Bad movies are so good

by Harrison Scott Key @ http://www.worldmagblog.com

Would you go see movies by a director that served his audiences healthy doses of conservative values? You know, movies where a man is tempted to lose his virginity but eventually overcomes temptation to wait for marriage. Or movies where a character learns how to grow up and man up and take care of his child and the child’s mother? Oh, I bet you would. Except that you wouldn’t tell your pastor. The films, which you’ve already figured are The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up, are just a little too vulgar – if not completely honest:

In each of the films, the hero is nearly led astray by buddies who tempt with things like boxes of porn, transvestite hookers and an ideology about the ladies possibly learned from scanning Maxim while scarfing down Pop-Tarts. By the end,” however, the friends are exposed “as well meaning but comically pathetic” and the hero ends up doing the right thing.

I suspect the vulgarity masks the conservatism of these films’ themes. But then, someone once said that all comedy is inherently conservative: exposing fakery for fakery and calling for a return to authentic virtue. But this doesn’t go over in scriptwriting classes too well.

"24" Lack of Moral Clarity

Commentary from Melinda @ http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/01/24_lack_of_mora.html

Okay, here's the arrangement. I'll put "24" in the title of any post I make about the show this season, and if you don't want to risk any spoilers then you know not to read it. That includes this one.

The cast of "24" was on "Larry King" last night and a couple of the actors said things that trouble me by their lack of moral understanding. It's not that I expect actors to think rigorously about morality - or most people for that matter, I'm not slamming actors. It's that the program itself is written with quite a bit of moral subtlety, which apparently is lost on some of those delivering the lines.

When discussing some of the difficult moral choices the characters are forced to make because of the circumstances and the time pressure, "Curtis" said something like sometimes you just have to sacrifice morality. The good guys are forced to do the wrong thing. This is the exact point that gets me thinking a lot about "24" and why it's so stimulating. There's a close relationship between means and ends, and whether or not the means are immoral is often informed by what the end is. This isn't utilitarianism or situation ethics, as some of inaccurately accused.

A simple example is tripping someone. Is it wrong or not? Most of the time it probably is, but how about if you trip someone to stop them from running into the street and being hit by a car they don't notice? I would argue that you haven't done something wrong, but that you've done the good and right thing. Sometimes the CTU agents of "24" make the wrong choice, but most of the time they make the difficult choice to do the right thing because the alternative is worse.

The most troubling comments came from the actor who plays a terrorist in the upcoming season. He said that terrorism is "in the eyes of the beholder" and he prefers to think of his character as a "freedom fighter." Now, certainly terrorists think they're justified in what they do, but that's not the issue. The issue is what actually is right and wrong, which is determined by external standards not subjective ones. At first I thought he was speaking as an actor trying to understand his character's motivation, but it became apparent when he told a personal story that this is how he actually thinks. Terrorists are wrong and freedom fighters are right, and it's not in the eye of the beholder.

This is one of the reasons I like "24." It's the old western in modern terms. Good guys and bad guys. It's not confusing which ones are which.

The actors discussed whether torture is justified (based on an apparent misquote from talk show host Laura Ingraham), and their comments seemed very simplistic to me. They talked as though those who think torture is sometimes justified and necessary think it's straightforward and simple because the actors talked about how "24" actually shows the consequences and the difficulty of knowing when it's necessary. Now, whether or not torture is actually ever necessary in the real world is beside the point. At this point it's a moral theory question. Most people who cautiously support it's use recognize the complexities and consequences, which is exactly why "24" is so interesting. It shows that. If people disagree about the justification of torture we can at least credit the other with having taken the issue seirously and recognizing the difficulty of it. The casts comments seemed to treat those they disagree with as sadists who aren't in the least troubled by what they think might be necessary.

People who believe in objective right and wrong are often accused of seeing things in black and white. Actually, people who think carefully about morality see many gradations on either side when the difficulty of some moral decisions are considered. The world presents lots of moral choices that aren't easy because we aren't omniscient or infallible beings. But we have to make moral choices, sometimes when the dilemma is very difficult. And even when the choice is made, it can be troubling. I heard someone say recently that the right decisions are easy ones. That very untrue because doing the right thing often has very difficult consequences in this fallen world we live in.