Chapter 9 Critical Thinking Question #3
Filmmakers are only so socially responsible in so far as their own conscience leads them. Just as is the case in all other forms of art, the artist is responsible for creating and the audience for interpreting. If we decide that certain types of art need to fall within parameters how do you set those parameters without bias. Is it okay to have smoking onscreen even though we all know how dangerous that is? What about religious content, do filmmakers have an obligation to inform the audience on the multiple points of view available there? What is required to classify something as "socially responsible" or "not". Who decides where that line lives? And even if we had a classification system in place why should we require filmmakers to work within those boundaries. It seems that individuals should be responsible for what they expose themselves to. If you disagree with something on the screen you have the right to ask for your money back and ask voice your opinion; so long as the content has been reviewed and rated then the rest is a matter of personal choice.
I would hope that the people creating film have a level of personal integrity and taste that would curtail any major damage through film. At the same time it could be easy label controversial films that show the reality of war, or alternative lifestyles, or scenes with sexual assault irresponsible. Recently a movie screened at the Cannes Film Festival found controversy for the inclusion of an assault scene (see link)
http://www.cinematical.com/2006/07/21/dakota-fanning-tackles-sex-abuse-in-controversial-role/3
It seems that this could be irresponsible for the effect it could have on the actress, the actor opposite her, and any one exposed to the film. It is a potentially scarring moment but, could it also be an opportunity to educate. It just seems greedy for us to expect filmmakers to not only entertain us, but also inform and inspire in a responsible manner. I think we all should just make good decisions for ourselves.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think your post is excellent. You hit the nail right on the head. The viewer is ultimately responsible for the content she exposes herself, and people she is responsible for, to. Requiring filmmakers to be “socially responsible” would mean having someone, like a censorship bureau; decide what is good for the public. This happened all too often in Socialist/Communist countries and did not work. I believe that having a ratings system for content is useful and being forthcoming about what a movie us about is extremely beneficial both for the movie industry and for the viewer. For example, I would probably never watch a horror movie. And horror movie producers would not like me in a movie theater either, as I might pass out and sue them later… However, I do have that choice. Horror movies are advertised as such and so can be avoided by people like me. On the other hand, I don’t like it when people get upset over a kissing scene in a PG13 movie.
I saw the story about this picture and I am choosing not to see the film. However, I feel the film maker and the actors have every right to create this film. It's just not subject matter I am interested in. You’re right as consumers we have the choice not to spend our income, but there is no doubt in my mind the controversy will continue around this film and people will start to make moral arguments against the film.
I also wanted to say in response to Livia’s post that censorship in Hollywood is still in existence. It’s called the Motion Picture Association of America. The ratings system we know today has evolved over time. Check out a list of the earliest codes applied to films http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_Code. The MPAA is constantly embroiled in a debate over what’s appropriate and some film makers have even been pressured to change scenes in their films to avoid a rating that would limit their audience.
Post a Comment