kid anything--even "being honest is good"--is somehow indoctrination, then obviously we have a fundamental disagreement. But then, you'd also have to find virtually all childrearing objectionable, so there'd be no reason to single Watch_Tower out, either.

All totalitarian regimes have used art to propagate their value systems. They have all had very specific ideas - particularly in terms of art directed at children - for what should be produced and what should not be allowed.

Hard work towards what end? Respect for whom? Heroism for what cause? Even honesty - can you honestly not think of any examples where it would be prudent for a child to be deceitful rather than honest?

When we start using the words art, should, morals, values, etc in the same sentence, perhaps it's time to question ourselves and what we're trying to impose on whom and why.

I think when we start opposing the idea that teaching children honesty is good, that's when we have to start questioning ourselves.

Your objections to the virtues listed are implausibly subtle. If I take them to their logical conclusion, it means that unless we can present children with a highly nuanced picture of any virtue and its many sprawling exceptions, we apparently can't teach them any general principles at all. I find this, to put it kindly, completely impractical. I suppose you don't like telling kids not to hit people, too, unless we immediately affix an addendum detailing the exceptions for self-defense? And failing to do so makes us fascistic?

Your position is also self-contradictory. Children's films that teach exactly what you say--that they should think for themselves and not be instructed by their parents--are still teaching. They're still taking a position and saying that this thing is better than the other things. It just happens to be your position, and not someone else's.

Yoda, you have a way of twisting words to serve your point. This is what I wrote.

How about making films that emphasize children's trust for themselves and that they do not necessarily need to listen to adults who think they know what's best for children?

Not what you wrote:

Children's films that teach exactly what you say--that they should think for themselves and not be instructed by their parents--are still teaching.


I posited this as one possibility other than what the other guy said about the kind of art we should make.

I won't be responding anymore to this thread. I think I've said all I need to and I don't want to get into a long-winded debate that revolves around petty points and semantics.

Well, you can respond or not, but I'll reply all the same.

The phrasing you mention doesn't really change anything, because it doesn't really matter if you've got a specific alternative in mind or not. To say what art shouldn't be is just as much an imposition of values as saying what it should be. Both promote one thing by excluding others, which means it's ultimately the same as the thing you're opposing. Far from being semantics, this seems like a fundamental contradiction.

The most important thing about a movie is.....the movie itself.

Thanks for the back up Yoda and the point I highlighted from your post is extremely important.

Maybe I didn't explain my point to CelluloidChild well enough, what I'm simply trying to say is (I'll try not to extend this too much) that movies are tailored to a particular audience, like all forms of entertainment. And it is with the audience in mind that film makers have to decide on what moral lessons and themes need to be included.

At this point, I'll go back to my original point about children's movies, they contain values of selflessness, heroism, honesty and so on because this is what we want our children to grow up with. If someone doesn't want their children to have those values, then maybe they should seriously rethink their parenting strategies.

Obviously movies aimed at more adult audiences, for example those made by the likes of Scorsese and Tarantino will contain things which may be deemed morally wrong for viewing by a child, such as murder, rape, violence etc. It is then the responsibility of the film makers involved to make sure these acts which in reality would be viewed as criminal are not glamourised.

A fine example of this is the use of violence in Tarantino movies, some of it is highly stylised and Tarantino refers to this as "cathartic violence", examples include some of the massive shootouts in Django, the cinema scene in Basterds and the fight scenes in Kill Bill. This is in stark contrast to the more chilling scenes of torture in Django which are obviously not meant to be "cathartic" or stylised. I think this was a surprisingly mature and moralist stance taken by Tarantino who is often criticised for his movie contents. In my opinion this was the right choice by Tarantino and not only presented a morally responsible decision but also provided far more artistic depth to his product.

I'm pretty sure none of those opinions are fascist.

I said I wouldn't reply to this thread, but.....

First, I know the term 'fascist tendencies' might seem too strong; however, it always rubs me the wrong way when people - individually, but especially as a group - attempt to be prescriptive about art.

I was thinking today about the Pink Floyd movie The Wall. Consider the central character, Pink. As a child, the values Watch Tower prescribes for children's films - hard work, respect, heroism and honesty - were drummed into Pink. We see his teacher using his cane to punish anything less than respect and hard work. Heroism, in the context of World War II Britain, was a given - Pink's father (like Roger Waters' own father) is a hero killed in battle. We see Pink trying on his father's military cap. And honesty? When the teacher reads what Pink has honestly expressed on paper with his poetry (lyrics to Money, Pink Floyd's parody of capitalist greed), the teacher laughs at the boy and humiliates him in front of the whole class. In such an instance I would say f**k being 'honest' to such a prick, f**k the teacher and his values.

And that's exactly what Pink Floyd was saying in the film: We don't need no education; we don't need no thought control, the kids sing. Pink, as an adult rock star, hallucinates that he is a fascist dictator, and the film draws clear links between the blind mass following of his fans and the education system he grew up in.



As adults and movie fans, we see The Wall and are on the side of the singing kids. We think, 'I'd never try to indoctrinate my children like that.' But then we don't notice the ways - subtle and more obvious - that we turn out to be more like the teacher.

I never said films should not uphold those four values you mentioned. Rather, why limit it to those four? But also keep in mind that if you want to emphasize those four certain values above others you are placing yourself squarely within a particular western paradigm. (Read Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism.)

I come from a background that espouses helping children learn how to think for themselves rather than what to think. Admittedly, a greater task for an educator - and for an artist - but ultimately a more liberating one for all concerned.

You might tell me, Oh, well, you're just imposing your values: i.e. emphasizing how to think. But if you believe that, you've probably not been exposed to the power of critical, independent thought.

I don't think it seems too strong; I think it is too strong. Those are extreme words. Fightin' words, really. I'm impressed Watch_Tower has been as restrained as he has in response. Must be all that good moral teaching.

But of course, you use those same values to condemn the teacher in the first place. The problem is not the teaching, but the failure to live what they teach. By humiliating and abusing students, they are not respecting them. By mocking honesty, they are not really teaching the children to value it.

Obviously, "thought control" is bad. The question is whether or not all instructive education automatically rises to the level of thought control. And I think that's the leap you keep making.

Now, I don't have any trouble admitting that it's possible to cross some threshold from instructive to dictatorial when teaching anyone anything. The question is, do you recognize the converse? Do you recognizing that teaching can be merely instructive, and not necessarily dictatorial? Because you raised the specter of fascism at the slightest notion that we should teach kids these things.

And by emphasizing others you place yourself in some other paradigm. Whatever you do you will be able to be categorized, and by emphasizing any virtue you run the risk of underemphasizing some other virtue. This is just as true of what you prescribe.

My critical thinking tells me that these things are not mutually exclusive. But let's be practical for a second: the notion that you can teach nothing but thought structure to preschoolers is completely implausible. Children start learning immediately, and they absorb the most at the youngest ages, long before they are remotely capable of being taught anything on this level. It's not a question of whether some basic values will be instilled in them, but merely what those values will be.

This is kind of like a salesman saying "you wouldn't think I was trying to sell you a product if you tried it!" The question is not whether what you're describing is powerful or even good. The question is whether or not it's a set of values. And it clearly is.

More than that, the mere fact that you seem to regard it otherwise--as if it were sort of neutral--suggests that it's exactly the sort of thing you're ostensibly warning against. It's a value so assumed that it's not even recognized as one.

'Fascist tendencies' might seem like fighting words to you, Yoda, because you probably see fascism as something that exists somewhere else in space and time.

Strong fascist tendencies - political, cultural, social, military and yes, educational - exist in the good old USA. Not pure fascism, obviously, but definitely strong tendencies. I'm not going to try to convince you of this; from what I've seen of your arguing here and in other threads this is something you likely wouldn't recognize even after years of debate.

My previous post was actually more geared towards Watch Tower to explain where I was coming from in my original response about being prescriptive about art.

Sure, if you see fascism everywhere already, it may be no big deal to accuse someone of it. But if this were the case, there would be no reason to single Watch_Tower out, either. You asked him if he "[stepped] out of Little House on the Prairie?" How does that make sense if you actually think his view is predominant? Why note that his view has fascistic tendencies when you really mean that the entire culture does? Heck, why even assume that the virtues he listed were meant to be an exhaustive list? You seemed to be spoiling for this.

I don't particularly care to debate with you, either, about whether or not fascism is already ubiquitous, though your backhanded rationale for abstaining is certainly noted. Between this and the fascism accusation, I wonder if we can even agree that simple civility should be taught? Or is the idea of teaching children to be honest so noxious that you don't think either of us is owed any?

You are free, of course, to gear your posts towards whomever you like. The apparent contradiction remains: it is not opposing prescriptive art to simply prefer a different prescription, and any moral condemnation you can muster at the idea is, itself, going to be based in some other notion of morality.

No backhandedness intended. It's just clear to me that our worldviews are very different and I don't foresee such a debate as being productive.

Fair enough; I'll gladly take you at your word as to intent. And I happen to agree. I don't think that precludes us from discussing the consistency issue, however.

I see the points of all of you and as an unkown screenwriter I see the potential harm in the suggestion of random acts that could influence the ones that have off behavior, but to just stop making movies that show these things is not going to happen, but also I don't know of many cases where the reason or motive for an act was inspired by a movie. Jail is a horrible place and I have a movie in the works which is fully written but it shows the dark side and stailness of it and the loss or gaining life back after the time is over. But my experince to not get too personal was a wrongful arrest and I wish it could be made into a movie, but it has it is my first script. But after seeing people with scitzophrenia and other ailments after the jail was over I see that they just really want freedom and understanding which they might not have gotten before, which is not really possible at first. I'm not shooting down the healthcare industry just the doctors in the one I was in didn't talk that much and just prescribed more meds.

I believe that the whole films music whatever don't cause anything use it for a cop out to avoid any responsibility. Is the film the cause? Of course not. But you have to question yourself as to what type of influence do you want to have in society. It's known fact are actions are influenced by what we see and hear.

I was going to write a post replying to Celluloid Child but I think Yoda has just about covered every point I could think of and more. For that reason I'd like to move beyond Celluloid Child and point out something interesting which has been said by Deathchamberzmusic:

"It's known fact are actions are influenced by what we see and hear."

^^^More so in children but let us talk about people in general. We are all, each an everyone of us heavily influenced by what we see or hear, especially when those things are done by or said from the lips of people who we hold in high esteem. They could be movie stars, athletes, musicians, our friends, teachers, parents and siblings.

I've often seen the correlation between modern hip hop music and how we as teenagers used to behave, dress, speak, heck ,we even tried walking like them. We cut our hair, shaped our facial hair (or tried to anyway lol) the same way they did. It's clear now, that a lot of modern day rap contains nothing but profanity which holds little artistic value yet it influenced millions of people world wide. That's not to say the whole of hip hop is bad, artists such as Mos Def, Lupe Fiasco, at times even Eminem and Plan B have taken their genre to never before seen levels of musicality and social commentary.

The same can be said for movie makers, the writers, directors and producers. I see nothing wrong in violent movies, or movies which may portray other, darker aspects of our societies, what is important is the execution. How is the violence shown, what is it used for, why is it there? The same rules apply to other aspects. Because everyone is influenced by cinema, young and old.

I personally dislike those who claim a violent movie made them shoot up a bunch of kids. It's a soft excuse made by cowards but it can definitely influence ones way of thinking. So film makers carry a greater moral responsibility than any other artists on the planet. It speaks of their importance to our society and also of the power they wield.