"Wokeist" - When people talk about progressivism without acquaintance

[Lexicus]

Thank you for setting the objective standards for "quality art"

Do you not think RKO's cut of The Magnificent Ambersons is objectively worse than Welles'?

Often a good film will portray a character you consider to be in the wrong and, as a viewer, it's up to you to apply that to your own moral guidance. Part of the point of film is to expose yourself to different perspectives, right and wrong

Do you think Breaking Bad would be a dramatically compelling show if the ending was Walt getting away with everything and living happily ever after?

 

[João III]

Tell me, what makes you think it doesn't count if a consequence doesn't hurt who took the original action?

Didn't say it doesn't count. We've also mentioned The Godfather and you said how Michael hurt those around him and ultimately destroys his family. Just because I don't explicitly mention something or follow up on it is not the same as me saying it doesn't count

Especially, at that, after I specifically pointed out that consequences on the victims are what I'm interested in when it comes to racism. Hardly a defensible interpretation of my words, to reduce them to consequences on the perpetrator.

If that's what you're interested in, then watch those films. But what about those films that you may not be interested in?

Another example I mentioned earlier, Starship Troopers, doesn't offer a clear depiction of fascism as bad. In fact, the film kind of makes it look awesome. Would you support a boycott of Starship Troopers for its endorsement of fascism?

And yet, there you are, as if you couldn't conceive another kind of consequence. Interesting.

Yes, because I didn't mention another kind must mean I couldn't conceive of it. And interesting in what way?

But, no. All actions have consequences. The vilain may not be the one suffering from his actions in Chinatown, but his actions most certainly create suffering: consequences. The suffering so created and the powerlesness of the characters to respond to it are...kind of the point really. Without consequences, there is no Chinatown.

I would say the point, really, of Chinatown is its lack of consequences for the powerful. The ending would be completely undermined if the antagonist was arrested. But if you're going to be so broad and say "all actions have consequences", then why even mention depicting actions without consequences? Almost every film is just consequences flowing from actions, but you can't possibly depict every consequence of every action so I'm not sure of your point here.

To get back closer to my earlier point, why do we need a "very clear indication" that something is bad? Why can't something be ambiguous?

Do you not think RKO's cut of The Magnificent Ambersons is objectively worse than Welles'?

Sadly the original negatives are lost and may never be recovered. It's one of the greatest tragedies in the history of film

Do you think Breaking Bad would be a dramatically compelling show if the ending was Walt getting away with everything and living happily ever after?

I mean, he kind of got away with what he wanted in the end, which was to provide his family with money. He destroyed their lives, but he seemed relatively content in the last shot. I imagine you're going to have some cunning rebuke

 

[Gorbles]

There will be two possible reasons: (1) someone has become inappropriately infected with a right-wing meme or (2) someone else might be unable to unpack whatever core truth the rightwing meme is built off of and only sees the 'right-wing'.

Given the bias on the thread, as well as the Left's well-known cannibalism, then the 'reflection' is multi-faceted. This will be especially true if the accuser has a history of Type 1 errors on the subject (or evidence that they don't mind making them for deeper motives).

Oh, there are plenty (more) reasons besides that rather amusing binary. The assumption of any core truth aside, there might be an inability to recognise the distortion of it by the right-wing layer(s) (on top of whatever core point it is). There might be an underlying shift in someone's politics. They might be overly tired. They have have an overly-invested stake in certain thread tangents (been there). This is why it requires introspection, and why I deliberately said that, as supposed to making it some kind of specific accusation.

Beyond that, I think Lexi does a far better job at going into the details, so I cede that floor to him.

How so?

Some people calling for a film to not get some awards is not the same as "the film shouldn't be made". If the film hadn't been made, then people wouldn't be able to criticise it, and the people who made it wouldn't have the chance to learn to be better.

This is why criticism exists. To make things better. And racism (among other, specific things) is a very real thing with real-world impact. To that end, creators have to be careful when including it in their work. If you're an artist and you don't consider the potential blowback for such a thing, that's your failing. If you're an artist and you know the possible blowback, and include it anyway, that's your choice.

If you haven't seen the film and only read the article, then why opine about it? That seems pertinent to the thread: people forming opinions on literature (or film as it were) and critiquing it despite not being acquainted with it. Watch the film and form an opinion yourself, don't rely on an article

Answering a question with a question, are we? Could you at least answer mine?

If I'm not allowed to form an opinion about a film I haven't seen, that's not a consistent standard you're applying in your posting in this thread alone, nevermind anywhere else. It would straight-up nuke the abortion thread, for example, by dint of it being filled with mostly cis men. Much like people can have an opinion on the Marvel Cinematic Universe without watching every single one of the, what, 20+ movies and several TV shows currently in circulation?

Moreso, this presumption is based on the idea that the critics you yourself provided in that article haven't watched it. It's a weak argument, because it basically means you can't say anything against someone who has watched the movie and comes up with exactly the same argument. And if you say you can, you can say that argument to me, now. What's the risk? That I won't understand your defense of some unnecessary racism in a film that had no plot-related reason to include it? Was it absolutely core to the character's development and general motivations? Am I missing some greater point this racism managed to portray?

I'm a big fan of letting films get made the way creators want them to get made. I'm also a fan of critical responses, even to things I like. I mentioned the MCU - on the whole, I love it. It's entertainment. But equally there's a ton of valid criticism of both the general worldbuilding, and specific movies. That's great. Why wouldn't it be? And if one of the movies made a serious misstep, I believe there's nothing wrong with calling that out. If the misstep was serious enough to deny them an award . . . so what? What do I lose?

If supporting artistic freedom in cinema puts me into that camp, fine

Supporting artistic freedom is fine. But that's not what you're doing here. You're saying "there should never be any consequences for any missteps made by an artistic work". Like, you don't deny that there is racism, I appreciate that. It was a deliberate choice to include it, and actions have consequences. Your argument is, in essence, that the consequence is disproportionate. But I haven't seen any convincing reason as to why, which isn't helped by you somewhat constantly misinterpreting points Evie and I have made.

 

[Lexicus]

Sadly the original negatives are lost and may never be recovered. It's one of the greatest tragedies in the history of film

Why is it a tragedy?

I mean, he kind of got away with what he wanted in the end, which was to provide his family with money. He destroyed their lives, but he seemed relatively content in the last shot. I imagine you're going to have some cunning rebuke

After going to considerable effort to "make things right" (including taking a bullet for his old partner), sure. The point is that a story where a "bad guy" does a series of bad things and the consequences of those bad things never appear on-screen just isn't going to be dramatically compelling. Like, showing (some of) the consequences of the main characters' actions isn't some kind of SJW conspiracy to ruin entertainment, it's just called "writing".

 

[Evie]

Why can't we be ambiguous? I mean, would you try to be ambiguous about racism in the middle of a normal discussion? Art, in its most fundamental nature, is a form of communication. That's the very fundamental heart of its nature. It seeks to conveys thoughts, or ideas, or emotions, or impressions, the same as any other way to communicate, between a communicator, the artist, and the receptors, the audience. Art that asks a question and leave it unanswered is no different from the artist himself asking that question. Art that raise an idea and leave it unchallenged amounts to the artist himself asking us to consider the idea. Art that creates an ambiguity and never resolves it is, in fact, the artist suggesting the ambiguity exists.

Which is not to say that everything that the characters do or say reflect beliefs of the artists. There are many ways for the artist to challenge or contest the ideas their characters express within the story, many ways for them to answers the questions raised in their work, to resolve their own ambiguities, without having the perp get arrested at the end or something equally simplistic.

Now, I want to point out that while I don't think there's much room to be ambiguous about racism as a way of thinking, there is plenty of room to suggest it about people who have engaged in racism. History is full of figures who did great things - and also treated some of their fellow humans in pretty awful ways. That's an ambiguity that's worth showing on screen (and much better than just showing us the good). But in that case, if the point is to show both the character's good and bad, then the last thing you should do is sanitize the bad or shy away from it. If the point is to show us the ambiguity of the character, the discomfort of watching the harm they caused is every inch as important as showing us all the greatness of the good they did.

(That's if you want to do a film showing them as ambiguous. You can do a hagiographic film that's all about how great they were (but you're probably getting a backlash from people pointing out you're whitewashing history.), or you can do a murderous film showing how horrible they were without talking about the good (you're probably getting an even worse backlash from the other side of the aisle pointing out how you're doing "critical race theory" and "revisionism"), or you can make them a background character that,s not the focus of the film (in which case, nobody will likely care)

 

[João III]

Some people calling for a film to not get some awards is not the same as "the film shouldn't be made". If the film hadn't been made, then people wouldn't be able to criticise it, and the people who made it wouldn't have the chance to learn to be better.

Evie said, "As much the ones who will find that the surface-level reading of the film bother them because of racism as the ones who will find that a surface-level reading of the film comforts and validates their racism. As a result, the surface level reading does matter, because it generates tangible results."

How racists might misinterpret a film shouldn't be the standard for depiction

This is why criticism exists. To make things better. And racism (among other, specific things) is a very real thing with real-world impact. To that end, creators have to be careful when including it in their work. If you're an artist and you don't consider the potential blowback for such a thing, that's your failing. If you're an artist and you know the possible blowback, and include it anyway, that's your choice.

But they didn't just criticise the film. Instead, they went further and sought to punish the filmmaker for his perceived transgression. We shouldn't punish artists for taking risks. Not to mention their criticism is based on the belief that "depiction=endorsement", which just isn't true, especially of Paul Thomas Anderson

Answering a question with a question, are we? Could you at least answer mine?

I'm saying see the film yourself and see what it's about. If you arrive at the same conclusion and don't like it, maybe do more research about that scene to learn more instead of trying to punish a filmmaker based on your (mis)interpretation

If I'm not allowed to form an opinion about a film I haven't seen, that's not a consistent standard you're applying in your posting in this thread alone, nevermind anywhere else.

I didn't say you're not allowed to form an opinion. I just encouraged you to go see it yourself and form an opinion on your own instead of relying on an article written by someone else

It would straight-up nuke the abortion thread, for example, by dint of it being filled with mostly cis men.

Not really, no. I didn't say something like "only directors can have opinions on film". Nor do I need to be killed to have an opinion on not being killed. Really an apples and oranges comparison but it wouldn't surprise me if someone is going to try to make a tortured metaphor or analogy now

Much like people can have an opinion on the Marvel Cinematic Universe without watching every single one of the, what, 20+ movies and several TV shows currently in circulation?

Again, not what I was saying

Moreso, this presumption is based on the idea that the critics you yourself provided in that article haven't watched it. It's a weak argument, because it basically means you can't say anything against someone who has watched the movie and comes up with exactly the same argument.

See post(s) above

And if you say you can, you can say that argument to me, now. What's the risk? That I won't understand your defense of some unnecessary racism in a film that had no plot-related reason to include it? Was it absolutely core to the character's development and general motivations? Am I missing some greater point this racism managed to portray?

Why assume the racism depicted in the film is nefarious before even seeing it? Cause people in the article say so? I've just been saying to go see it yourself and make up your own mind. The whole point has been depiction does not equal endorsement and we shouldn't punish artists because we assume they endorse something they've depicted

I'm a big fan of letting films get made the way creators want them to get made.

Like I told Evie, nothing says "I support artistic expression" like the threat of a boycott if you don't like it

I'm also a fan of critical responses, even to things I like. I mentioned the MCU - on the whole, I love it. It's entertainment. But equally there's a ton of valid criticism of both the general worldbuilding, and specific movies. That's great. Why wouldn't it be? And if one of the movies made a serious misstep, I believe there's nothing wrong with calling that out. If the misstep was serious enough to deny them an award . . . so what? What do I lose?

Like I've said before, giving feedback or criticism isn't the same as calling for a boycott or punishing a filmmaker's award chances. You say you don't lose anything if they're denied an award, but you don't lose anything if they're awarded either. The problem is denying an award based on a misinterpretation

Supporting artistic freedom is fine. But that's not what you're doing here. You're saying "there should never be any consequences for any missteps made by an artistic work". Like, you don't deny that there is racism, I appreciate that. It was a deliberate choice to include it, and actions have consequences. Your argument is, in essence, that the consequence is disproportionate. But I haven't seen any convincing reason as to why, which isn't helped by you somewhat constantly misinterpreting points Evie and I have made.

Ignoring all of your own misinterpretations of what I've said above, the reason it's disproportionate is because it's based on a misunderstanding of the film and that's a reason why you should go see it yourself. Decide for yourself instead of relying on outraged people. If someone is saying, "bad things on screen will influence people to do bad things in the real world", then they're just retreading arguments people made decades ago supporting the Hays Code. Not to mention the "video games cause violence" nonsense

Why is it a tragedy?

We'll never have the chance to see Welles's original vision

Like, showing (some of) the consequences of the main characters' actions isn't some kind of SJW conspiracy to ruin entertainment, it's just called "writing".

Not at all what I'm saying but okay. Maybe check out L'Avventura (1960). A woman goes missing and the film follows both her friend and her lover in their search for her

Why can't we be ambiguous? I mean, would you try to be ambiguous about racism in the middle of a normal discussion? Art, in its most fundamental nature, is a form of communication. That's the very fundamental heart of its nature. It seeks to conveys thoughts, or ideas, or emotions, or impressions, the same as any other way to communicate, between a communicator, the artist, and the receptors, the audience. Art that asks a question and leave it unanswered is no different from the artist himself asking that question. Art that raise an idea and leave it unchallenged amounts to the artist himself asking us to consider the idea. Art that creates an ambiguity and never resolves it is, in fact, the artist suggesting the ambiguity exists.

Why do you need explicit moralizing in film?

 

[Gorbles]

How racists might misinterpret a film shouldn't be the standard for depiction

You're really focusing on "misinterpreting", when that's arguably not the point. You keep banging on about the Hayes Code, which had a number of problems in of itself. The fact that the Hayes Code had problems doesn't mean we should never engage our brains for a second before depicting something as harmful as racism in a piece of media.

But they didn't just criticise the film. Instead, they went further and sought to punish the filmmaker for his perceived transgression. We shouldn't punish artists for taking risks. Not to mention their criticism is based on the belief that "depiction=endorsement", which just isn't true, especially of Paul Thomas Anderson

I can't find a single line in the linked article that suggests the director endorsed such views. If I've missed it, you can point it out.

As for "we shouldn't punish artists for taking risks", it's not about punishment. It's about cause and effect. If you make a choice to include a casual depiction of racism (for cheap laughs, as mentioned in the article), then people will respond to that. Said response isn't always going to be positive. The qualifications for whatever awards a director may be up for are at the discretion of the organisation giving them. The critics are't taking the awards away. They don't have that power.

Which brings us in a circle back to "cancel culture" and all of that nonsense. If you support criticism, and don't disallow people their opinions, they're ultimately going to express opinions you dislike. As a leftist, I'm repeatedly told that's what I need to be more open to. The fact that a right to opinion allows people to say things I disagree with. I suggest you reflect on that. Because you're doing the same thing I do, just from a different angle. You're saying "yes, speech is good, but when it causes harm it can be bad". We just disagree on the relative harms and their respective importance in-context.

I'm saying see the film yourself and see what it's about. If you arrive at the same conclusion and don't like it, maybe do more research about that scene to learn more instead of trying to punish a filmmaker based on your (mis)interpretation

Did you typo something in this line? It reads as "go and see the film, if you arrive at the same conclusion and don't like it, go and research it some more because you're wrong" ("my misinterpretation" quite clearly meaning I'd have interpreted it wrongly). This doesn't seem like a very smart argument to me, which is why I'm genuinely wondering if you got something a bit wrong typing it.

I didn't say you're not allowed to form an opinion. I just encouraged you to go see it yourself and form an opinion on your own instead of relying on an article written by someone else

You literally just said "if you watch the movie and still don't like it, go and read some more because you're misinterpeting it". Unless you didn't phrase it properly, as I suggested above.

Why assume the racism depicted in the film is nefarious before even seeing it? Cause people in the article say so? I've just been saying to go see it yourself and make up your own mind. The whole point has been depiction does not equal endorsement and we shouldn't punish artists because we assume they endorse something they've depicted

Racism is inherently a bad thing. When depicting it, you should engage it with respect and care because the damage it can do. It's not like "violence in video games", which is a red herring. If depictions of racism had no influence on hate crimes or the like, Brexit (which featured a lot of racist and similarly-stereotyped depictions of migrants and the like) in the UK wouldn't have coincided with a fivefold increase in reported crimes. You can't say "the notion that violence in video games affecting real violence has been disproved, ergo nothing that is ever portrayed in the media can ever impact real life". You don't have the data or the studies to back that up.

The problem is denying an award based on a misinterpretation

Again, in your opinion. I personally just don't think you understand the criticism, nor do you seem to want to. Which is fine, because that's why we have opinions. But certainly it means there isn't much point to debating this (singular) example you've provided, because you've already made up your mind.

 

[Evie]

I question, and, if appropriate, judge all actions on the basis of the consequences, and especially the harm, they create. Including the action of communicating - or not communicating - certain ideas or toughts in your art.

Art neither gets a special license to harm nor a special dispensation from its consequences.

Lack of intent, lack of guilty tought, may mitigate or remove guilt, but it does not alleviate harm, and it does not erase responsibility to remedy that harm, or duty to reasonably avoid causing harm.

 

[Lexicus]

We'll never have the chance to see Welles's original vision

And why is that bad? Why should I care? You are treating this as if it is self-evident, but it isn't.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm seven pages into the thread (so anything that's happened since page seven, forgive me for not knowing). I started assembling a multi-quote of all the posts I wanted to reply to, but it was gonna be a wallatext, so I'll just say this.

It's a little dance that the left and right have played for at least the last thirty years, dating back to "politically correct," and including, as people have noticed SJW and now woke. The left's basic message is "we should be caring toward people." Among themselves they give this a name, that they themselves use half-ironically. But the name they select does have a smugness implicit in it: I'm correct; I'm a warrior; I'm enlightened. And that implicit smugness pisses off the right: "what, you callin' me "incorrect"? "asleep"? So the right aggressively re-purposes the term as a pejorative: "the so-called correct," the soi-disant 'woke' (though they don't use the word soi-disant), in attempt to cast that starting initiative--be caring toward people--as though it's burdensome, offensive, oppressive. Because the right's position is "we should be able to be as rude and obnoxious as we wanna be, and aint nobody gonna tell us different"

Schopenhauer has been cited. For me, the relevant theorist is Bakhtin, who understands words as sites of contestation. The right is better at this contestation and always does succeed in turning the initial self-deprecating label into a pejorative.

 

[Farm Boy]

Words without works are barely even targets.

 

[Lexicus]

Schopenhauer has been cited. For me, the relevant theorist is Bakhtin, who understands words as sites of contestation. The right is better at this contestation and always does succeed in turning the initial self-deprecating label into a pejorative.

This is quite interesting. I was under the impression that liberals did not really grok the concept of words as sites of contestation.
I think I shared this essay with you before but I'd be curious on some of your thoughts as I think the author is making basically the same point you are.

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html

 

[João III]

You're really focusing on "misinterpreting", when that's arguably not the point.

People basing opinions on misinterpretations is a pretty central point of this thread

You keep banging on about the Hayes Code, which had a number of problems in of itself. The fact that the Hayes Code had problems doesn't mean we should never engage our brains for a second before depicting something as harmful as racism in a piece of media.

The problem with the Hays Code goes beyond its content, the problem is about policing morals in art in general

As for "we shouldn't punish artists for taking risks", it's not about punishment.

Boycotts are punishment

It's about cause and effect. If you make a choice to include a casual depiction of racism (for cheap laughs, as mentioned in the article)

Once again deferring to the article. You sound like a conservative criticizing Das Kapital based on what a talk radio host told him

I suggest you reflect on that.

Yes, surely upon sufficient reflection I will arrive at the Truth™. Until then, utilizing boycotts to shut down the speech you don't like isn't exactly championing free speech.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Did you typo something in this line? It reads as "go and see the film, if you arrive at the same conclusion and don't like it, go and research it some more because you're wrong"

I'm saying explore and see if there are other interpretations; there could be an interpretation that make more sense than a knee-jerk reaction to something you've seen once. My own interpretations of films have evolved on repeat viewings

Racism is inherently a bad thing. When depicting it, you should engage it with respect and care because the damage it can do. It's not like "violence in video games", which is a red herring.

Not really. "The bad thing depicted in art will cause the bad thing in the real world" is a tired talking point and insulting to audiences

If depictions of racism had no influence on hate crimes or the like, Brexit (which featured a lot of racist and similarly-stereotyped depictions of migrants and the like) in the UK wouldn't have coincided with a fivefold increase in reported crimes.

Speaking of red herrings, news =/= cinema

Again, in your opinion. I personally just don't think you understand the criticism

I don't think you understand the difference between criticism and boycotts

you've already made up your mind.

And you haven't?

And why is that bad? Why should I care? You are treating this as if it is self-evident, but it isn't.

Probably because I already explained to you how the studio compromised Welles's vision

Art neither gets a special license to harm nor a special dispensation from its consequences.

I'll leave you with a quote from Stanley Kubrick, after people found A Clockwork Orange (1971) offensive. @Gorbles I suggest you reflect on this as well

To try and fasten any responsibility on art as the cause of life seems to me to put the case the wrong way around. Art consists of reshaping life, but it does not create life, nor cause life. Furthermore, to attribute powerful suggestive qualities to a film is at odds with the scientifically accepted view that, even after deep hypnosis in a posthypnotic state, people cannot be made to do things which are at odds with their natures.

 

[Lexicus]

Probably because I already explained to you how the studio compromised Welles's vision

Yeah, and you never gave any explanation as to why that was bad, either. Why does it matter whether the studio compromised Welles' vision? The studio obviously had a vision, too - why is Welles' vision to be preferred?

 

[Akka]

I have a fever and English is also a second language to me and even in Danish I'm verbose (more in the overcomplicated way than smooth way, and not becoming more accurate). I totally get I'm hard to understand.

Well, we can go back to the "explain it to me like I'm five years old"
Seriously, this can often be a good option, at least to start/sum up. It obviously lose the finer points, but at least it gets the general point across, refinements can come later.

Now you can disagree with the premises and that's fine. But understand the point is not to give an eternal out/win button. The point is that the current environment is entangled in some really awful terminology. Someone else noted to me that I'm not gonna change that. This is sadly true. So my appeal from then on is practicality, and actually to clear things up if the environment is friendly enough.

These parts I think I've outlined that I understood. But it still leave my second question hanging : what am I supposed to do with it ? As in, what is the subject to discuss ? Because it looks like to me that it's just a personal constatation, but there isn't really a question or a point to debate going with it.

I mean, I can definitely find a lot to say on the general subject of "woke" (this thread is 13 pages long by now, so some people did jump in it), but I'm still unable to find the original direction of the discussion intended.
Just in case, I promise I'm not missing the question deliberately. I'm just honestly not seeing it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

but wokeism censors bad people

not consistently. sometimes "bad people" (per most coherent definitions) are trying to censor people who are not bad.

No longer being provided a platform by private enterprises and individuals because you're a bell-end isn't censorship.

by those standards, i guess someone can decide you're a bell end. off you go then!

how tos interacts with enforcement consistency needs a major overhaul, even for private platforms. in essence, they are lying to users/content creators and sometimes even acting in a way that would constitute unjust enrichment in non-online scenarios, with vague tos they don't even need to defend when acting on because tos says so.

tos could concretely define what is/isn't allowed, but they do not. they do not, because it gives leeway to act unethically. when that includes lying in what is at least in principle a two-way agreement, those lies should be held to account.

It also leads to an atmosphere where people can’t speak freely, challenge orthodoxy and I really think the left should keep to its legacy of defending free speech.

And if it’s not as bad as government censorship, so what? Are people saying it is?

we have also observed the government using private platforms as a proxy, giving "recommendations" for what is worthy of removal. as a society, we held free speech as a principle for a reason. as it erodes, the line between government vs private censorship has already blurred a bit.

but the thing to which it refers is readily recognised even by those who reject the label.

this is a nice, succinct way to summarize my point that while vague, it's not as vague as advertised.

Chicken soup and rest. Sleep. The thread will still be here.

while true, i find that unless i'm so seriously ill that i can't sit upright...pretty much anything that can take my mind off of the fact that i'm sick, even for a bit, is welcome. it's also hard to concentrate on certain games like that, maybe less punishing to not be 100% on the forum.

hope you feel better angst!

 

[Evie]

The idea that any communication - which includes art - cannot influence people is a ludicrous fantasy. Influencing others (politically, emotionally, ethically, philosophically, or in some other manner) is one of the, if not the, core purpose of communication; art that cannot influence would be very poor art. If Kubrick believed that (I think his quote is much more narrow; he's speaking of turning someone against their nature, which is far beyond what's necessary to cause harm), he would have been entirely in the wrong for all his talent.

At the end of the day, I do not surrender my ability to question and judge to the ghosts of dead men.

edited to correct the name of the quotee. Sentiment remain exactly the same.

 

[Kyriakos]

Re Welles, I am not sure if his original vision is that great at all times. I barely managed to watch 5 minutes of his mangling (and rewriting) of Kafka's The Trial. It has little to do even with the basic story, let alone interpretation being way off imo
Rosebud

 

[Lexicus]

The idea that any communication - which includes art - cannot influence people is a ludicrous fantasy. Influencing others (politically, emotionally, ethically, philosophically, or in some other manner) is one of the, if not the, core purpose of communication; art that cannot influence would be very poor art. If Welles believed that (I think his quote is much more narrow; he's speaking of turning someone against their nature, which is far beyond what's necessary to cause harm), he would have been entirely in the wrong for all his talent.

At the end of the day, I do not surrender my ability to question and judge to the ghosts of dead men.

FYI, the quote wasn't from Welles but from Stanley Kubrick, who was famously well-adjusted and not an abusive prick at all.

What I find interesting is that we've arrived at yet another fundamental contradiction in the anti-woke side of the conversation. It doesn't usually take that long for the right to claim that censoring speech (or art, a subset of speech) is dumb because art (or speech more broadly) has no impact on anyone anyway (cf. "you chose to be offended by what that person said").

What is funny about this is that the claim that speech/art has no actual impact on anyone directly contradicts the basis on which it is insisted that speech/art cannot be censored. If it is has no impact or effect, then censorship does not actually cause any damage, because the whole premise of guaranteeing free speech is that speech is impactful. Speech has meaning and it has tangible effects on both the cultural and political worlds. If that is not true then I submit there is no reason to guarantee the right to speech in the first place.

 

[João III]

Yeah, and you never gave any explanation as to why that was bad, either. Why does it matter whether the studio compromised Welles' vision? The studio obviously had a vision, too - why is Welles' vision to be preferred?

I said I hope an artist's vision is respected, as in the case of Civilization 6. RKO didn't respect Welles's vision to the point they went behind his back to change the film. It's like a restaurant owner interferring with the chef in the kitchen. Just let the chef cook

The idea that any communication - which includes art - cannot influence people is a ludicrous fantasy. Influencing others (politically, emotionally, ethically, philosophically, or in some other manner) is one of the, if not the, core purpose of communication; art that cannot influence would be very poor art. If Welles believed that (I think his quote is much more narrow; he's speaking of turning someone against their nature, which is far beyond what's necessary to cause harm), he would have been entirely in the wrong for all his talent.

At the end of the day, I do not surrender my ability to question and judge to the ghosts of dead men.

"I know film better than Stanley Kubrick" is not a take I was expecting

Re Welles, I am not sure if his original vision is that great at all times. I barely managed to watch 5 minutes of his mangling (and rewriting) of Kafka's The Trial. It has little to do even with the basic story, let alone interpretation being way off imo
Rosebud

On the other hand though, the reconstructed version of Touch of Evil (1958) has been hailed as a masterpiece. Not to mention Chimes at Midnight (1965), which has seen a lot of critical reappraisal as well. Not every swing can be a home run and that's okay, sometimes what's important is simply the attempt