August 30, 2005
Can’t watch Nightmare on Elm Street!
Bradford Plumer recently pointed out a story about Adolf Eichmann being given the book Lolita by an Israeli guard. It was a test, of sorts, to see if he was really a true monster, or had some humanity left within him. Plumer points out that it’s a silly “test”, as one can logically divorce the form of a work of art from its subject matter. Which, of course, he thinks is only true of liberals:
But the confusion between the quality of a work of art and its moral character certainly lives on. If film reviews over the past year or so are any indication, apparently no one can enjoy Fahrenheit 9/11 without also endorsing its political views wholesale, and a denunciation of Che Guevara the human being suffices for an appraisal of The Motorcycle Diaries. But that’s obviously wrong. Good books can be written about pedophiles. Good movies can be made that contain repugnant views on things.
Really. And The Passion of the Christ was well-received the world over by liberals. I never saw the movie, so I can’t accurately say whether it was good, as story-telling goes, but I do know a lot of people enjoyed it. Likewise, should all of humanity decry the “Chucky” series? After all, nobody supports homicidal dolls going on killing sprees, right?
It doesn’t take a nuanced-liberal to understand that the quality of a work and it’s moral character are two different things. As someone who absolutely hates Michael Moore, allow me to reproduce my comment to Bradford’s post:
Bradford,
I am one of the right-wingers who can appreciate Fahrenheit 9/11 for the piece of propaganda that it is. Michael Moore is a talented filmmaker, who can craft loosely-arranged snippets of video and completely unrelated facts into a piece of work that causes most lemmings to watch it to reflexively hate Bush. It wouldn’t have been such a popular film if Moore wasn’t so good at it.That being said, I still think he’s completely wrong, his movie is full of deceptions and outright lies, and don’t think in any way that it proves what he wanted it to prove. But that was never his point. He made that movie to make himself rich and to cause people to hate Bush. It succeeded on both fronts, regardless of such things as “facts”.
Brad Warbiany
I’ve never called Fahrenheit 9/11 anything other than propaganda. As propaganda, it’s actually a very powerful film. I don’t swallow the Moore kool-aid, so I don’t particularly like the film for the conclusions it reach, or Moore for his politics. But I have never derided his filmmaking ability. Moore is not stupid, just an ass.
The AnarchAngel linked with Reaction, Appreciation, Construction, and Morali
4 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Brad — I didn’t say it was only true of liberals, and certainly didn’t mean to imply that. Lefties, especially in the university, are even more prone to this sort of confusion, in my experience. The Passion of the Christ is a fine example; the two I listed were just the two that came immediately to mind. Nothing more sinister than that.
If the work of art has a “moral” (either a good one or a bad one) message, as many do, is that relevant? I mean, sure, some just tell a story, and the art is in the use of images or allegory. But if the purpose of a film/novel/etc. is to treat a real life person or subject that should be scorned as sympathetic, should I consider the morally repugnant meaning of the art in my evaluation of its value?
I’d like to disagree jsut a bit, not on the basic premise, but in the example used.
“Roger and Me” is a briliiant piece of propaganda as well, and actually a fairly decent movie upon which Moore made his reputation.
Unfortunately everything he’s done since has lacked any sort of subtelty whatsoever, as well as significant elements that are risible on their face by anyone who ahs been apying atention; so any hope of persuasion rahter than simple reinforcement of existing views is out the window. To my mind, propaganda should server BOTH purposes, so F9/11 is only a marginally effective (though certainly well constructed) propaganda piece.
Of course you make more money playing to your audience, so that is what he does.
I prefer this example:
There is a lot of music out there I dont like. I don’t like Eminem for the most part, because I generally don’t like his sound, OR his lyrics which I frequently find personally, morally, and ethically repugnant (although Stan and Lose yourself are jsut great pieces).
That said, I think that some of his writing is BRILLIANT. I don’t like it, but I can appreciate it’s intelligence, it’s structure (his use of rhythm and vocabulary to complement it is some of the best ever in the business)and it’s personal emotional expression. Eminiem is clearly writing the most intelligent and expressive rap on the pop charts today.
Oh and yes, I know there are many better than he (Atmosfear, Blackilicious, Scarface, KRS-1, etc…) but they have not achieved the pop success that Eminem has.
Reaction, Appreciation, Construction, and Morali
It is entirely possible to appreciate the construction of something, without approving of the content of that thing. In fact, some art is deliberately produced this way to provoke reactions in the viewer/reader that would play with their moral sense….