I didn’t see that particular film as espousing a particular viewpoint so much as portraying the side effects of the law. The film never really commented on the ‘Beginning of life’ debate.
Again, it really depends. If the film is overtly propagandistic I will dislike it whether or not I agree with the viewpoint. If it makes a good argument, I will generally appreciate the quality of argument. But, if I firmly believed that ‘ensoulment’ happened at the moment of conception (Which I don’t), I can’t see enjoying a film which advocated abortion.
There are some viewpoints I hold more strongly than others and have more emotional meaning. I suppose, for any given individual, it depends whether the film crosses your ‘line in the sand’.
Strictly objectively, no, the political viewpoint shouldn’t affect your judgment so much as the quality of argument. But it’s impossible to be strictly objective about something that just makes you angry.
Art can be a way for people to reflect upon and share with others how they think and feel about certain situations, which is essentially an artist’s attempt to express something which they feel is “meaningful”… that is, I strongly believe that a sense of “meaning” is relative to the individual – that any number of people can review the same film with the same syntactic structures, and yet they can potentially each derive their own personal interpretation of its “meaning” – and so I believe that any attempt to “average out” a sense of meaning across a collective experience is relatively futile… and so I ask myself, why should we divorce our personal beliefs from our value judgements? Isn’t this an important element of artistic creation and appreciation?
As for myself, I try to be open-minded towards beliefs which are different from my own, and I try to be wary of developing prejudice… but when it comes to making a value judgement, I feel that I must be honest with what I truly believe, because in any specific instance, there would be the potential for very few people to judge a particular film in line with their true beliefs (as you seem to be advocating, Jazz), which would in turn leave the dangerous possibility of a film being judged as “great art” when very few people actually feel any meaningful connection with it.
@Jazz — shouldn’t the question not be “should,” because it’s inevitable that the way we think of religion and politics is already set by the time we walk into a theater, but “how?” I mean, none of us are a blank slate. Are you really asking that the viewer recognize their pre-existing biases when judging a film, and in doing that try to be more open-minded?
One’s opinion on whether or not one should evaluate something based on religious or political beliefs is itself a religious and political belief. So the way I see it, it isn’t possible not to let these things influence your judgement.
In this example, should one set aside or mitigate their personal views on abortion to determine whether it is one of the best films of the decade?
Yes, but can they?
Is this thread going to conflate matters of taste with politics?
…which would in turn leave the dangerous possibility of a film being judged as “great art” when very few people actually feel any meaningful connection with it.
The underlying motivation plays no role there purusha?
That one’s actions determine their after-life is meaningful for the bulk of humanity.
Wtf does that have to do with taste?
Our religious and political beliefs (or lack there of) are too much part of our psyche to just be shut off. Whatever our attempts consciously, what we bring to the film will inevitably influence are reaction too it both aesthetically and intellectually.
I personally don’t care for heavy-handed political films of any stripe, but if I agree with them I’ll just get bored, while if I disagree (and think the filmmaker is biased) I might get angry. It’s pretty rare, however, that the latter happens, probably because I’m likely to generally be on the same general “side” as most artists.
@Jirin
I didn’t see that particular film as espousing a particular viewpoint so much as portraying the side effects of the law.
That’s a good point and I agree if you mean the message is not preachy or overt. However, would you agree that the film’s position on abortion is clear and that it does indirectly advocate for making abortion legal and available for women?
Btw, if a film’s support for a position is subtle and indirect, is disqualifying the film as a great work of art appropriate—just because strongly opposed that position?
@Odi
shouldn’t the question not be “should,” because it’s inevitable that the way we think of religion and politics is already set by the time we walk into a theater, but “how?”
Well, I didn’t want to assume this. Some people may believe that allowing one’s political and religious views to color their judgment of the art is entirely appropriate.
@Risselda
So the way I see it, it isn’t possible not to let these things influence your judgement.
That’s true, but do you think that they sometimes inappropriately influence our judgments? And if so, shouldn’t we then try to be aware of this and mitigate it? We may not be able to eliminate the influence of these beliefs, but I suspect you agree that we can mitigate them, right?
@Robert
Yes, but can they?
See my response to Ris.
Is this thread going to conflate matters of taste with politics?
I think both can influence our judgment in inappriopriate ways, but they’re not necessarily the same thing.
@Michael F.
This isn’t about heavy-handed political films, it is about ranking a film that depicts abortion in an artistically worthwhile manner.
If I remember, the film actually shows a horrible and empty experience with the underlying message that one can do bad to achieve good (which is defined as personal freedom).
@ Jazz
If we are talking about belief, then your are proposing compartmentalizing those beliefs.
I would have to say, no – one either believes or they don’t.
YES of course..unless you claim to be objective, which is impossible.
@Robert
Wtf does that have to do with taste?
Taste plays no role with meaning or underlying motivation, Robert? Maybe we are thinking of “taste” differently – if a person such as Jazz is motivated to discover “great” works of art by averaging out individual meaning, would you say that this motivation is a matter of personal taste? Clearly, not everybody is motivated to do such things – including myself.
That one’s actions determine their after-life is meaningful for the bulk of humanity.
I don’t know what you mean by “one’s actions determine their after-life”.
Let me give you another example. Would calling films like Passion of Joan D’Arc and Ordet bad works of art be appropriate if someone did so solely because they are an atheist? To me, this doesn’t seem appropriate. I can understand if the atheist doesn’t like those films but, to say, the films fail as works of art seems to be going too far.
Similarly, I’m a Christian, and I love those films. There’s no doubt that my religious beliefs are a big reason for this. On this basis, can I call these films great works of art? On that basis alone, I’d be uncomfortable saying that. What I would say is this: I love these films, but I’m unsure if I can call them great works of art—largely because I can’t tell if my religious beliefs are the basis for the judgment or some other valid criteria.
As individuals I don’t think our religious and political beliefs hold us hostage to appreciating art. Sure, they’ll probably influence the way we experience and even judge art to some extent, but I don’t think we have to throw our hands in the air and not try to mitigate these effects, when mitigation is appropriate. We can also refrain from a judgment about the aesthetic value of a work, if we strongly suspect biased judgment from our beliefs.
I don’t know what you mean by “one’s actions determine their after-life”.
How do you expect to get to heaven?
Jazz is motivated to discover “great” works of art by averaging out individual meaning, would you say that this motivation is a matter of personal taste? Clearly, not everybody is motivated to do such things – including myself.
Uh, that is a different thread.
Taste plays no role with meaning or underlying motivation, Robert?
No, taste is an impression. The impression can be meaningful, but the meaning is carried by the expression. The motivation of the viewer may bear no relation to the expression. This film is good example if one is trying to look at it moralistically (motivation) and not seeing the film for what it is.
Uh, that is a different thread.
Yeah—and for the record, that’s not an accurate description of my approach.
Jazz:
Vera Drake
@Robert
Not sure what you’re trying to say. Are you suggesting an example at the opposite end of the spectrum of Ordet and Passion of Joan D’Arc? ?
Why are you switching to Ordet ?
If it is making judgments, aesthetic or otherwise, Vera Drake would be the film to discuss. One could explore it with Christian teachings. For example, what does it say about tolerance?
@Robert
I brought up Ordet because it is a film where one’s religious or anti-religious beliefs could heavily influence one’s judgment about the film. In the context of determing great films, how much should these religious beliefs should be allowed to influence one’s judgment? (And I’m not saying one can completely eliminate the influence.)
Re: Vera Drake
My memory of the film is too hazy to meaningfully respond to your question. (Btw, I don’t want to imply that all Chrisitans will respond negatively towards a film with a more pro-choice slant. There are Christians who are pro-choice.)
I don’t know how Christians would respond to Vera Drake, which might make it interesting.
What is Ordet telling us ?
I don’t know how Christians would respond to Vera Drake, which might make it interesting.
Yeah, I agree. (I thought it was interesting, likable film, but not exceptional.)
What is Ordet telling us?
That’s a tough question to answer. Of the top of my head, I think it speaks about faith—and compares and contrasts different types of “faiths” and approaches to Christianity. The film is largely critical, I think, of a faith that lacks passion and fervor—especially in mystical and supernatural elements of Christianity. (When the father scolds Johannes for blashphemy, Johannes says, “Why do you blaspheme God with your unbelief?”—or something to that effect.)
I don’t want to say that’s the main or only thing about the film, but that’s something that came to mind.
My problem with Ordet has more to do with my distaste for the staging than my atheism.
Although, on an aside, doesn’t that film conflict with the very concept of faith? Tangible proof of God negates the need for faith, in turn negating the free will given by God. If you know for a fact having faith will get you into heaven, it’s not really faith. You’re acting faithful because you fear punishment and seek eternal reward, not because you think it’s right. The film starts out intellectually analyzing people’s attitudes in a world of declining faithfulness, but then ends up with deus ex machina which is intellectually un-Christian. I think I’d like the film more if it were more ideologically Christian and less of a Sunday School lesson.
Anyway, Passion of Joan Of Arc is one of my favorite films. It is much more intellectually Christian. Joan is not miraculously saved by God — except for her deliverance into heaven.
@Jazz
I see what you’re saying, that there is an objective quality of art that exists outside of our individual contexts, and in judging a work of art which should try to disregard those individual contexts. Even if that is ideally the case, we are not objective creatures, and value judgments are inherently emotional. If we did not judge films according to our emotions, as others have pointed out, it eliminates the pleasure of watching films.
So, to answer your question, if you’re writing your dissertation on film, you should disregard personal opinion and look for those objective qualities, but otherwise, it’s pointless and impossible.
Although, on an aside, doesn’t that film conflict with the very concept of faith?
It shows religion as divisive – in this case, sects claiming superiority; one life, one death.
Faith is suggested to bind all. The writer, Kaj Munk, was a centrist – by centrist I mean he believed in the one center, singular thing – one God, one ruler etc. as a way to resolve conflict. The miracle was a single unifying force – an authoritarian symbol. That is how I read faith in the message of the film.
It is opposed to tolerance, which is why I posed Vera Drake as more interesting avenue for Christians.
@Jirin
(spoilers for Ordet)
Although, on an aside, doesn’t that film conflict with the very concept of faith
I assume you’re saying this because of the miracle? Well, the Bible is filled with many miracles and “proof” of God’s existence (e.g., the pillar of fire, healing, etc.). Miracles can always be explained a way and after a while their impact can be forgotten. (One would think the Hebrews saw all the proof one would need, yet they still would lose their faith from time to time and stray from God. That’s the nature of faith and human beings, imo.)
My point is that miracles doesn’t turn faith into something factual.
I see what you’re saying, that there is an objective quality of art that exists outside of our individual contexts, and in judging a work of art which should try to disregard those individual contexts.
Minor quibbles aside—I wouldn’t use the term “objective” and “disregard”—I basically agree with this.
Even if that is ideally the case, we are not objective creatures, and value judgments are inherently emotional. If we did not judge films according to our emotions, as others have pointed out, it eliminates the pleasure of watching films.
I actually think that political and religious beliefs can actually prevent us from appreicating a work of art—and I believe that we do have the capacity to be aware of when this is happening and mitigate these effects (although it’s not always easy).
@Robert
The writer, Kaj Munk, was a centrist – by centrist I mean he believed in the one center, singular thing – one God, one ruler etc. as a way to resolve conflict.
That’s an interesting interpretation, but I don’t really agree with this (if I understand you correctly.) I don’t think the film suggests an authoritarian view as a way out of conflict, nor do I think it promotes intolerance. (I’m curious to hear how you arrived those conclusions.)
The arc of Johannes’ character bizarrely suggests that faith is rational.
What is left to be resolved?
It is a Hollywood ending found in a faith-based paternalism.
I’m a big pro-choice person but was unimpressed with 4 Months, 3 weeks and 2 Days. For me, the abortion angle had no bearing on whether I judged the film good or bad. But I will say, I think for some people (particularly mainstream audiences, such a judgement would impact their overall view of the film). This actually observed this with a friend of mine last year – both my friend and his girlfriend didn’t really like The Kid’s Are All Right and their main contention was that it promoted a normalcy regarding gay parents. My friend and his girlfriend are fairly conservative Christians and just don’t believe that two women should be raising kids and that the kids would be just like everyone else.
Now of course I completely disagree with them about gay marriage and gay parents but I also disagree with them that they allowed their political and religious views from impeding any enjoyment in the film (I’m convinced they otherwise would’ve loved the film).
@Robert
The arc of Johannes’ character bizarrely suggests that faith is rational.
How do you get that?
@Santino
I think your example with The Kids Are All Right is another good one for this thread.
I do think your friends’ religious and political views could have hindered them from enjoying the film. But I would have been OK with that had they made some distinction between their enjoyment and the actual artistic quality of the film (unless they gave other reasons for thinking the film wasn’t a good work of art). For example, I would have been totally fine if they said, “I don’t know if the is a good work or art or not, but all I know is I really disliked the film.”
On the other hand—just to stir the pot, a little—I think many of us would agree that judging a work of art on moral grounds is valid. The classic examples are films like Triumph of the Will or Birth of a Nation. If your friends said that The Kids Are All Right was a bad work of art, based on moral grounds, would this be a valid reason? (The same might be said for 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. Could one say it is a bad work of art because it supports a immoral policy? Or could one even say it is a good work of art because it supports a moral policy?
I think it’s important to seperate the two and make the distinction. I hope that I didn’t just like The Kids Are All Right because it promotes gay people as regular folks with regular problems. I hope I liked it because it was a well made film. I’m trying to think of an example of a film that promoted my political views but wasn’t very good. I guess 4 Months… would apply.
And what about the converse? What if a film promoted gay marriage as being immoral and wrong and yet the film was artistically brilliant. In this regard, this example would fall into the Triumph of the Will category, but of course, it’s easier to applaud Triumph of the Will now b/c we’re so removed from it. Could we do that with something so prevalent today, like gay marriage? I don’t know. I’d like to think I’d be open to appreciating a film made today, even if it lambasted gay marriage as wrong. But maybe not.
Jazzaloha
Mark Vanselow recently started a thread called, Do you Enjoy Films That Strongly Espouse Values Different From Your Own and I wanted to explore the topic from a slightly different angle. You might not enjoy a film that go against your values, but do these values—-including religious and political beliefs— affect your judgment of the film as a work of art? Should it?
I want to suggest looking at a specific film, 4 Months, 3 weeks and 2 Days. I noticed that this received a high rank on several top films of the 2000s lists—#8 on metacritic, #9 on Film Comment and #20 on TSPDT. I thought it was a well-made film, but those rankings seem a little too high for me. I couldn’t help but wonder if the high ratings stemmed from many critics sharing the film’s view on abortion. (Would or did pro-life critics rate the film as highly?) Suppose this is true. Do people feel this is a valid way to evaluate the film? Likewise, would keeping the film off the list (or giving it a lower rating) because of an anti-abortion position be a legitimate way to evaluate the film? In this example, should one set aside or mitigate their personal views on abortion to determine whether it is one of the best films of the decade? (Remember we’re not talking about whether you enjoyed the film or not—only if it deserves to be one of the best films of the decade.)