I went with a friend this weekend to see Water for Elephants, a movie I'd heard absolutely nothing about. I've seen the book at Barnes and Noble a couple of times and long thought it'd be one I'd want to pick up, but I just never got around to it.
I have to say that I'm pretty darn surprised that I watched a romance starring Robert Pattinson. He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named-Edward plays a vet school dropout who jumps aboard a circus train and stumbles into a job caring for the animals. While he didn't exactly IMPRESS me, he wasn't horrible at all (so I may have to take back a few of the negative things I've said about the guy). Reese Witherspoon plays his love interest - a trick horse rider and the wife of an unbalanced and violent circus owner, Christoph Waltz.
Just to restate: we've got mental illness, spousal abuse, and adultery in what Roger Ebert calls "good sound family entertainment."
So once the movie ended, my friend and I got into a bit of a discussion about morality in movies. Specifically, my friend felt that the movie seemed to condone adultery. Witherspoon's husband frequently attacked (occasionally killing) workers who dissatisfied him, so she SHOULD be unfaithful to her marriage, because he's a jerk and he deserves it.
Of course, spousal abuse is a troubling issue and I don't want to make light of it. I wouldn't EVER recommend that anyone stay in an abusive relationship (and I doubt my friend would, either). That said, I don't think The PointTM of Water for Elephants was to support adultery or to glorify an immoral lifestyle.
I consoled my friend by pointing out that... well, if you've SEEN the movie, you know that there's a lot of misery spread around between ALL members of this particular love triangle (and, if you haven't seen it, I'm trying to be vague so as not to spoil anything). No one goes "unpunished," I guess, for violating the sanctity of marriage or whatever. But, again, I doubt that the story is meant to pass moral judgment one way or the other.
It reminds me of the story of Asher Lev, a Jewish boy who is ostracized by his community for creating art that they found morally offensive. Yet Asher's goal was NEVER to alienate his kin, but to express capital "T" Truth, which is often unpleasant and unflattering.
That's how I felt about Water for Elephants - it's conveying a reality that is decidedly horrible. Thankfully, it ends more or less happily, but the characters wade through more than a bit of misery before they get to that point, as we in the "real world" often do.
The whole conflict of "art vs. virtue" reminds me a bit of THIS guy:
No, I'm not just shoehorning in a Superman picture to relate yet another serious topic to comic books.
There's an argument out there that Superman stories are universally terrible because the man is so PERFECT that there's no room for dramatic storytelling. I adopt the stance that Superman stories are compelling BECAUSE of how "perfect" he is. Superman represents everything virtuous and good - and, you know, sometimes it's nice to get a reminder that there ARE silver linings to focus on. The character exists pretty much solely to encourage OTHERS to do good, and THAT'S what makes his stories so engaging.
Of course, reading nothing but inspirational Superman stories would get to be pretty bland after a while, which is why I sometimes turn to entertainment that's a little bit darker:
I guess my point is that there is a place for violence, sex, and other distasteful subject matter in art - even for the religiously orthodox. Now, I wouldn't fault anyone for avoiding such subject matter (I found I had to duck my head for a bit during one of the more intense love scenes in Water for Elephants), but I don't think that we can expect all art to be "wholesome" all the time.
Finally, just because an artist chooses to write about a difficult subject doesn't mean she endorses the behavior. More likely than not, I imagine she just wants to provoke discussion and thought - a good use of energy, if you ask me.
Of course, some entertainment is just MEANT to be mindless, and there's a place for that, too.
1 comment:
Good post. A lot of stories have protagonists that are far from perfect, and yet we sympathize with them because we are given a glimpse from their perspective. Sometimes this perspective seems to contradict the values of the majority of readers/viewers, but I think the intention is more to elicit compassion and understanding for people that we might otherwise shun, scorn, or pity. Or as you pointed out, the goal could be to make people question and re-evaluate why they believe certain principles. These intentions are admirable, and in my opinion are entirely different than condoning immoral actions.
However, I do believe that two people can get entirely different messages and impressions from the same book/movie, intentions aside. I know that there are plenty of people that would deem an R-rated movie that some might believe to be 'enlightening' to be 'inappropriate.' So, maybe part of the goal with these stories is to reveal this universal gap in perspectives, and demonstrate that on the human level (Kryptonians excluded), Truth can be a bit subjective.
Post a Comment