Defending Escapist Films--Especially Those Involving Violence
I think you guys are confusing absolute truth with fact. Jirin seems to a determinist/fatalist and they believe that if one had infinite knowledge of the past and present, one would be omniscient about the future as well because it would be possible to foresee all the consequences of every interaction once one had all the variables. If somebody had this knowledge, they would have what Jirin calls the absolute truth. (correct me if I’m wrong)
That sounds more like absolute fact to me – the totality of all empirical information. Truth is something beyond the realm of our perception. I’m not sure as to how we might apprehend it…
@Riss
One’s values can be similar to absolute truth, but they can never match it, because you are limited by your own experience. You do not have the knowledge of all possible situations and all possible consequences, because you haven’t witnessed them.
Somebody’s own values might approximate absolute truth, and they may operate similar to it in a given context, but a single person’s values can’t possibly have made a perfect judgment. It’s like judging a movie based on watching one scene from it.
@Michael
I’m arguing that knowing absolute fact is necessary to know absolute truth. Correct moral judgment takes more factors into account than a person’s brain is capable of considering.
Right but if Truth is beyond perception than how does empirical knowledge help us access it? I don’t think there are True moral judgments, only factual ones. And yes, factual judgments are very tricky on their own.
The question for me is what access do we or can we possibly have to the real Truth if it can not be perceived.
@Michael
This remark confuses me: Truth is something beyond the realm of our perception. I’m not sure as to how we might apprehend it…
Do you mean that we can’t know Truth in a complete and absolute sense? That would make more sense. But I’m really confused if you mean Truth is completely beyond our realm of perception—to the extent that we can know nothing about it. My understadning of your position is that great art conveys Truth. Or am I wrong about that?
Yeah, it depends on how strict one is in allowing things to be called “absolute truth.” If Truth includes all knowledge that is a priori, then we can apprehend it and reveal it in art. But there is some debate over whether things like the rules of logic can be considered objective or if they are products of our minds. The way I understand “absolute truth,” we are talking of absolute objectivity and transcendence, in which case we are talking about the reality that exists outside of perception, a reality we can know nothing about. Art can’t reveal that because humans can’t see outside of their own minds. But art can reveal deeply complex feelings that are nearly impossible to articulate into words. These feelings are beyond our cognitive abilities and yet they ring true to us in some way. These are the feelings that art can reveal to us, more objective than most facts because not only are they things that a majority of people agree on, but they also seem to appeal to something built into us.
@Jirin
Everything has an influence on society and the individual, why are we singling out art? And how can you really say that your idea for how people should be influenced is the best? Nobody knows how people should be influenced. Letting them be naturally influenced is almost certainly less harmful than letting a person, a committee, or a government control how people are influenced.
Besides the fact that people here care and value art, I’m singling out art, especially narrative-based art, because it is vital to helping us make sense of the world. Science is an important too, no doubt, but people need stories to survive and thrive—psychologically and spiritually, imo. Why is religion so compelling and important to so many people? It’s not just the insights and wisdom, but the stories—the way they express the teaching and wisdom. If you took away the narrative elements of the major religions, these religions would lose a lot of their power. Good leaders—of an organization or society—understand this. Btw, the villain in the movie, The Book of Eli, mentions this, and while the film isn’t that great, the villain’s desire for getting a hold of the Bible makes a lot of sense. The greatest storytellers—the ones who make the stories that will matter most to a culture and society—have tremendous power and responsibility. (I think non-narrative art can have similar effects, but maybe not to the same degree.)
So are you saying only anti-war messages are validly artistic? Band of Brothers is pro-war and it’s one of the greatest depictions of war I’ve ever seen. (Hard to be anti-war about fighting back against the Nazis in WWII)
No, anti-war message aren’t the only valid artistic use of war. My point was that unrealistic depictions of war (i.e., glamorizing war in a way that is highly deceptive) is highly problematic and troubling.
But I want to understand your point about unrealistic war versus realistic war. By unrealistic war did you mean something like a battle with aliens? I don’t think films like this constitute escapist movies, while films like WWII movies are art. WWII films or more realistic wars can also be escapist, as well.
Why should escapism need to be defended just because we don’t personally enjoy it as much as art?
I knew my use of the word “defend” would cause problems. Personally, I don’t need a defense for escapist movies—I’m mainly interested in seeing if a strong case could be made. That’s it. I certainly don’t think that people who like escapist films need to defend this preference.
@Michael
The way I understand “absolute truth,” we are talking of absolute objectivity and transcendence, in which case we are talking about the reality that exists outside of perception, a reality we can know nothing about.
But couldn’t we know something about this type of Truth—albeit our knowledge would be imperfect and maybe even distorted? I’m also unclear on what you mean when you say talk about great art containing profound truth. (I now assume you don’t mean objective Truth.)
I’m also interested in hearing your response to my attempt at making a case for escapist movies. (I respond to DFFOO and my post starts with , “Yep—I’m with you here. But now help me construct a defense for these escapist films.”)
Your case for escapist movies:
At the same time, do movies really have to contain these profound truths or deal with important subjects in a serious way? Personally, I don’t think so. As an example think about Singin’ in the Rain or something like Top Hat. I don’t think either film is serious, and I don’t really care if neither contains profound truths, but Singin’ in the Rain evokes a kind of delight—maybe even joy—that is extremely rare. Among all the different types of art—visual, literary, musical, etc.—I’m not sure another art work can make me feel as good as that film. (Well, there’s a lot of music that does this—but Singin’ is right up there.) I can say the same thing about something like dance sequences with Astaire and Rogers. When I think of the word sublime, many of those dance numbers are right up there. I don’t think there’s really any profound truth—not in the way Michael’s talking about—in those dance numbers, but that doesn’t diminish those moments one bit, imo. These escapist films make me feel good—and not in cheap way—but in a way I associate with great art.
But I’m not sure this provides an adequate defense. I guess the point is that escapist films can evoke powerful feelings of beauty and joy—and there’s value in that. I think we can agree to that, especially if these feelings are substantial (profound?) and the artistry involved is exceptional. Right?
One more thing. Is it wrong to want to forget about your troubles and concerns and lose yourself in something fun and entertaining? I know a person can abuse this, but wouldn’t we agree that there’s value in doing this, if done in moderation and within reason? I would ask people like Michael and others who decry escapist movies, if they don’t turn to escapist fare on a regular basis. Even if they don’t, I’m sure they can see the value in indulging in this type of entertainment once and while. To have a break, to divert one’s attention from problems or stress situations is something very important. It’s a way to bear difficulties. If one never had these moments, life would be really, really difficult, maybe unbearable. If I only allowed myself to experience the heaviest, more serious art—the ones that weren’t also entertaining like the best escapist fare—that would be terrible. I need the art that is fun and lite, as well—and I think this is true for many people.
Most of what you’re doing here is making a case for watching and enjoying escapist movies. I have no problem with that.
The problem is with this as a valid case for escapist movies as serious art.
There are two main points in your justification that I challenge:
1 is the claim that movies don’t have to be serious or say anything serious in order to be great art
2 is that escapist films evoke powerful feelings of beauty and joy that are as valuable as those produced by great works of art
A key difference is that great art challenges the viewer, escapist movies cater to the audience. They give you exactly what you want, and they’ll manipulate you to tell you how to think and feel (which, almost paradoxically, often is exactly what people want). Great art refuses to manipulate you and thus forces you to grapple with it. Each great work invents new experiences. Not just new images, but new experiences and teaches you new ways of experiencing.
The difference between new images and new experiences:
I’ve never seen an image of a unicorn wearing a football helmet, rollerblading down a mountain. Were I to come across that image in a movie, it would certainly be new to me. But is it a new experience? No. Because I’ve seen many other bizarre images and even though none of them resembled this one (in terms of content – maybe the other one I saw was a baby monkey eating acorns out of a hollow watermelon) I can experience, understand, and engage with all these sorts of scenes in the exact same way. I already have a category in my brain for this kind of bizarre image and I’ve already learned how to deal with them. There are other scenes, however, that I have no pre-existing category for and are therefore awkward to confront because I have to learn on the fly. These movies usually require multiple viewings for this reason – you aren’t prepared for them on the first one. But all of these traits make these movies unappealing to mainstream viewers and thus these films are rarely accepted into the mainstream and even when they are, aren’t called “escapist”. The fact that you even call Singin’ in the Rain “escapist” rather than just a mainstream or popular movie suggests to me that you see it as somehow limited or silly or lacking in substance.
But couldn’t we know something about this type of Truth—albeit our knowledge would be imperfect and maybe even distorted? I’m also unclear on what you mean when you say talk about great art containing profound truth. (I now assume you don’t mean objective Truth.)
I’m not sure. My feeling is that it is impossible to perceive without a perspective and that it is impossible to confront objective reality without perception, so it is impossible to apprehend ultimate objectivity (but you could get higher up the continuum). I guess the solution is that we can use reason (in combination with the senses?) to know ultimate objectivity but I don’t really buy it.
@Michael
The problem is with this as a valid case for escapist movies as serious art.
First of all, providing valid and compelling reasons for escapist films (making and watching them) was the primary objective of the thread, at least for me. I really wasn’t thinking about making a specific case for escapist films being great art.
Having said that, you bring up an interesting question: can escapist movies be serious, even great, art? My first impulse is to examine the nature of escapist films. A good escapist movie would draw viewers into the film so completely that they forget about their problems and real lives. Moreover, the experience has to be enjoyable. Escapist films help people forget about their problems and make them feel good. But does that preclude them from being good or even great art?
Now you seem to suggest two essential qualities for good art—1) the art must challenge the viewer instead of giving them what they want; 2) the art must provide a new experience. My impression of the way you defined these two qualities is that serious art could never appeal to a mainstream audience—you suggest the “new experience” it offers would alienate mainstream audiences; or it would refuse to manipulate audiences into enjoying the film so they could therefore never really enjoy the movies. If this reading is accurate, that seem right. There are many great artists that appealed to large numbers of people—including those in the mainstream—and I’m sure we both could easily cite examples. So I don’t think the qualities you mention are essential for good art—or at least not in the way you seem to define them.
Now, let’s go back to escapist films—i.e., films that help people forget their problem and make them feel good. Before I say anything else, I should say that the term “escapist” is pejorative. As you mention it suggests something silly or lacking in substance, and I agree that the term has that negative connotation. So maybe we shouldn’t use that term, as it stacks the deck against these type of movies. On the other hand, would we say that escapist films don’t deal with serious subjects in a serious way? Maybe this is a crucial element of escapist movies? So films like Harakiri and High and Low might be highly engrossing and enjoyable, but since they deal with serious subjects in a serious way, we can’t call them escapist films. I’ll wait for a response before I continue.
Yeah – it’s tough to define escapist – it’s easy to get lost in Harakiri, and it’s one of the most compelling and entertaining storylines ever, so it definitely could be called escapist. But I guess since it’s an established art-house classic it wouldn’t be called that since the term is pejorative. What would you say Michael?
Harakiri and High and Low are two of my favourite Japanese movies (though I still have tons to see in Asian cinema). High and Low is borderline escapist. In terms of artfulness, I think Ikiru (and others) are better Kurosawa movies. Harakiri is a genuine great work of art IMO and not something I would classify as escapist. I don’t think the distinction between escapist and non-escapist has to do with dealing with serious subjects. It isn’t necessary to deal with subjects. For me, the main distinction is the one I raised above, about giving people something that is bound to satisfy them and indulge them, rather than challenging them in some way.
I didn’t say that serious art could never appeal to a mainstream audience but if one looks at the qualities of mainstream movies and the qualities of serious art, as you just did, there is bound to be only a little bit of overlap. We aren’t limited to thinking in terms of surface area though, we can also think in terms of layers. Works of art have many layers, some deep and some shallow. It is possible for some people to appreciate a work of art on a deep level, but for the work’s surface level to appeal to mainstream audiences. In that way, a work could appeal to multiple different audiences. Look at how a teenager engages with A Clockwork Orange compared to how a critic that loves the movie would. They have different tastes and different ideas and like the same movie for different reasons.
Since you say the thread is mainly about making a case for watching them, I think the best defense is that they provide us with experiences. I think soaking up experiences is useful to people, especially artists. The more material an artist soaks up, the more he has to play with when it’s his turn to make something.
I see what you’re saying about layers, but couldn’t you just read all the subtext you want into Transformers and then say that it’s not escapist.
Or, how many layers does Harakiri really have, and who wouldn’t be satisfied by it? I think it certainly indulges us as an audience – the hero is pretty ridiculously badass, and even though he SPOILER dies at the end, he still wins by dying. As far as layers, I feel like the most you can really read into the film is that institutions are bad and people are often hypocritical. To be honest, I don’t think there’s much separating Harakiri from your definition of escapist films.
DISCLAIMER: I really do love Harakiri!
@Michael
I don’t think the distinction between escapist and non-escapist has to do with dealing with serious subjects.
Oh. So, for the sake of clarity, does that mean that great art need not deal with serious issues or subjects? Can they be intentionally silly and lite?
For me, the main distinction is the one I raised above, about giving people something that is bound to satisfy them and indulge them, rather than challenging them in some way.
I think one could argue that both High and Low and Harakiri satisfy and indulge AND challenge them in some way—so I’m having trouble seeing what sets them a part.
I didn’t say that serious art could never appeal to a mainstream audience but if one looks at the qualities of mainstream movies and the qualities of serious art, as you just did, there is bound to be only a little bit of overlap.
I guess it depends on what you mean by a “little overlap,” and I suspect this is where you and I disagree the most. My sernse is that you feel the way you do because you believe that good art must have qualities that largely make it inaccessible to a wide audience. Some really good art is like that, but others are not, and I’m not entirely convinced that the great art that is accessible is significantly smaller than the inaccessible variety.
Since you say the thread is mainly about making a case for watching them, I think the best defense is that they provide us with experiences. I think soaking up experiences is useful to people, especially artists. The more material an artist soaks up, the more he has to play with when it’s his turn to make something.
The argument here is basically, any experience is good experience? Yeah, we could add that to the list, but that wouldn’t be the most compelling one for me.
To play devil’s advocate, though, suppose the escapist films presented a significant distortion of reality—to the extent that this perspective could be harmful if the viewer adopted such an approach. How would we respond to that?
I don’t see why “not dealing with serious subjects” is the same as being silly and light. You can make a serious and great movie about somebody tying their shoes, you can make a serious movie about AIDS, you can make a silly and light movie about somebody tying their shoes, and you can make a silly and light movie about AIDS.
I think one could argue that both High and Low and Harakiri satisfy and indulge AND challenge them in some way—so I’m having trouble seeing what sets them a part.
If they ALSO challenge, then that is what sets them apart. Escapist films do not challenge audiences.
I guess it depends on what you mean by a “little overlap,” and I suspect this is where you and I disagree the most. My sernse is that you feel the way you do because you believe that good art must have qualities that largely make it inaccessible to a wide audience.
That’s it.
The argument here is basically, any experience is good experience? Yeah, we could add that to the list, but that wouldn’t be the most compelling one for me.
To play devil’s advocate, though, suppose the escapist films presented a significant distortion of reality—to the extent that this perspective could be harmful if the viewer adopted such an approach. How would we respond to that?
That’s what I was saying earlier. I think virtually every mainstream movie fits that description and it can be harmful when one is surrounded by a culture of such movies. The trained viewer knows how to intercept these messages and escape them unscathed, getting the new images out of the films without the bad messages. But I think Hollywood has a negative influence on the average person, at least in shaping their minds toward certain capitalist, materialist ideals. Most people grow up with shallow ideas learned from Hollywood and have to shed them off as they grow older.
“suppose the escapist films presented a significant distortion of reality—to the extent that this perspective could be harmful”
Are we assuming a stable, constant monistic “reality” that everyone experiences in the same way . . . because if we are, I’ve got some bad news for you.
There is not one-size-fits-all good or bad experience for everyone . . .at least not unless you map it to some sort of us/them moral scheme.
Macbeth could be harmful for anyone in middle management.
@Michael
You can make a serious and great movie about somebody tying their shoes,…
I’m having trouble imagining what this will be like. I’m thinking that such a film would involve somebody tying their shoes, but it wouldn’t really be about that. (Think of how Raging Bull is about a boxer, but not really about boxing.) If it were truly serious, in the way I think you mean, then the actual subject would be serious.
Me: My sernse is that you feel the way you do because you believe that good art must have qualities that largely make it inaccessible to a wide audience.
You: That’s it.
But what about the great art and artists that are or have been popular to a lot of people—e.g., Mozart, Shakespeare, Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, etc.?
The trained viewer knows how to intercept these messages and escape them unscathed, getting the new images out of the films without the bad messages.
I don’t completely agree with this, but I agree with everything else you said, more or less.
@Matt
Are we assuming a stable, constant monistic “reality” that everyone experiences in the same way . . . because if we are, I’ve got some bad news for you.
Here’s an example of what I mean—the Hollywood conception of a good romantic relationship. I would imagine that some people have good romantic relationships that conform to the Hollywood pattern, but I would say most do not—and to expect or approach a relationship using this pattern (which could happen if a person had a steady diet of these films), imo, would not be something I would advise. This is sort of what I meant by “distortion of reality,” which, in retrospect, was an awkward and misleading description.
Having said this, I do believe that good and bad experiences are, to a certain extent, relative to the individual. Generally speaking, I don’t think limited exposure to any type of film is much of a problem (in the way I mention above). The repeated exposure makes it a problem, imo.
I’m having trouble imagining what this will be like. I’m thinking that such a film would involve somebody tying their shoes, but it wouldn’t really be about that. (Think of how Raging Bull is about a boxer, but not really about boxing.) If it were truly serious, in the way I think you mean, then the actual subject would be serious.
“Dealing with serious issues” sounds like it’s about subject matter and “being silly and light” sounds like it’s about tone, style, or attitude toward its subject matter, so I was showing the difference between the two. If we’re talking purely about the latter, then I think great art almost has to be serious.
But what about the great art and artists that are or have been popular to a lot of people—e.g., Mozart, Shakespeare, Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix, etc.?
I answered that before.
1) the two groups need not be mutually exclusive, there is room for a little overlap
2) people can appreciate the same work on different levels. for me, an obvious example is Godard. Every teenaged aspiring filmmaker idolizes Godard for the way he breaks all the conventions and never meets our expectations. Then they outgrow him. Have they really outgrown Godard or have they outgrown the simple qualities they were able to appreciate from Godard? Kubrick is another good example of an artist that different people appreciate on different levels, and I gave the example of A Clockwork Orange.
I don’t completely agree with this, but I agree with everything else you said, more or less.
Well, nor do I , that’s why I was pretty much saying the reverse to Drunken. It is very difficult to escape being subconsciously shaped by mainstream culture even if you’re self-aware.
Great art almost has to be serious.
I don’t know about that. Opera buffa is a perfect example of great art that is both “silly” with respect to plot and with respect to technical and musical devices (e.g., buffo bass)—it’s “silly” in nearly every possible sense. Of course, one could counter by saying that buffa isn’t great art, but then they’d also have to say that Mozart wasn’t a great artist, and then they’d have to throw out the rest of opera and a good deal of some of the world’s greatest music.
“the Hollywood conception of a good romantic relationship. I would imagine that some people have good romantic relationships that conform to the Hollywood pattern, but I would say most do not—and to expect or approach a relationship using this pattern (which could happen if a person had a steady diet of these films), imo, would not be something I would advise.”
Ah, OK. I sort of agree with that (and it makes me think of Chuck Klosterman’s essay about how seeing Say Anything growing up ruined his chances of finding a happy romantic relationship). However, I think the average is successful romantic relationship is pretty much a mix of “reality” and a very-much-constructed fantasy, so you need a bit of both—you have to do a little mythmaking to keep it going. But still, I think the point that not everyone uses movies the same way is a critical consideration.
An interesting talk below that may be relevent. Talking about the things in culture we take for granted.
Also it’s not saying entertainment is wrong, but does point out how important we have made it in our society. I’d be especially curious what you think as a Christian Jazz:
@Riss
I watched the sermon, and there’s a lot to process. (I’m still not sure what to make of the stoicheion.) I think the sermon goes beyond the issue of violence in escapist films, though. I agree with a lot of his points—about how the degree to which we value entertainment over things like social work and education (as evidenced by how much we pay people from each profession) is both the norm and out-of-whack; about how we should be thoughtful about the amount of time we spend on entertainment and the type of entertainment (and media) we consume.
Thanks for watching it Jazz. I know it goes way beyond the main topic of your OP, but I felt it had some relevence. And I also felt it had some relevence to the ways entertainment and society overall instill us with subtled assumptions we rarely realize are assumptions.
The sermon went beyond the topic, but in an interesting way. The pastor didn’t rail against the content of entertainment, as I would expect, but the value we place on entertainment via our time and money—especially relative to other things like ministry, education of young, helping the poor, etc.
In relation to the thread topic, would you argue that strictly escapist films are OK—in small doses? That’s my current position.
Can someone pass the chips and dip? Arnie is doing his Tarzan yell in “Predator”, and I can’t turn away.
How about this as a justification, Jazz: violence in film is a sort of metaphorical embodiment of the violence to real time and space (shooting, cutting, etc.) that is film?
In relation to the thread topic, would you argue that strictly escapist films are OK—in small doses? That’s my current position.
Yeah I’d say currently that would be closest to my current opinion if you had to press me. :)
OK, like, not psychologically harmful? morally ? aesthetically? . . .
Well to be honest I’ve skimmed a lot of the posts in here, so I’m not sure exactly in what regard Jazz means it’s OK in small doses, but for me I’d say it’s OK like not spiritually harmful.
@Jirin
One’s values can be similar to absolute truth, but they can never match it, because you are limited by your own experience. You do not have the knowledge of all possible situations and all possible consequences, because you haven’t witnessed them.
Somebody’s own values might approximate absolute truth, and they may operate similar to it in a given context, but a single person’s values can’t possibly have made a perfect judgment. It’s like judging a movie based on watching one scene from it.
I’m arguing that knowing absolute fact is necessary to know absolute truth. Correct moral judgment takes more factors into account than a person’s brain is capable of considering.
Aren’t all of thse claims about the nature of absolute truth assertions of absolute truth? I still can’t understand how you can make assertions about the nature of absolute truth and what is required to know if it if the assertions state that absolute truth cannot be known. It’s an assertion that negates itself.
“I’m not sure exactly in what regard Jazz means it’s OK in small doses”
Yeah, I’m still not either. And the answer kind of depends on what plane you address the question.
Risselada
The absolute truth is infinitely complex.
So you say that you we can’t know what absolute truth is, but in that case how can you be sure of certain qualities of absolute truth, such as the fact that it exists or that it is infinitely complex?
You witness two people fighting in the street. You have the superpowers necessary to intervene in this fight in any way you deem fit. So, you have the observable facts of the fight. You see who is fighting, who is winning, whether either is in danger of being killed or seriously harmed. Maybe you can read their minds, you know each of their motives and why they’re fighting. But you still only have three perspectives from three sets of experience: Your own, and each fighter’s.
You can make a pretty intelligent guess as to what is correct, whether you base it on who’s the aggressor or who’s at risk of being physically harmed, but you still have incomplete knowledge of the situation, and incomplete knowledge of the consequences of how you might intervene. Without that knowledge, how can you possibly be completely sure of the right thing to do? The best you can do is apply general principles that seem to match your values and have led to good consequences in the past.
The biggest question in this scenario to me is whether one’s values match the absolute truth or not. Knowing all of the stuff that you described in the first paragraph is not of much worth if it leads you to direct events in a way that is in line with your values, but your values end up not being in line with absolute truth.