Posted on 11/25/2011 3:06:32 AM PST by goldstategop
You may say these are fundamental truths, but I believe that many would agree that they don't always play a role in filmmaking. Sometimes we see films that aren't any better than tabloids. I am sure you are well aware of this. I am, because this issue is often raised when I meet with non-profit organisations. They always talk about cultural primitivism and occasionally immoral models of behaviour. We shouldn't forget that the film industry is a high-tech industry that develops hand in hand with scientific progress and acquires new means of expression and, therefore, new powers over the minds and souls of audiences. With this in mind, it is very important to make sure that the art of cinema has a worthy and substantive mission. This is no less important than the ability to shoot beautiful and breathtaking scenes or great acting.
Let me make clear right from the start that the issue is not about imposing anything on you or making you follow some pre-set ideological forms. I am talking about self-control and responsibility. Just think of the well-known Hays Code that was adopted in the United States by the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America in 1930. The signatories undertook not to make films that would undermine moral standards of the society, empathise with criminals, neglect religious or family values, or promote violence or drug and alcohol use. As you may know, this code was the unofficial national standard in the United States for as long as 37 years, and its formal repeal hasn't changed the way filmmakers or filmgoers appreciate the quality of motion pictures.
Clearly, many of you sitting here, including me, can say that they don't see any of this code's precepts [in American films]. I wouldn't go quite as far as that. The fact that is was in effect for 37 years has created certain mindset and certain ethical reference points, because more than one generation grew up with this code and were guided by its values.
I believe it's a good idea to use this positive experience and create a similar code of internal ethical standards for the Russian film industry. Please understand that the issue is not about some strict requirements to regulate creative license, but rather about moral choices to be made based on goodwill and a sense of responsibility of filmmakers.
Yep, we go back to when married couples only had matching twin beds in their bedroom.
Uh...I don’t think so!
The problem isn’t a lack of a code, but the lack of imajination of TV or movie producers. So, they try to grab the viewers attention with - violence/conflict, sex/sensuality, stupidity/comedy. Some are successful but most fall short of the mark.
Anyway, that is my opinion. I stopped watching TV quite a while ago, and haven’t been to see a movie in years.
It’s enough to make you want to write in the b*stard’s name on next year’s ballot. Putin sounds more American in this article right now than most of the Hollyweird crowd, and certainly more moral than the amoral bastard stinkin’ up the White House.
I know, I know, he’s a former KGB chameleon who can adapt to ANY environment.
But I concede that he IS one tough sonuvabitch.
No one is suggesting anything so extreme. But gratuitous sex and violence is more than creative license. I would prefer that we strike a sensible balance so people’s values are affirmed. Again, its not a question of censorship. No one is saying Hollywood shouldn’t be able to make good movies. What I am saying is movies that are trash don’t make us feel good when we leave the theater. With great power comes great responsibility. This is true of course of politicians but it is also no less true for our cultural elites, writers, directors and filmmakers.
I believe its just a common sense position. My views are exactly the same. I don’t push for censorship or government control. No public official should advocate it. But I believe a government official in any country has the duty to convey people’s concerns to interested parties. The latter are free to give it the appropriate weight. I believe a free society must of necessity be a moral and ethical one and speaking for myself, I see these positions as mutually compatible.
As my screen name implies, I focus on the main issue i.nvolving Israel, i.e., that it is surrounded by 300 million Arabs, most of whom thirst for their blood. I have direct experience of this as well
ras much other information obtained by unbiased sources. However, today, I feel an exception is in order, especially since Russia is selling armaments to these Arabs to accomplish just that.
Via this article, Vladimir Putin is trying to establish his bono fides in one respect to morality. While only God can judge him, I strongly caution against being taken in by such an attempt to take the high moral ground. I fear that he has so much blood on his hands that articles like this condemn him only further because he is actively complicit in the plans to destroy Israel
So is Europe. Personally, I don’t much stock in the moral bonafides of Russia as a state or of the EU.
Morality, of course can only be a matter of individual character. The moral health of a civilization is reflected in how it treats its women, children and minorities.
And I’m not certainly implying Russia has some monopoly on morality. America is far better in how it shows gratitude before God than most of the world.
True, we could use self-improvement but no one will ever match our decency and humanity. This is something for Americans to take pride in.
Sorry, posted before finishing. The point is, only a truly repentant Putin - a nonexistent being - should make such statements. That he makes them in his current state causes me to fear his soul is irrevocably lost. He cannot believe them; his actions belie them and none of us should be taken in. I feel that he only wanted to score some points with gullible ones who vainly hope for goodness in powerful men who daily prove they are not sincere.
Powerful people can be hypocrites but the fact they give lip service to certain ideals means they attach importance to them. Hypocrisy is not possible when you don’t see such things as important to bring to others’ attention. In the end, Putin like every one else in this world, will be judged by his deeds - not by his words.
The problem some folks don’t seem to grasp is that there is no single standard for ‘good’ or ‘wholesome’ or ‘quality’ art of any sort. One person’s positive message is another’s pap.
Artistic expression should be free of government constraints, period, full stop.
What moviemakers do with the film companies’ money is no more up for public verdict than any company’s production other than whether the public spends money on it or not.
When the movie companies are using my tax money, then I have a say in what they make. As long as it’s their money they’re wasting on this garbage, I may not like it, but it doesn’t bother me that it’s getting made. Some of the movies many FReepers commonly list as favorites I find utterly worthless garbage, and my tastes certainly aren’t mainstream.
As with the case with all such products in a capitalistic system, let the market decide. No one’s making me (or you) watch.
The film industry needs to be self-policing. The externalities of cultural pollution affect us all. No one can escape its effects. Asking filmmakers to be responsible is not the same as saying they should censor themselves. Of course if the film industry asks the government for taxpayer money as they often do, then yes, the government should have the right to decide certain standards will be followed.
I don’t know why they don’t just have split screens all the way through for all movies- one side showing depraved sex and the other graphic violence.
That would really be a hit with most movie goers today.
IMHO, Putin could really use a President like Reagan - he never had that.
Remember ?
Someone to keep him honest, keep it real, friendly but firm, etc., etc., etc.
The key (that I guess world leaders right now don’t get) is that there are certain principles that America is founded on. But they are more than American principles, they’re universal principles. American implemented these universal principles. Thus we made our American principles. Everyone thinks of our American principles. That’s great for a nation. But freedom is freedom. I don’t think one can have a copyright on that.
Now with American as older brother, friend, competitor, leader, example, however you want to think of it, Russia can work towards being the Russia that it can be. Just breaking out of the old shell, just latch onto those universal principles - and put their own style, logo, brand name on it, be Russian. And for once and for all just get over it as far as American goes. We certainly can continue to compete, but as neighbors. Both fully sovereign. They have to allow themselves to say they’re going to implement free markets with the rule of law without it looking like they’re doing what the Americas want or copying them. They can trace back to some common roots, maybe that’s a way to get started.
It’s like the Russians sort of sense where they want to go, where they should go. I mean really, they love our culture from back in the day. The whole American story.
Think about it. Everything from spaghetti westerns to competitive pride and tradition to computer geeks. Everybody loves apple pie and baseball when they get a taste of it.
They’re sort of almost there; so close and yet so far.
And now, here sits America with a wannabeecommie in the WH, the antithesis of Reagan. Everybody - this is not us right now.
IMHO.
When someone not friendly to us admires the way we were, we should take it as a compliment.
Come to think of it, the good old days weren’t so bad and American culture had a wholesome appeal the world over.
Nothing a little introspection wouldn’t address.
He's not much of a film historian. There was an earlier version of The Maltese Falcon made in 1931, pre-Hays Code. When I saw it, I didn't believe what they got away it. When Ruth Wonderly visits his apartment one evening, the camera pans to a record on the turntable. Next scene, the tone arm is at the center of the record, the music has stopped and the record continues to spin silently. Next scene, it is morning and his secretary/girlfriend calls at his apartment, Ruth Wonderly coming out of his bedroom a few minutes into the scene.
The earlier version was much more noire and grittier than the later version.
The film industry has been self-policing for decades. That’s what the rating system is, a self-policing film industry creation.
That ‘no one can escape its effects’ doesn’t mean much in practical terms because that’s such a nebulous statement. All that’s required is that this private company doesn’t force me to buy/watch its wares. It doesn’t.
I'll side with those who say simply turn off the garbage and don't go to the movies that use sex, violence and crass language gratuitously.
Putin—Mean, tough, no nonsense, maybe even proto-tyrant but he is also a Russian Patriot—he is trying to counter the negatives in his land. The things that are breaking his nation apart. In this his moves to re-organize the film industry is a positive step just as was his support of the Russian Orthodox Church and the new path of Russia. In this maybe we need to put together something for Hollywood—Now an unspoke code exists. No Blacks can be seen as bad guys—all bad people are white. etc.. political correctness has its own harsh standards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.