Depiction doesn't equal endorsement

I'm fed up with people on the internet thinking that the mere fact a filmmaker depicts a certain thing means that they endorse or support it. I'm not even talking about the "problematic portrayals normalize behavior" thing but merely about morally nuanced characters and/or the auteur's artistic license to show anything they want without having to fear censorship or tokenist morality police reviewers.

It seems to me that people more and more want to policy what should be allowed to be shown and in which way because otherwise it doesn't agree with their weak minds. Bonus points if they completely miss the point of the movie.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

Oh, I fully concur. But I feel like that argument has been well and truly lost a long time ago. Immensely dispiriting that this is how things are now. I really miss morally grey characters and endings, Touch of Evil and the like. I guess nuance of any sort isn’t en vogue anymore.

100 % agree. A lot of people don't seem to get this. Some people will go even further and assume that anyone who watches and likes the film must also endorse/support the behaviour.

Meaning people who watch Downfall and other such movies or series are fans of Hitler and nazi ideology? I'm not really buying that.

Complaining about unlikable characters is...fair, I guess. Like, if the film you were watching wasn't the pleasure seeking vehicle you hoped it would be, I guess it's fair to be unsatisfied.

I've just always found it odd how most of the people who use that criticism tend to use it for characters with relatively low stake flaws ("This character is a bully", "This character is rude to their family", "This character is a bad parent", etc.) and ignore it for films with murderers as the main characters like The Godfather, Goodfellas, Le Samourai, Pulp Fiction, etc. The main characters in those films are far worse than the characters those people typically complain about.

Overall, I think unlikable characters can be just as complex, layered, and interesting as likable characters, so I feel that dismissing those films with "I found them unlikable" is oftentimes barely scratching the surface of the complexities of those characters.

Agreed. Me thinks that the like/upvote button that's a hallmark of social media sites has programed the drone-masses to react in a way as to get the maximum cheer from the peanut gallery. Whilst dissenting voices hide under the couch.

Funnily enough, I watched Cleo from 5 to 7 this afternoon and probably just me being a dim wit, but I couldn't work out whether the references to racism and to women being treated as ornaments was approving or disapproving (I know that the director was a woman)!

I have not seen Cleo from 5 to 7, but you have to remember it's social contents are of the time that it was made, i.e. 1962. What you question, 'references to racism and to women being treated as ornaments was approving or disapproving' might not have the same meaning today as it had in 1962. Humans try to filter what they see through the contemporary eye of today. The trick is to know enough about history and the way it was to be able to make an assessment. BUT even if the director of Cleo From 5 to 7 does show 'racism and women being treated as ornaments' without showing an approval or disapproval of that, it's still not a flaw, as in that case it's the director reflecting the way things were in her world of 1962.

Nah. There were several references to women being treated as ornaments. Some point was being made about it, I just didn't know what the point being made was. I would actually lean towards the director saying this is the natural way of things so don't make a fuss about it, but I wouldn't like to put any money on that, and perhaps she was calling it out.
In terms of racism, in particular there was one comment where someone was accused joking of being racist for saying he thinks someone has "gone back to Africa", but it seemed to be sarcastic criticism, although again I could be wrong on that. There was one other reference where I got a similar feeling, but can't remember what it was.
I'm quite aware that societal attitudes change over time and vary from place to place thanks! I haven't just been born!!!
Still a great film anyway, and stunningly shot. So much care over the lighting and appearance in every scene, in a way that modern directors just don't bother with. Plus a really interesting study of a neurotic egotist!

Anything that is expressed, "stated" or uttered - in writing or speaking, even with one's own self (in our solitude, like a prayer) makes that thing more "actualized", more real in my opinion... So a creator/ in this thread a filmmaker, should consider the possible implications/consequences of him throwing his themes/ideas out to their audience... and at the same time, be careful not to get fearful or sacrifice his own vision in a major way... making that balance isn't easy (and it's definitely limiting to a degree); it's almost a responsibility today that I can get behind. So "Depiction doesn't equal endorsement" no not necessarily, but I rather know which film or director as an example we're taking about here.

I’m Thinking of Ending Things, The Power of the Dog, Drive My Car, Titane, Pearl, TÁR, Napoleon, The Killer, May December, Killers of the Flower Moon, Oppenheimer... all feature morally grey (if not totally bleak) protagonists which saw acclaim - in one way or another - these past few years that I'VE seen (and I haven't watched much titles from this decade).... I think the kind of kino you're talking about is still being made today (not to the quality of a Wellles but that's another story) and if you're complaining they're not embraced as much as they should - was Touch of Evil ever "that" celebrated either?

But why do you think the examples you posted from the movie has to be a message to the audience? It might very well be included in the film to just show that's how that character acts and so those scenes define the character.

Of course you are aware that social attitudes have change over time and from place to place, I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was suggesting that people's mental filters are set from the time they are currently living in.

That’s how I tend to think about it, usually. Don’t see why everything is assumed to be an endorsement. It shouldn’t even be ‘a commentary’ ‘on the male character’. It’s just how people are, no comment, trying to depict all types of people and all that. And yes, I do miss that.

Have you seen the film?

Cleo From 5 to 7? Yes, of course. Rewatched it recently, too. I think the idea that ‘men hate illness’, albeit a cliché, is, well, not inaccurate in my very lived experience. These things are very subjective; I find it odd that you refer to Cleo as a ‘neurotic egoist’; anyone, of any social status and means can have profound health anxiety, and I don’t see why hers is any less valid than anyone else’s.

Who does think this though?

Did you read crits of Schindler's List which said that Spielberg was supporting the Nazis?

Do some viewers think that Danny Boyle is a massive fan of zombies, and wants to marry one who rips people to shreds?

Only a complete idiot would think that everything shown in a film is supported by the director.

That said though, where a controversial (for example) topic is depicted, I'd have thought more often than not the director is intending to make some sort of comment or observation on it, or evoke some kind of response to it from the viewer. It depends on the context, but I'm surprised there's a big issue with people being incapable of discerning between the two where it should be unambiguous.

Can you give some examples of where this has happened?

Admittedly, ‘people on the internet’ is a low bar to clear (my job is news-adjacent and for years I’ve been baffled by entirely earnest references in news articles to ‘social media users’ thinking/saying this and that). In any case, here are some examples:

https://downatyale.com/sexual-violen...miniks-blonde/

This implies that including ample sexual violence in a film is not dissimilar to endorsing it.

I didn’t particularly enjoy Blonde, but I believe the above line of thought is asinine.

There’s absolutely a sense that unless a ‘vice’ depicted is being actively and explicitly ‘critiqued’/condemned in the film/show, it shouldn’t be depicted because, Oh golly gosh, what if someone agreed women can be treated like that! The horror!

Film makers do have some responsibility though, don't they?

If a film depicted someone getting a high of heroin, then you could object to that on the basis that it might encourage impressionable viewers to try heroin. You could form that view without believing that the film's director personally approved of or personally intended to encourage heroin use.

Same with violence against women. I'd say it depends on the context and presentation. But I wouldn't say outright that it would never be unsuitable for a film to depict domestic abuse.

I think it's important that people have the right to air their views on such matters, in the context of how it's presented and the influence that it might have.

That was the whole point of the film as I saw it.
The director is portraying her as being obsessed by her paranoia about being unwell (the viewer is led to believe that it's all in her mind and she's not really ill but just trying to get attention), and then the ending SPOILER depicts her as being elated on finding out that she does have an actual illness, as if she has suddenly finally found herself. SPOILER

It’s natural that people have different interpretations. I’ve always felt that she’s elated at the end because the doctor said the cancer is treatable, and now at least she knows what’s wrong with her. To me, it’s more that she has been suspecting for so long that something might be wrong with her, and now she’s finally vindicated in her very objective feeling, there’s a way forward, too (treatment). That’s why she’s in high spirits at the end (imo); it’s been confirmed she’s not ‘making it up’.