Ideology as Boundary Condition in Filmic Art

Tools    





Art has, as one of its functions, the function of producing psychological effects in an audience. Some of these effects are simple folk-psychological states (joy, rage, fear, sadness, etc.) and other are more complex (sublimity, reverie, ecstasy, etc.). Art-as-Affect requires knowledge of that which will produce a desired emotional state in the audience. And this requires knowing the audience.

In more objective terms, art also has a function of offering commentary and judgment on aspects of the human condition which may be universal, and yet must be realized in particular representations. Art, especially literary art, commonly identifies that which is good vs. bad, preferable vs. non-preferable, prudent vs. imprudent, possible vs. impossible, selfish vs. altruistic, etc. This also requires knowledge of the audience. In different times and places, there are different particularizations of these categories.

Kenneth Burke notes such particularization Baudelaire's poem Femmes Damnées which translated to "damned women" or "condemned women." Why are the women damned? Because they are lesbians and our poet is writing in the 19th century (i.e., he was writing about forbidden and condemned love). Cyril Scott's 1909 translation of the poem reads, in part

You, to whom within your hell my spirit flies,
Poor sisters — yea, I love you as I pity you,
For your unsatiated thirsts and anguished sighs,
And for the vials of love within your hearts so true.


Today, the poet would have to write poem on a different particularization, as lesbianism is rather pedestrian. The point of the poem may have been, in part, to say something about sexual politics, but it was also there to offer a feeling and a general statement about the universal predicament of forbidden love--the double bind of wanting to follow one's heart and what is "proper."

Thus, to properly discuss the emotive and formal properties of art we have to be able to say something about the politics of the age as setting about boundary conditions of the good and the true. We must know of the ideology of the age. And even in contemporary art, such as film, we would do well to note how ideology intersects with the production aesthetic outcomes.

Beowulf, for another example, has been long-noted to be the first great epic English poem. The poem is preserved for us in a single source, the Nowell Codex which is thought to have been written around the year 1,000 and which was damaged in a fire in 1731. Some commentators on the poem have lamented the "vandalism" of the poem at the hands of Christians who altered the original story into the one we find in the Nowell Codex. This is a somewhat curious idea as every story is story of its time -- Beowulf is a story of its own time (the time of the European transition to Christianity) and every history age is an "age of transition." The first thing any historian will note before embarking on a discourse about a historical period will be the obligatory cautions that the age was not monolithic, that its boundaries are hard to define and that the age was one of transition. Beowulf thus being a thing of its time reflected the ideology of its time, and being an age of transition, it harbors certain ideological tensions. The paganism which preceded Christianity made certain things "sayable" and "expected" on a folk tale and the Christianization which followed put its own spin on matters. And today we find Beowulf arguably most vandalized by being turned into what looks like a video game cut-scene by Robert Zemeckis (2007), but this too is just another adaptation. If what the scribe who penned the Nowell Codex was a Christian "vandalization," it is one we cannot not without noting how ideology intersects with form. If it isn't a vandalization, there are, nevertheless, tensions within the text which are best understood as ideological fault lines of a tale in transition -- there is no "pure" "untouched" and "non-ideological" Beowulf -- it comes to us as a tale of heroism. It always was and always shall be a tale, no matter how it is adapted, from somewhere, and that somewhere will always carry ideological freight.

We have to carry this freight and examine it, however, to consider the other functions of art, even if we attempt more or less objective analysis without getting into politics. This is what I am talking about when I speak of cultural coding. We cannot speak about a cultural product without also speaking about the culture itself (its values, ambitions, its "realisms," its truths). On this score we are all les damnés.



“I was cured, all right!”
I don't know why americans can't make movies without putting politics in them (or politicizing something that doesn't even try to be political). I don't like politics, for me democracy has been failing from the start so I couldn't care less about american movies these days. I watch the movements that the "GLAD" organization makes and the only thing I can think about is how tyrani is normalized in the US.



I don't know why americans can't make movies without putting politics in them (or politicizing something that doesn't even try to be political).
I wouldn’t have worded it quite so categorically, but I also vehemently disagree with the idea that “everything is political” and cherish films that take an explicitly apolitical stance (and yes, to me they certainly exist).



I don't know why americans can't make movies without putting politics in them (or politicizing something that doesn't even try to be political).

Everything is political. You are being political by telling movies not to be political. Even superhero movies have elements of politics in that they are frequently American made, and the heroes are defending very specific ideas of what Americans value. This is political.



If all movies listened to your point of view, and somehow managed to be completely empty of politics (ie. a point of view), it would would by nature be political in that politics was being kept out of our art. Either by disinterest of the populace or coercion by outside forces and which (obviously) has its own dangers attached to it.



If one is worried about tyranny, start being worried about a world where everyone suddenly stops sharing their point of view. And when art becomes more of an anaesthetic than a lever that can be used against established ideologies.



I don't know why americans can't make movies without putting politics in them (or politicizing something that doesn't even try to be political). I don't like politics, for me democracy has been failing from the start so I couldn't care less about american movies these days. I watch the movements that the "GLAD" organization makes and the only thing I can think about is how tyrani is normalized in the US.
We're always doing politics. There are no non-political movies. Films have a view from a normative "somewhere." Even Beowulf is political. We cannot talk about films without talking about politics, to some extent

What is different about our times is that
  • we live under divided and polarized views of "the good" (one screen, but we see two different movies). One half of the audience is rejecting the programming. We're in tumult, so the politics are obvious.
  • modern writing is bad. It is more important to be orthodox than good, so politics is put ahead of plotting, "good character" ahead of writing good characters. Thus modern writing involves thin stock characters reflecting virtue and vice, and limited characters arcs (good people are essentially good, bad people are essentially bad).
In short, it is at the forefront, we don't agree about our values set, and modern writing basically chums the waters for "my side."



The trick is not minding
I don't know why americans can't make movies without putting politics in them (or politicizing something that doesn't even try to be political). I don't like politics, for me democracy has been failing from the start so I couldn't care less about american movies these days. I watch the movements that the "GLAD" organization makes and the only thing I can think about is how tyrani is normalized in the US.
While there is quite a bit of hyperbole in this post, I’ll just mention the obvious.
Films are often a reflection of the times, and as such will often be political. Not every film is, but most, as Crumbsroom already noted.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
Anyone who opens their mouth has a message. And in a an art-form like film that is the closest to real-life, humans can interpret nothing happening in a movie into something profound, using their sensibilities.


"That scene was so long and boring!" ----

"It's there to show how life has become mundane after the materialist desires are fulfilled!"



Welcome to the human race...
I don't know why americans can't make movies without putting politics in them (or politicizing something that doesn't even try to be political). I don't like politics, for me democracy has been failing from the start so I couldn't care less about american movies these days. I watch the movements that the "GLAD" organization makes and the only thing I can think about is how tyrani is normalized in the US.
Meanwhile Brazil has been putting out famously apolitical films like Black God, White Devil or Elite Squad or Bacurau.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I too am sick of American movies for getting too political. I do also agree that every movie is political in a sense, but American movies lately have a tendency to force politics in movies that are not about those politics in the first place, in the stories, and so it feels like a 'square peg/round hole' situation. This is why foreign films have been so much better for me lately, because they can tell stories with politics in them, but without it being forced, and naturally woven in as a result, if that makes sense.



I like how your long posts and inability to cooperate made Jinniston quit. Impressive.



It's hard to not see that it's not just movies, but some part of the totality of Americans can't NOT think that everything is political, including corn flakes or bunny rabbits. Movies are no exception. Any sort of plot conflict can be interpreted as being political, if you see politics in everything, because the idea that one outcome is better than the other implies a point of view.

It would be interesting to see if someone could come up with a possible plot line that has some interest but can't be put into a political frame of reference. I don't think so.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Those are good points. It seems to me that ever since Donald Trump got elected is when this whole 'everything must be political' thing started, at least in the movies from what I have noticed. But is now that Trump is no longer President, how long will it take for this phase to die off and movies can go back to... I guess you could say normal?



Welcome to the human race...
I find myself coming to the conclusion that it's less about films suddenly getting "too political" and more about the people making them just being really clumsy at handling their political content.



you take it away... to show them what they had
That's why art that is universal, that deals with elemental emotions and concepts is in much higher sphere then art that deals with current societal or political issues.

sure, the binding of Isaac is a story that could only come out from that time, but the central theme is elemental.



Ideology as a boundary condition manifests in the way that a work of art is created and then interpreted by the audience. It is important to keep ideology in mind when thinking about the relation between art and life. Because art is created by people, the art itself will reflect their ideological views. The art cannot be separated from ideology; it is in the art.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Is true that a movie could be no political though or us every movie political on some level?


Are movies like Die Hard, The Silence of the Lambs, or Napoleon Dynamite political for example?