Support networks for this kind of thing should exist outside of everything, parents should be paying attention, teenagers’ brains are not like adult brains — they’re programmed to take risks and that’s exactly what they should be doing at that age.
Vigilance is ultimately THE most important thing you can do when raising your child. Don’t fall asleep on the job!
“shows that people are still discussing stuff like this in the news, not because I think it really says much.”
Right, it’s probably been an issue as long as there have been (relatively) stable cultures. I think that’s a really interesting example in a way, because it sort of highlights the extent to which people will go to “scientifically” show art is to blame rather than deal with the actual social issues directly. Art is an easy target.
Yeah, art is definitely an easy target.
These problems lie outside of art. They lie within the individual’s own life. And that’s where they need to be targeted.
@Balistik
They certainly are meaningful and valid to me but that’s not necessarily the case for everybody else. My point is, I don’t think there’s such a thing as an objectively positive or negative value. If you agree with this then what gives anybody the right to tell an industry what kind of values they should promote?
So are you arguing for absolute relativism—i.e., there is no such thing as objectivity or truth; therefore, all things are permissible? I’m assuming you don’t agree with this. How do we make rules and laws for a society? How does society determine these things? I don’t really want to go in too deeply into this subject (because I would be out of my depth), but my guess is that the laws, values and rules of a society stem from consensus. That doesn’t make these judgments right or correct, but that doesn’t mean they’re all wrong or suspect either.
I don’t find the relativism argument compelling—not only for the reasons I stated above, but also for the fact that the entertainment industry is already promoting certain attitudes and values already. It’s happening, so whether the determination of good/bad attitudes or values is subjective, we already have an entity answering this question. What I’m saying is that just letting the entertainment industry have the most say on these issues—an industry that cares above profits far above its impact on society or individuals—is not a good set up.
Well government officials are liable for their actions, CEOs are not. Some of the most socially advanced countries in the world have a ministry of culture. What’s wrong with a government office promoting cultural expression without being motivated by greed?
I’m not totally closed to a ministry of culture, but my reluctance comes from things like the McCarthy era and the blacklisting that went on in Hollywood. Then there’s also the culture wars that have gone on in this country and a segment of society that doesn’t seem to have a problem with the church entering into the affairs of the state. As I write this, I start feeling a little less confident that a discussion about this issue—something that I’ve been advocating—would be fruitful; and that’s a sad thing. I just see something like this inflaming the culture wars more than coming to some meaningful consensus. Again, that’s really a sad thing, because I do think there are a lot of meaningful areas of agreement.
The problem is if the government is not involved then the private sector is in charge of promoting the culture, there is no counterforce, just big media companies pushing their products. If you’re an average citizen who doesn’t know much about art, there’s nobody to remind you about this Tarkovsky retrospective or that new art gallery showing the work of an avant-garde photographer, etc. That’s what a ministry of culture does, it democratizes art by giving it mainstream exposure.
I like and agree with a lot here, but I’m having a hard time imagining something like this will work in the U.S. If we could get the right and left to find consensus and focus on this consensus, it might work. (But then I imagine that politicians would use try to inflame differences for political reasons—ugh.)
@Greg
I am fully behind government support of the arts,…If the arts are important to us, and everything I can see suggests they are, even if we don’t agree on which works, then demanding support and preservation would seem to be a no brainer. But, then again, this is America and here the dollar is god and individuality built off the fear of others unlike you is the mindset, so art, which so often works against those concepts is going to have a hard time.
Again, this resonates with me, particularly the concept of government support of the arts. However, how this manifests itself in the U.S. is another story, for reasons I mentioned above. The way politics would influence the process is not something that makes me comfortable—and my sense is that the politics is much different in Europe (Do you guys have culture wars like we do here?).
However, I do agree with Balistik that a counterforce to big media in the market place is important. The key, to me, is a level of balance between culture made strictly with profit in mind and culture made with humanistic and aesthetic values in mind.
This, however, is a different thing than suggesting films should have some standards imposed on them in terms of the stories they tell.
I’m not advocating for this. But I am saying that the entertainment industry does have responsibility to society—not just to the bottom line; that we should discuss the responsibility as well as identify areas of agreement. This shouldn’t be too controversial, imo.
Trying to force art to fit a mold of some sense of how the world should be isn’t going to do the art or the audience any favors, particularly since an audience isn’t a monolithic entity but a group of people who will react in very different ways to what is being shown. Many Hollywood films seemingly aimed at providing more “positive” minority representation are those which become more widely mocked or scorned than films which don’t tackle the subject.
To be clear, this isn’t my position. The films don’t have to take a heavy-handed, preachy approach. If the films, TV shows, etc. just showed a greater variety of minorities—i.e., different character types, more complex personalities, etc.—that would promote something positive by itself. We live in a very diverse society, so seeing minorities as human beings and not sterotypes/Other is a good thing for society as a whole.
This is sort of process is why I am even more against the whole “think of the children” attitude as that is exactly the sort of lowest common denominator attitude which will further rob the form of any interest whatsoever. A lot of the worst art I can think of is just that, aimed to be inoffensive and not threatening to anyone, it’s a hollow shell of what art could be and it does those precious children no favors by portraying some sugar sweet fantasyland which has little to do with the real world.
You’re making assumptions that I don’t agree with or think are necessarily true. Why does “thinking of the children” have to be insipid and inoffensive? (And I can’t believe you’re saying we should never consider the children in any way shape or form. You’re not saying that, right?) Here’s one example. I believe child psychologists think that exposure to a lot of violence for children can be a bad thing. If that’s true, “thinking of children” could mean not targeting children with films that have a lot of violence. Moreover, “thinking of the children” could also mean expressing and portraying this violence in a way that serves an artistic or even moral purpose—versus simply trying to make a buck.
Let me be clear because I think people are misreading my position. I’m not saying that films should never have violence or sex. I’m not saying that children’s films, TV shows, etc. shouldn’t haven’t any violence whatsoever. But I am saying that the entertainment industry should portray sex and violence in responsible way. For example, targeting children with films that glorify violence doesn’t seem very responsible to me.
I would also suggest that you might be giving movies much to much credit in terms of influence nowadays as they are an increasingly limited form…
In my posts, I’ve actually mentioned more than just movies (e.g., TV shows, music, video games, etc.).
@Matt
Well, I agree that the current business model associated with films in particular is less than ideal for the creation of true art (or whatever one wants to call it), but I think the “things are worse today than they were in (insert some perceived Golden Age here)” position is often overstating things.
My sense is that entertainment industry became more focused, precise and “scientific” in the way they made profits. The past seemed to have a looser style—because executives either didn’t know what they were doing or they were more interested in art—that allowed more freedom to artists. Think of the way Wal-Mart has refined it’s business model to focus on profits, at the exclusion of all else. My feeling is that the entertainment refined their processes in a similar way over time. Whether this produced better art, in toto, in the past, I’m not sure.
But, assuming this is true, the true impact of any given work would therefore be proportionately diffused, right?
Absolutely. I’m pretty sure I’m not concerned with a few films and filmmakers—even that promote negative attitudes, etc. I’m more concerned about the film industry—the making of films on a industry level; pumping out an assembly line of films that strictly made for purely commercial reasons with little or no concern for artistic or humanistic values. And I’m concerned that these forms of entertainment dominate the landscape.
Again, I agree with you on broad principle, Jazz, that over- commercialization is bad, but I think it’s possible to overvalue motive (and we should probably really say “perceived motive” here). Firstly, we won’t necessarily know motive and often won’t be in a good position even to determine motive. Secondly, how many things are truly done by a human being (much less a group of human beings) with a single motive? Thirdly, isn’t function sometimes much more important than motive? If I buy a hungry man a sandwich, does it matter what my motives are? (and doesn’t how one answers that question sort of depend on from whose perspective I approach the question from?).
You think I’m assuming too much—e.g., I’m overestimating the number of films that are made primarily with commercial forces in mind?
I would imagine that films, TV shows, etc. from the entertainment industry sometimes do have other motives, but if we take the films in aggregate, what would we conclude? My guess is that these films whatever artistic or humanistic values these films consider, it would be minimal and not expressed very well. But that’s an assumption on my part.
Similarly, in terms of the function or effects of these types of entertainment, I’d guess the aggregate effects wouldn’t be positive. But, again, I’m assuming this, and I could be wrong.
“My sense is that entertainment industry became more focused, precise and “scientific” in the way they made profits.”
Certain components of it no doubt did, but remember, the entertainment industry is not some monolithic all-of-a-piece thing out of 2001: A Space Odyssey controlling things from afar. I’ll stipulate that there are no artists in the corporate boardrooms. Because of the financial commitments required, film is probably more sensitive to attempts to channel the work in this direction or that, but still, wouldn’t you agree that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of directors, actors, and writers—even in the mainstream—who aren’t in it for the money?
“I’m overestimating the number of films that are made primarily with commercial forces in mind?”
Well, I think any time you’re trying to generalize this way, one’s perception of this sort of thing is probably influenced by which films you’re watching, who you’re talking to, who you’re reading, etc.
Certain components of it no doubt did, but remember, the entertainment industry is not some monolithic all-of-a-piece thing out of 2001: A Space Odyssey controlling things from afar.
Maybe not monolithic in terms of one entity, but how many studios are there that dominate filmmaking now? Five? That’s pretty close to a monolith.
Because of the financial commitments required, film is probably more sensitive to attempts to channel the work in this direction or that, but still, wouldn’t you agree that there are hundreds, probably thousands, of directors, actors, and writers—even in the mainstream—who aren’t in it for the money?
Right, they exist, but if we compared the films made by these filmmakers to the films made by the studios, what percentage represent these films? Moreover, how many of these films have the kind publicity and distribution as those of the major studios? I’m guessing the numbers are really small—not anywhere near some balance or parity. Again, I think if the studios didn’t dominate the media landscape—if art expressing artistic and humanistic concerns were just as available as these commercially oriented films, etc., then I think that would be the ideal situation.
Well, I think any time you’re trying to generalize this way, one’s perception of this sort of thing is probably influenced by which films you’re watching, who you’re talking to, who you’re reading, etc.
Well, what do you think? If we share the same view, that may not mean it represents the views of the society as a whole, but it’s a little closer in that direction.
“how many studios are there that dominate filmmaking now? Five? That’s pretty close to a monolith.”
Six—Viacom (Paramount), Time Warner (Warner Brothers), Sony (Columbia), Disney, Comcast/GE (Universal), and News Corp (Fox).
But that’s the corporate side of it. Look at the reverse shot—Scorsese, Cronenberg, Eastwood, Richard Linklater, Roman Polanski, Lynch, Wes Anderson, van Sant, Spike Lee, Paul Schrader, Todd Solondz, Tim Burton, George Romero, Paul Thomas Anderson, Steven Soderbergh, Terrence Malick, Albert Brooks, Woody Allen, both the Coppolas, Jim Jarmusch . . . even Abel Ferrara and Hal Hartley used to be able to get distributed by this system.
^ That bunch is no way either ideologically monolithic, nor is their work reducible to a single motive, either common among them or internally from filmmaker to filmmaker.
“Well, what do you think?”
I think people should try to avoid watching bad films and the rest will work itself out over time.
@Jazz
So are you arguing for absolute relativism—i.e., there is no such thing as objectivity or truth; therefore, all things are permissible? I’m assuming you don’t agree with this.
I don’t believe in objective morality but I don’t think everything is permissible. I have my own moral views through which I judge others but I don’t pretend it is the ultimate moral truth that everybody should follow.
How do we make rules and laws for a society? How does society determine these things? I don’t really want to go in too deeply into this subject (because I would be out of my depth), but my guess is that the laws, values and rules of a society stem from consensus. That doesn’t make these judgments right or correct, but that doesn’t mean they’re all wrong or suspect either.
So like I said, you’re advocating for a guideline based on citizen consensus. What would that guideline look like and what do you propose we should do with films that don’t follow it?
And isn’t commercial success a kind of consensus itself, Jazz? Albeit, it’s a partly manufactured one, but so is any political or legislative consensus, as I’m sure you well know. There’s going to be a certain degree of looseness in any good consensus. For example, wouldn’t you say that in order for a democratic society to be, well, actually democratic, that there has to be some room for people to behave in ways I may not agree with, and for art to challenge the perceived “good” of the day?
@Matt
Look at the reverse shot—Scorsese, Cronenberg, Eastwood, Richard Linklater, Roman Polanski, Lynch, Wes Anderson, van Sant, Spike Lee, Paul Schrader, Todd Solondz, Tim Burton, George Romero, Paul Thomas Anderson, Steven Soderbergh, Terrence Malick, Albert Brooks, Woody Allen, both the Coppolas, Jim Jarmusch . . . even Abel Ferrara and Hal Hartley used to be able to get distributed by this system.
But what percentage do these films represent out of all the Hollywood films? I’m guessing these films make a small percentage.
I think people should try to avoid watching bad films and the rest will work itself out over time.
I asked if I overestimated the number of films made strictly for commercial purposes, and I was wondering what your perception was.
@Balistik
So like I said, you’re advocating for a guideline based on citizen consensus. What would that guideline look like and what do you propose we should do with films that don’t follow it?
Well, I don’t know what we should do, and I’m not necessarily calling for a specific guideline (although maybe that is ultimately what would happen). I am saying that this is something that people should discuss, that those in the entertainment industry do have a responsibility beyond just making money.
And isn’t commercial success a kind of consensus itself, Jazz?
Yes, but who makes up this consensus and what is it a consensus of? From what I understand, teenagers and twenty-somethings spend the most on film, and if that’s true then the consensus is based on their judgment. In this case the consensus is on what is entertaining and enjoyable—not necessarily what is artistically valuable or good for society.
For example, wouldn’t you say that in order for a democratic society to be, well, actually democratic, that there has to be some room for people to behave in ways I may not agree with, and for art to challenge the perceived “good” of the day?
Sure. I’m not sure how this relates to what I’m saying though.
“Yes, but who makes up this consensus and what is it a consensus of? From what I understand, teenagers and twenty-somethings spend the most on film, and if that’s true then the consensus is based on their judgment. In this case the consensus is on what is entertaining and enjoyable—not necessarily what is artistically valuable or good for society.”
Well, technically Jazz, if you’re looking at it that way, according to MPAA data through 2009, the biggest segment of the population (47%) in the US and Canada are “occasional” (less than once a month), with 32% basically not going at all, and another 10% being “infrequent” (once a year) moviegoers.
The “frequent” moviegoers (once a month or more), make up only 10% percent of the population , but account for fully 50% of total ticket sales. Generally the 25-39 outbuys the 18-24 demographic, both in terms of persons admited and dollars spent (but this is largely because there are more 25-39 year olds than there are 18-24 year olds . . . Young people age 18-24 comprise nearly 20% of all ticket sales despite being representing only 10% of the population). Woman account for slightly more of audiences than do men, but that’s relatively in line with the gender %s of the population.
. . . but basically, except for isolated megapopular event films like Avatar, you’re talking about 10% of the population have the majority of the “say” when it comes to buying tickets.
" those in the entertainment industry do have a responsibility beyond just making money."
Yeah, but so does everybody else. Why focus your efforts on people who make movies? It seems to me that there are much bigger fish to fry with the likes of the Exxons and the Apples and such (there are areas of GE, for example, that are clearly doing much greater harm than is Universal, even though they make seem godawful films . . . I’d be inclined to picket GE over those before I would be about the films they make).
Agreed there, Matt - there are corporations which, through the culture they practice that affects people every day, do more harm over a lifetime than a few movies.
Why don’t they start with better ethics there?
“But what percentage do these films represent out of all the Hollywood films? I’m guessing these films make a small percentage.”
How would you determine this definitively, though? Sooner or later, Jazz, to make the argument you’re trying to make, you have to commit to specifics to some degree. This ^ perception, though, tends to create a bias that tends to be self-reinforcing, and you potentially end up created a critical blindspot for yourself (let’s call it “the Fincher effect”).
“I asked if I overestimated the number of films made strictly for commercial purposes”
As I said earlier, I think it depends on the perspective you take. I’m sure there are plenty of people involved in the financial side of the business who couldn’t care less about the any other aspect of the films the have a hand in getting made. If we’re talking about actual filmmakers, then I think it relatively rare to find, say, a director who has no interest in making some kind of aesthetic or social statement with their work.
the fincher effect
LOL. i think he’s got u there, jazz
@Matt
Well, technically Jazz, if you’re looking at it that way, according to MPAA data through 2009, the biggest segment of the population (47%) in the US and Canada are “occasional” (less than once a month), with 32% basically not going at all, and another 10% being “infrequent” (once a year) moviegoers.
Wait—weren’t you the one arguing that commercial success is a form of consensus? Are you now saying it’s not a form of consensus (which is OK with me)?
Yeah, but so does everybody else. Why focus your efforts on people who make movies?
So what are you exactly arguing here, Matt? Are you saying that because corporations in other industries do worse things that the issue I’m bringing up isn’t legitimate? Do I have to talk about all the other problems with corporations before I talk about this one? That seems silly. If I had to list all the bad things that corporations do in the world, this issue probably wouldn’t rank near the top, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a important issue.
How would you determine this definitively, though? Sooner or later, Jazz, to make the argument you’re trying to make, you have to commit to specifics to some degree. This ^ perception, though, tends to create a bias that tends to be self-reinforcing, and you potentially end up created a critical blindspot for yourself (let’s call it “the Fincher effect”).
Well, if we really wanted to get serious about the subject, we’d probably have to start analyzing all the films that come out. I’m not about to do that, and I don’t expect anyone else to. So I’m only going by my perception and the perception of others. If people don’t share my perception, then I welcome their view points. Btw, I’m not really sure where people stand on their perception of the films that are made—in terms of the type of attitudes and values that they explicitly and implicitly promote. Are people happy with the attitudes and values in the films as a whole? Do people feel like the films do a good job of factoring in artistic and humanistic values, besides commercial ones?
(The Fincher reference went over my head.)
“Wait—weren’t you the one arguing that commercial success is a form of consensus? Are you now saying it’s not a form of consensus (which is OK with me)?”
It’s a sort of consensus among people who are serious about (at least going to) movies, but it turns out that this is actually a very small percentage of the population. So my guess would be that, if you’re looking for a broad social consensus about film, it would be that film is not a subject that’s especially worthy of attention and consideration.
“So what are you exactly arguing here, Matt?”
Well, let’s say that, beyond merely kicking the ideas around for their own sake (which I certainly don’t have a problem with, btw), that one wanted to actually make a difference in the world. There would be areas such as those that I mentioned where one could likely have a greater impact, right?
“I’m not really sure where people stand on their perception of the films that are made—in terms of the type of attitudes and values that they explicitly and implicitly promote. Are people happy with the attitudes and values in the films as a whole? Do people feel like the films do a good job of factoring in artistic and humanistic values, besides commercial ones?”
I know you like to hover around generalities because they allow a lot of space for everyone to offer an opinion without getting too solidly on the hook for said opinion, but I think in order to get meaningful responses to this, you need to try to talk about a specific film or films rather than “films.”
“Do people feel like the films do a good job of factoring in artistic and humanistic values”
Do you suppose people would watch film if they didn’t, at least to some degree. Or do you think we’ve all been enslaved by the machine?
Commercial success is a consensus. So is critical acclaim. So, in fact, is the inclusion of certain works but not others into the “canon” of classics and all time greats.
These are all consensus — the test of time is not some objective measure that stands apart from consensus. The only difference between the forms of consensus are its parameters and its demographics.
@Matt
And isn’t commercial success a kind of consensus itself, Jazz? Albeit, it’s a partly manufactured one, but so is any political or legislative consensus, as I’m sure you well know.
It’s completely manufactured, commercial success is usually proportional to advertisement spending.
@Jazz
Well, I don’t know what we should do, and I’m not necessarily calling for a specific guideline (although maybe that is ultimately what would happen). I am saying that this is something that people should discuss, that those in the entertainment industry do have a responsibility beyond just making money.
I’d like to believe they do but they don’t, they’re business men. We can’t expect them to have any moral qualms whatsoever (directors and writers do but ultimately the studios are in control) and I don’t think we should impose restrictions on film content. What we should do is create new antitrust laws when it comes to promoting and distributing films. Let them create what they wanna create but impose limits on how much market dominance they have.
the most effective (and only moral) anti-trust law is populous which votes against oligopolies with their wallets
@Matt
It’s a sort of consensus among people who are serious about (at least going to) movies, but it turns out that this is actually a very small percentage of the population.
When then it’s probably not a consensus we’re looking for.
So my guess would be that, if you’re looking for a broad social consensus about film, it would be that film is not a subject that’s especially worthy of attention and consideration.
I don’t think we need a broad consensus on film, so much as a broad consensus about the attitudes, values and ideas presented and promoted in a film. Where could we find consensus on the way men, women, romantic relationships, minorities, violence and sex should be portrayed? You don’t have to love movies to have ideas about this. Again, there are going to be areas where there won’t be consensus, but I’d bet there would be areas where we agree quite a bit, too.
Well, let’s say that, beyond merely kicking the ideas around for their own sake (which I certainly don’t have a problem with, btw), that one wanted to actually make a difference in the world. There would be areas such as those that I mentioned where one could likely have a greater impact, right?
Oh course. But since when did making a difference in the world become the standard by which we judge the conversations here? Most of the discussions that take place here are essentially shooting the bull—most of mine are no different. Now, I do think this is a serious subject, but if I knew I would people expected me to choose the most serious challenge we face in the world, I wouldn’t have chosen this topic.
I know you like to hover around generalities because they allow a lot of space for everyone to offer an opinion without getting too solidly on the hook for said opinion, but I think in order to get meaningful responses to this, you need to try to talk about a specific film or films rather than “films.”
In this case, I think the problem with being specific is that I would have to analyze many films pumped out by the industry and then choose one or two that were representative. I thought I could get by with talking about the way women are portrayed in movies, for example—an emphasis on physical appearances, a lack of complex female characters, etc. I didn’t think this was controversial. Ditto violence and romantic relationships. Of course, if people disagreed that these characterizations weren’t the norm, I’d be open to hearing argument for that.
Do you suppose people would watch film if they didn’t, at least to some degree. Or do you think we’ve all been enslaved by the machine?
I guess the answers depends on how we define humanistic, artistic and who’s watching the movies. When I was a teenager, I don’t think I cared much about what was humane or artistic—or my sensibility towards these things were crude; or maybe I just didn’t think portraying humane values was important. In a way, I don’t think people underestimate the power of narratives—the narratives can convey ideas and values.
When a business or organization tries to implement a new vision or direction, writing out a handbook containing a bullet points of the new procedures, goals, etc, isn’t as effective as weaving these ideas into a compelling narrative—one that identifies who the workers are, their roles, where the company is headed, who are the enemies and challenges in the narrative, etc. If you can couch the goals and vision—as well as attitudes and values—of an organization into a narrative, that can be a really powerful thing. I believe something similar happens on a societal level.
However, we’re not just talking about individual films, but the aggregate effect of the films—assuming that there certain recurring attitudes and values that stand out.
the way women are portrayed in movies, for example—an emphasis on physical appearances, a lack of complex female characters, etc.
But Jazz, if art reflects society, the root of the problem lies elsewhere. In other words, you can eliminate movies that are lame about women, but that will not take care of the general perception. It’s the people who make these movies and like these movies who are the problem. If they weren’t that way, they wouldn’t make the movies and their counterparts in the audience wouldn’t pay to see them.
These kinds of problems need to be solved at a more fundamental level, so that people are less inclined to make these kinds of movies in the first place and feed the lame ways of people who watch them.
Right?
@Odi
But Jazz, if art reflects society, the root of the problem lies elsewhere.
You don’t think the relationship between art and society is more complex than that? Art reflects society, but it also influences society too doesn’t it? Well, I think it does. Art may not cause certain behaviors, but I believe it can influence—by reinforcing or mitigating—our attitudes, perceptions and values—at least to some degree.
In other words, you can eliminate movies that are lame about women, but that will not take care of the general perception.
Again, I don’t think the relationship between art and society is unidirectional. What we see in art can shape and influence are perceptions. Also, I want to point out something else—namely, the effect more positive portrayals could have on girls and women (or the effects of more positive portrayals of minorities on minorities). By “positive portrayals,” I mean specifically more complex, rich and diverse portrayals—more humanized characters, versus stereotypical, narrow portrayals. I believe that can have a positive effect.
It’s the people who make these movies and like these movies who are the problem. If they weren’t that way, they wouldn’t make the movies and their counterparts in the audience wouldn’t pay to see them.
Here’s the thing with emphasizing physical attractiveness and sex. For men, sexual arousal is linked to visual stimuli—and this is very primal and compelling. Movies that use and exploit this in some way can successfully draw in male viewers. My feeling is that the industry is exploiting this biological feature to make money. They don’t really care how this affects men, women and the way men and women relate to each other. To me, this is irresponsible. Even without movies, TV shows, etc. men will place a high importance on physical attractiveness and sex, so in a civilized society, culture should help mitigate this and put the sex drive in a healthier context—not fuel the fire, as it were. Now, what is a healthier context? For one thing, romantic relationships should be seen as a combination of sexuality and emotional intimacy. Trust, respect and friendship should be equally important components as sex.
Also, I want to point out something else—namely, the effect more positive portrayals could have on girls and women (or the effects of more positive portrayals of minorities on minorities). By “positive portrayals,” I mean specifically more complex, rich and diverse portrayals—more humanized characters, versus stereotypical, narrow portrayals. I believe that can have a positive effect.
Well yes I agree with that, but you’d have to hit a lot more targets than the movies. Starting with advertising and fashion, which are a hell of a lot more influential on girls than movies.
For men, sexual arousal is linked to visual stimuli—and this is very primal and compelling.
You don’t think that women are sexually aroused by visual stimuli? Hmm. You don’t know all women then. I don’t care how many Venus/Mars studies there are, some women are definitely sexually aroused by images, as much as men are. That doesn’t mean Chippendale’s dancers, btw. It means that women might also be aroused by men being aroused by women. Get it? ;)
Even without movies, TV shows, etc. men will place a high importance on physical attractiveness and sex, so in a civilized society, culture should help mitigate this and put the sex drive in a healthier context—not fuel the fire, as it were. Now, what is a healthier context? For one thing, romantic relationships should be seen as a combination of sexuality and emotional intimacy. Trust, respect and friendship should be equally important components as sex.
Honestly I think how men view women and women view men, as you grow older and know yourself better, is based quite deeply in your personality. This is complicated. Some people are not so emotionally available, sex or no sex. That’s something they either learn or don’t learn about themselves as they age. The point is to be able to explore who you are, figure it out, without being forced into a mold of “moral” by other people.
@Odi
Well yes I agree with that, but you’d have to hit a lot more targets than the movies. Starting with advertising and fashion, which are a hell of a lot more influential on girls than movies.
I agree. It’s the sum total of our culture.
You don’t think that women are sexually aroused by visual stimuli?
Generally speaking, not to the same degree—at least not based on the women I’ve talked to.
It means that women might also be aroused by men being aroused by women. Get it? ;)
Yes, no need to draw any pictures for me. ;)
Honestly I think how men view women and women view men, as you grow older and know yourself better, is based quite deeply in your personality. This is complicated. Some people are not so emotionally available, sex or no sex. That’s something they either learn or don’t learn about themselves as they age. The point is to be able to explore who you are, figure it out, without being forced into a mold of “moral” by other people.
There are individual differences that account for the way men view women and the way women view men, but you don’t think we can speak in meaningful generalities? For example, basing a relationship on the purely physical aspects is probably not a wise approach. Physical appearance is fleeting and sex, while wonderful and important, is not the be all and end of a relationship. Now suppose many individuals in our society placed the highest importance on the physical aspects of a relationship. Can we not agree that this probably wouldn’t be a good thing—both for the individuals and society at large?
@Balistik
I’d like to believe they do but they don’t, they’re business men.
Right, the reality and norm is that businessmen often do NOT behave responsibly, but they nevertheless do have that responsibility. Does an oil executive not have a responsibility for cleaning up chemical waste that could hurt people? What about cigarette companies trying to get kids to smoke? Of course, they do, right? The entertainment industry also have responsibilities other than making a profit.
What we should do is create new antitrust laws when it comes to promoting and distributing films. Let them create what they wanna create but impose limits on how much market dominance they have.
I’m with you, here—at least conceptually.
For example, basing a relationship on the purely physical aspects is probably not a wise approach. Physical appearance is fleeting and sex, while wonderful and important, is not the be all and end of a relationship. Now suppose many individuals in our society placed the highest importance on the physical aspects of a relationship. Can we not agree that this probably wouldn’t be a good thing—both for the individuals and society at large?
I’m hesitant to pass judgement here, or to make a generality, because sexuality and romance and sex are so individualistic. Are some people more drawn to marriage? Are some people more drawn to exploration? Are some people, at a certain point in their lives, more interested in non-committal, more superficial relationships with people? Are some people, at a certain point in their lives, more interested in settling down to a meaningful relationship? When do you need to do which? When do you realize you’re more one way than another? This area of experience is not like getting a job doing something legal versus doing something illegal. It’s very personal. And you can’t hold someone (or something) accountable for being superficial and hurting another person’s feelings because that person is the opposite of them, they want to be all deep and meaningful. It’s not the same, for example, as being a rapist. And I don’t think that any movies advocate that.
Do movies influence that? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Hard to tell in a concrete way.
Is it a good thing to treat women as objects, vehicles merely for sex? No. But do you really see movies actually promoting that? I mean, they may cast attractive women, but so what. Yes that’s a little manipulative, but so are those rom-coms geared toward women, who want to rope every man into a “meaningful” relationship, get a ring on their finger, a house, be supported, etc. etc. even when every man isn’t interested at all in that. Is not being at all interested in that, being instead interested in a more superficial, merely physical relationship with a woman (or women) you find attractive unhealthy then?
I mean Jazz, everyone goes through an immature stage. It’s part of growing up. People do change, and people do look for things that are good for them, in a personal way, and in a way that might be beneficial as an example for others. But you can’t prevent people from being jerks or whatever in the process of getting to that point.
This is what I mean by art reflecting society.
Also, I really don’t like the idea of being categorized by guys I meet, without even talking that much to them about anything that deep, as being sexually one way or another. It’s a private subject. And people are all very individual about it. Screw the “most women” thing. Or “most men” thing. Get to know someone as an thinking, feeling individual, and leave it at that.
this is well stated, odi. ^ the films actively promoting treating women as objects and just vehicles for sex are porn films. the reason we see limited roles for women is because men are still making most of the films
“I don’t think we need a broad consensus on film, so much as a broad consensus about the attitudes, values and ideas presented and promoted in a film. "
OK, but the fact of the matter is that, when you look at the population as a whole, most people are seeing that many films, so that person’s testimony about “ideas presented and promoted” in the would be eminently impeachable.
“Oh course. But since when did making a difference in the world become the standard by which we judge the conversations here?”
Again, I’m not trying to dissuade you from pursuing this as a topic of conversation as much as I am trying to figure out what you’re hoping to get from it.
“When I was a teenager, I don’t think I cared much about what was humane or artistic”
Well, yeah, kids are like that—the brain changes as you get older so different kinds of problems and behavior become more and less attractive as you age, and of course things like having a family tend to change perspective, etc.
“I thought I could get by with talking about the way women are portrayed in movies, for example—an emphasis on physical appearances”
Film, even mainstream Hollywood narrative film, is still primarily an eye medium, so I think generally it prioritizes physicality. But the way you fix things like the limited way in which women are portrayed is to open up more opportunities for artists, not by working out some sort of fixed idea of goodness and working backwards from there.
“I don’t think people underestimate the power of narratives—the narratives can convey ideas and values.”
Right, but you would agree that people have sufficient agency (we’re not living in 1984 or Brave New World) so that they wouldn’t keep going to movies if they weren’t getting something from them? I agree that the relationship is dialectical—that to some extent what they get influences what they want to see in the future—but I’m not sure you can be more specific than that.
“assuming that there certain recurring attitudes and values that stand out.”
Again, I think we’re talking about building a perception of the whole based on what’s inevitably going to be a small sample, so the “attitudes and values” are going to have to do as much with yours and my and Odi’s and everyone else’s personal experiences and joys and fears and anxieties and neuroses as much as the actual films themselves—there’s an awful lot of projection going on.
. . .
“It’s completely manufactured, commercial success is usually proportional to advertisement spending.”
If that were true than no big budget film would ever flop and Hollywood marketing people would have the easiest job in the world.
. . .
“the most effective (and only moral) anti-trust law is populous which votes against oligopolies with their wallets”
The most effective oligopolies, Curtis, eliminated competitive alternatives, which is why we have antitrust legislastion in the first place. An election’s a waste of time if only one candidate can get on the ballot. If a smaller fish comes along in film production and distribution, I vote for him with my dollars and therefore he is successful, the most likely outcome is he gets swallowed by one of the other, bigger fish (who in turn may get swallowed by an even bigger fish).
odilonvert
Also, teenagers are not supposed to be legally drinking, so that throws that out the window.
Being able to resist addiction sometimes can’t be done well anyway — some people are really like the fictitious lemmings. If they’re going to fuck themselves up, if that’s what they really want to do, there’s little anyone can do to stop them.