Real world issues explored in fictional media [Archive]

View Full Version : Real world issues explored in fictional media

Yora

2011-07-31, 05:12 PM

I don't know how to make a better title for this thread, if anyone has a better idea I'd like to change it.

This continues from a thought I had in another thread.
There are a lot of people who watch movies or read novels about the holocaust, genocide, sexual abuse, oppression, serial killers, and other awful topics. But I really, really don't like doing that, it makes me really uncomfortable.
If I want to know more about such issues, I look up history and scientific books, and maybe non-fiction documentaries.

But when I watch movies or read novels, I do so for entertainment. I've got no problem with it and even enjoy it a lot when a story goes a lot deeper than stuff blowing up or monsters being killed and when darker themes are explored in abstract and artistic ways, that's also good for me. But I don't want to learn about real world horror in my entertainment.

That people make such things and there are people who watch and read it has always puzzled me. For me, I need to have my education and my entertainment clearly seperated. But why do people watch movies that have the premise "the characters will all go through 120 minutes of torture and humiliation and then be murdered in the end"? Can you even say that they "like" watching such movies or that it can be considred "entertainment"?
I often watch DVD with some of my friends and then we watch Star Wars, Monthy Python, Indiana Jones, James Bond, or Zombieland, but one frequently arrives with stuff that is way outside my comfort zone. And it's not just him. Why do people think such movies are good material to have a fun night with friends?

WampaX

2011-07-31, 06:18 PM

DomaDoma

2011-07-31, 06:27 PM

Me too, but I'd rather read about historical horrors than about bulimic self-harming teenagers. Maybe because I know the historical horrors were overcome, but that doesn't explain why I'd also rather read about a contemporary guy eating a bullet than the aforementioned bulimic self-harming teenager. Media hype aversion, maybe?

Weezer

2011-07-31, 06:32 PM

For me a good example of this kind of movie is Schindler's List, it's an incredibly depressing movie about horrific real life events, but I love it. It's one of my favorite movies of all time. I've noticed that while dark and deep themes can be explored well using purely fictional events when they are based off of real events the impact is much more profound. Schindler's list always brings me to tears at some point of it but other movies that are as "dark" and just as well made just don't effect me as much.

DiscipleofBob

2011-07-31, 06:50 PM

That people make such things and there are people who watch and read it has always puzzled me. For me, I need to have my education and my entertainment clearly seperated. But why do people watch movies that have the premise "the characters will all go through 120 minutes of torture and humiliation and then be murdered in the end"? Can you even say that they "like" watching such movies or that it can be considred "entertainment"?

Because my parents made me go see the Passion in theaters... :smallmad:

In all seriousness, my wife's the same way. We're going through some series on Netflix: Buffy, Angel, Bones, Doctor Who, but for about half the episodes she leaves and goes to the other room because she judges the episode "too dark." Now, in some cases she's right, but to me it's part of the narrative. It's dark now, but either something really awesome or something really funny is about to happen so it's worth sitting through it. In order for the highs of something to be effective and worth it, there needs to be lows.

On the other hand, my wife also watches historical documentaries about the holocaust way too dark for my taste, so now if we're watching something and it gets too dark, I just tell her to pretend it's nonfiction.

Mx.Silver

2011-07-31, 07:44 PM

I don't know how to make a better title for this thread, if anyone has a better idea I'd like to change it.
Yeah, it's not really a good title since of this list:

There are a lot of people who watch movies or read novels about the holocaust, genocide, sexual abuse, oppression, serial killers, and other awful topics. But I really, really don't like doing that, it makes me really uncomfortable.
Only the holocaust is a specific real world event. None of the others are tied to real world matters any more so than, say, finding love, preventing a murder etc.

What you seem to have a problem with are upsetting topics in fiction. Unless you're problem is solely with such events that have actually occurred, in which case you would seem to have a something of a double standard going. As it is, the title can just as easily be read as talking about the historical drama as a genre or 'based on a true story' works.

Now, onto the actual discussion.

If I want to know more about such issues, I look up history and scientific books, and maybe non-fiction documentaries.
Which will give you information about what happened, but it won't necessarily be so great at conveying the emotional aspect of it. When just reading a historical account there is a tendancy to view such events in a detatched, abstract way that numbs you to the true nature of it. There is also the tendancy to view historical events, due to their remoteness in time (and often place) as being somehow 'less real', that the perpetraters weren't reall people like you and I were and that the victims are just statistics. By putting those events in a fictitious setting, by following characters who we care about as they go through these events, this blanketting effect can be countered and overcome.

But why do people watch movies that have the premise "the characters will all go through 120 minutes of torture and humiliation and then be murdered in the end"? Can you even say that they "like" watching such movies or that it can be considred "entertainment"?
Of course it can be considered entertainment! Tragedy has been a staple part of fiction since the very beginning and for good reason: sadness is a fundamental part of human emotiion. It is just as valid an emotional state as love or happiness and is equally important in what it means to be human. Art reflects this.
Admittedly, in modern western culture we tend to be repressed about this, - at least in the mainstream. This is not, however, reason to declare that entertainment can't deal with upsetting, as it still provides emotional interest and outlet. In some way, sad media can have the power to touch someone more deeply than happy media.

I often watch DVD with some of my friends and then we watch Star Wars, Monthy Python, Indiana Jones, James Bond, or Zombieland, but one frequently arrives with stuff that is way outside my comfort zone. And it's not just him. Why do people think such movies are good material to have a fun night with friends?
Shared emotional experience. Shared emotional experiences are pretty much the foundation of any relationship as they establish a connection. This is true regardless of whether it's laughing at a comedy or crying at a tragedy. Furthermore, if someone has been strongly effected by a work of fiction (which the type of fiction in question is notably good at doing) they're probably going to want to share it with people.

DomaDoma

2011-08-01, 12:26 AM

Nah, a proper tragedy has to involve some kind of sense that the objects of the tragedy might do something worthwhile. Even 1984 had that.

(Which is why Macbeth isn't a tragedy, dagnabbit. From the moment he killed Duncan, Macbeth never gave the impression that he'd do anything redeeming. Even in the classical sense of the word tragedy, he didn't have a tragic flaw; he was a great big bundle of flaws with courage thrown in for taste, and he seriously needed to go down.)

Dienekes

2011-08-01, 12:37 AM

(Which is why Macbeth isn't a tragedy, dagnabbit. From the moment he killed Duncan, Macbeth never gave the impression that he'd do anything redeeming. Even in the classical sense of the word tragedy, he didn't have a tragic flaw; he was a great big bundle of flaws with courage thrown in for taste, and he seriously needed to go down.)

And watching him go down is so deeply satisfying, along with his wife. Part of why it's one of my favorite pf Shaky's plays.

As to the question, because I enjoy it. I find it interesting. No real reason beyond that. Same as I find romance absolutely boring to watch and "cute funny" not particularly funny at all. Just the way I find entertainment.

I love ASOIAF because of the tragedy, I greatly enjoyed Schindler's List, or Requiem for a Dream, and my favorite movie of all time is Godfather II. I found the stories intriguing, the acting outstanding, and the themes represented so much more enthralling.

Not that I don't like lighter entertainment as well of the movies you listed I enjoy each of them greatly, except for about half of those Star Wars movies.

KillianHawkeye

2011-08-01, 01:14 AM

NikitaDarkstar

2011-08-01, 01:45 AM

Then you should definitely NEVER watch The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I didn't know what that movie was about when I watched it with some friends, and let me tell you that it contains some pretty intense scenes and descriptions of rape and murder. Friggin foreign films! :smallannoyed:

Then don't go anywhere near the book, seriously. Actually avoid about 90% of swedish literature, it's either dark and depressing, written by insane people (no seriously, one of our most famous and iconic authors was insane.), horrible or all of the above.

Anyway it's easy really. Some people like happy, easy going themes, some like dark and gritty. Just as you're asking why your friend insists on bringing movies way out of your comfort zone he might be wondering why you insist on watching all these shallow, predictable movies all the time, it's just a question of preferences. My only issue here is that if there's multiple people who don't like his type of movies and has said so he really should stop bringing them.

But yes, some people would take Schindlers List, All Quiet on the Western Front, Empire of the Sun, Apocalypto or The Killing Fields any day over Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Monthy Python, James Bond or Zombieland, why? Simply because we enjoy it, a lot.

(PS: I highly recommend Empire of the Sun to anyone who hasn't seen it, not dark, dark, but a quite emotional movie.)

DomaDoma

2011-08-01, 01:49 AM

Oddly, Larsson is pretty much the only person I've read who is all about drugs 'n' rape 'n' dysfunction and everything else the traumatized kids are doing these days, but nevertheless seizes my interest and will not freaking let go. Part of it is the film-noir feel to the first installment, but that's gone by the second and third books. Me, I think it's because the characters and mysteries are just that compelling.

Avilan the Grey

2011-08-01, 02:01 AM

Heh. The Swedish Crime genre... About 10 years after I got totally fed up with it it's America's turn.

Anyway back to topic:

I feel the same way most of the time. However I do like a certain flavor of historical dramas; I really liked "The Queen" and I LOVE "The King's Speech". I also absolute love both "Band of Brothers" and "The Pacific".

But yes, in general I have a problem with dark, depressing and horrible things. I have a theory about it. I am both a News Junky AND quite sensitive. That means that I don't agree with Mr Silver; It's not a double standard; I am sensitive enough that I feel awful watching these things on the news (all the time), so I don't find any entertainment in watching it for fun.
Why watch a movie about the holocaust, when I can watch a 6-part series of 1-hour long episodes with interviews with survivors?

Btw I have a similar issue with with Horror movies: Except for a period in my teens I never watch them because they split down in two subgroups, really:

A) "Horror" movies that are so corny or badly made they are more like dark comedies (Most slasher / splatter movies and "monster" movies from the 80ies and 90ies. And "Sy-fy" originals from today.)

B) Truly disturbing and disgusting.

Neither of them SCARE me; one makes me point and laugh, the other makes me want to throw up.

Mx.Silver

2011-08-01, 04:14 AM

Nah, a proper tragedy has to involve some kind of sense that the objects of the tragedy might do something worthwhile. Even 1984 had that.
And no true scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. :smallsigh:
Seriously, this criticism by arbitrary genre-exclusion is irritating enough in music without spilling it over into fiction. You're better than this.

(Which is why Macbeth isn't a tragedy, dagnabbit.
If your definition of tragedy is excluding Macbeth, maybe you need a more flexible definition.

Then don't go anywhere near the book, seriously. Actually avoid about 90% of swedish literature, it's either dark and depressing, written by insane people (no seriously, one of our most famous and iconic authors was insane.), horrible or all of the above.
I'd advise avoiding GWTDT because of the blatant wish-fulfillment author insert and the horrendous pacing but yeah, if you can't stand sexual violence as subject matter then you can avoid it for that reason too.

Radar

2011-08-01, 05:31 AM

(...)
Why watch a movie about the holocaust, when I can watch a 6-part series of 1-hour long episodes with interviews with survivors?
(...)
A movie might not be the best medium for conveying emotional aspects of holocaust or other equaly grave tragedies and documental series have a tendency for pathos (or at least those, I've encountered). Personaly, I find books written by survivors much better - a first-hand testimony is invaluable, if you want to learn anything. It also helps, that such books are rather laconic, when describing horrible events, which honestly can have more emotional impact, then graphic details.
I wouldn't say, I read those books for entertainment though.

There are also movies and books, I wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole due to their significantly disturbing and revolting content - fictional or factual.

Also: avoiding certain topics in factual books or movies and being able to cope with them in fully fictional works is not a double standard - it's a simple matter of sensitivity.

Yora

2011-08-01, 06:01 AM

Which will give you information about what happened, but it won't necessarily be so great at conveying the emotional aspect of it. When just reading a historical account there is a tendancy to view such events in a detatched, abstract way that numbs you to the true nature of it. There is also the tendancy to view historical events, due to their remoteness in time (and often place) as being somehow 'less real', that the perpetraters weren't reall people like you and I were and that the victims are just statistics. By putting those events in a fictitious setting, by following characters who we care about as they go through these events, this blanketting effect can be countered and overcome.
And that's what I actually have a problem with. If you want to portray the emotional aspects of a tragedy, the filmmakers claim that they know the emotions of the victims and that they can use narrative, lighting, background music, and so on to faithfully recreate them. Which in my view is pretentious and degrading to the victims.

Regarding the beginning of the comment, there are movies and novels about murder, rape, torture, genocide, drug addictions, diseases, and so on. Those are real world issues that cause suffering for real people every day. Even if you make a movie with original characters, by making a movie about heroin addicts, you claim to show how heroin addiction is for the people who are suffering from it. If people create a work of fiction based on their own experiences, I have no problem with that and if people are interested in it, they are free to do so.
But when outsiders make movies that deal with such issues in a very emotional way, I think it's unethical. It always feels a lot like exploitation to me. It comercialises the suffering of actual people.

In a usual crime show, things are usually portrayed from the polices point of view, it does not claim to know what the victims of the crimes are feeling. It's when the audience is supposed to experience things from the perspective of the victims, that I start having a problem with the movie.

If you present things in a matter of fact way, it does not address the emotions of the victims, which of course is a one-sided view on the issue. But since it's impossible for an outsider to do so, I think it's better to simply remain silent on that aspect than to come up with something you guess the victims might feel, which I think is highly disrespectful.

Killer Angel

2011-08-01, 06:12 AM

It's when the audience is supposed to experience things from the perspective of the victims, that I start having a problem with the movie.

I believe it's called "Empathy".
(Yes, I know you know what empathy is... :smalltongue:)

The point is: many peoples like this kind of fiction, exactly for this feeling. You "touch" the suffering, and this usually teaches something you don't find so easily in books.

Mixt

2011-08-01, 06:28 AM

Real world issues?

Yeah, a lot of the stuff i find deals with bullying, it shows just how badly human society will threat you if you are different, don't conform to the norm? Then you will suffer.

I continued to walk down the street in silent isolation. That is, until I was greeted by about three guys that caught up to me.

"Hey, there, buddy...what are you doing here?" One said in an obvious attempt to intimidate me.

"I'm...just walking home..." I said quietly, trying to be confident. And failing miserably.

"Walking home, huh. Well, you see here...there's a rule here in Highridge. All these streets that you see here...they're only for normal people and dogs. No freaks allowed." Another one said to me, as I glared at him.

"It's obvious to us that you're neither a normal person, or a dog...and as law abiding citizens, we're obligated to issue the punishment for this horrible crime." The last one said.

"Now wait just a minute here...lets give the little guy a break. I'll tell you what, since your new here, we won't issue the punishment...because in actuality, you might pass as a pretty ugly dog if you get on your hands and knees, maybe give us a bark here and there, too" The biggest one said, grinning.

"Go to hell" I said spitefully.

"I don't think you understand!" The big thug said, while punching me in the gut, the son of a bitch. I dropped down to my knees and clutched my stomach. "Looks like the puppy's being awfully naughty today...tie him up, boys." He said, and they proceeded to do so, tying my arms behind my back. One of them kicked me in the stomach. Somehow, I was able to get up off the ground, even with them kicking me. I shoved them out of the way, and started to run down the street towards my house. I continued to run, with them following me. But I was stopped, well, tripped along the way by some bystanders on the street.

"Yo, man, what's with this freak!?" One of them said. No one seemed to respond to him, though, they just continued to beat on me.

Humanity at it's best wouldn't you say?
Because that sort of thing is what humans do best :smallyuk:

Bit of a sore point for me since i had something very close to that happen to me in school :smallfurious:

Yora

2011-08-01, 06:31 AM

Now you call me self-absorbed and selfish. :smallbiggrin:

No, but seriously: I think by trying to transport the suffering of people through fiction, the creator defines how the audience is supposed to feel about it. The audience does not get an idea of what the victims are feeling, but about what the creator thinks the victims are feeling. We simply agree with the interpretation of another outsider who doesn't know any better than we do.
I know I'm getting really subjective here, but to me the creator is claiming the Deutungshoheit (oh the great philosophical and sociological terms of the german language; "right to interpret" probably comes closest) and taking it away from the victims. Which I feel as disrespectful. If sufering is to be portrayed in words or images, it either has to come directly from the people affected, or if it goes through an intermediary, the intermediary should only relay what he was told, but not try to come up with his own interpretation.
A historian or psychologican tries to show the observed facts, while a writer or filmmaker puts his own interpretations into his work, taking away the audiences ability to come to their own conclusions.

Avilan the Grey

2011-08-01, 06:53 AM

I believe it's called "Empathy".
(Yes, I know you know what empathy is... :smalltongue:)

Of course one could also argue that people who need that perspective is leth empathic than us that don't. :smallbiggrin: So there! :smalltongue:

KillianHawkeye

2011-08-01, 07:11 AM

Btw I have a similar issue with with Horror movies: Except for a period in my teens I never watch them because they split down in two subgroups, really:

A) "Horror" movies that are so corny or badly made they are more like dark comedies (Most slasher / splatter movies and "monster" movies from the 80ies and 90ies. And "Sy-fy" originals from today.)

B) Truly disturbing and disgusting.

Neither of them SCARE me; one makes me point and laugh, the other makes me want to throw up.

Horror movies were way better back in the 80s. Take the original Friday the 13th compared to the remake. The original film was scary and suspenseful, but the remake was just disgusting and unenjoyable. For some reason, they think that it's okay to replace sex and violence with nudity and gore and the film will be just as good, but really it's just trashy. The original was way scarier.

Killer Angel

2011-08-01, 07:15 AM

A historian or psychologican tries to show the observed facts, while a writer or filmmaker puts his own interpretations into his work, taking away the audiences ability to come to their own conclusions.

That could be true, but ('specially for the historical ones) many movies were filmed with the support, during the film-making phase, of protagonists of the real event.

Edit: but anyway, it's granted that, when you see any film, it's the director that offers a visual image, while in books the reader is more free to imagine. This is related to the kind of media, rather than the kind of story told.

DomaDoma

2011-08-01, 05:23 PM

Yora, that is by far the most repugnant form of the privilege argument I have ever heard. I have never heard the underlying notion that human beings are hopelessly chained to their own personal experience and incapable of sympathy, empathy or imagination stated in balder terms. Just... ugh.

Weezer

2011-08-01, 05:36 PM

I think it's possible for someone (director, writer whatever) to succesfuly and reasonably accurately capture the feeling of being in a situation that he has never been in. By drawing on first hand accounts and using good research someone can legitimately convey the horror of concentration camps or the sickness of serial killers. I don't see why you think someone trying this inherently takes anything away from the victims.

Starwulf

2011-08-01, 06:46 PM

{Scrubbed}

Weezer

2011-08-01, 08:05 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

...Really? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard. That's equivalent to saying playing DnD makes you want to deal with demons and practice magic. :smallannoyed:

Das Platyvark

2011-08-01, 09:19 PM

I like grimdarkness in fiction. A lot. But I still draw the line at several points:
1. When the producers mistake straight-out violence for grimdark and overdo it, and act like it's still entertainment (Looking at you, Kick-Ass)
2.When it draws too close to life. This is not a problem when the purpose of the media is to explore some real event, but occasionally something will touch a chord, and I don't feel like sitting through it as entertainment.

Starwulf

2011-08-01, 09:56 PM

{Scrubbed}

Killer Angel

2011-08-02, 06:03 AM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

:smallannoyed:
I was talking 'bout films ala "The Accused (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accused_(1988_film))".
Which is around rape and unjustice, but don't indulge in showing nothing and certainly it's not a morbid film.
And, by the way, it's also a valid answer to the theory of Yora ("If you want to portray the emotional aspects of a tragedy, the filmmakers claim that they know the emotions of the victims and that they can use narrative, lighting, background music, and so on to faithfully recreate them. Which in my view is pretentious and degrading to the victims.")

KillianHawkeye

2011-08-02, 07:15 AM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Well I don't like to watch porn involving defecation or sex with animals, but I don't automatically assume that the people who DO like that stuff have some kind of mental problem. :smallannoyed:

Really, people just like what they like. It's not like they're in control of that. People don't get to choose that, it's just who they are. Who's to say what is right and what is wrong? I can pick anything and make the same argument.

Starwulf

2011-08-02, 02:21 PM

{Scrubbed}

VanBuren

2011-08-02, 03:00 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

If everyone knows the difference between right and wrong, then explain this last part:

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

If everyone knew or agreed on the difference between right and wrong, ethical arguments wouldn't exist. In short, you're relying on presuppositions that I explicitly deny.

Nah, a proper tragedy has to involve some kind of sense that the objects of the tragedy might do something worthwhile. Even 1984 had that.

(Which is why Macbeth isn't a tragedy, dagnabbit. From the moment he killed Duncan, Macbeth never gave the impression that he'd do anything redeeming. Even in the classical sense of the word tragedy, he didn't have a tragic flaw; he was a great big bundle of flaws with courage thrown in for taste, and he seriously needed to go down.)

I have to stop you here. In the classic sense, there's no such thing as a tragic flaw Aristotle's concept of hamartia was a single action, not a character trait. That later came around to include a character flaw that causes the act of hamartia, but that's not the same thing.

What it was that made the act "wrong" is a bit harder to pin down, but it basically amounts to stepping outside your station and doing something contrary to the natural and intended order of things. Which is why Orestes found himself in trouble for killing his mother, even though Apollo commanded it.

Mx.Silver

2011-08-02, 03:36 PM

And that's what I actually have a problem with. If you want to portray the emotional aspects of a tragedy, the filmmakers claim that they know the emotions of the victims and that they can use narrative, lighting, background music, and so on to faithfully recreate them. Which in my view is pretentious and degrading to the victims.
It's only 'pretentious and degrading' if they're being portrayed unsympathetically (which they generally aren't) or having the victims display reactions that are significantly different from what they'd actually been.

Regarding the beginning of the comment, there are movies and novels about murder, rape, torture, genocide, drug addictions, diseases, and so on. Those are real world issues that cause suffering for real people every day.

Every emotional thing in fiction is a real world issue that effects people every day. Falling in love - something that's not not exactly uncommon in fiction - is something that happens pretty often in real life, and often in ways. By your logic, telling a love story is 'pretentious and degrading' to real world lovers because the filmmakers are claiming to know the characters emotions.
This is not the case though because, in contrast to your claim:

Even if you make a movie with original characters, by making a movie about heroin addicts, you claim to show how heroin addiction is for the people who are suffering from it.
The claim is that you're showing how the characters are suffering from it. Shockingly enough, individual experiences with something tend to be different for different individuals and as unless the work in question deliberately goes out of it's way to claim that everyone in situation x experiences the same thing then it is extremely unfair to level this charge at it.

But when outsiders make movies that deal with such issues in a very emotional way, I think it's unethical.
You are aware writers do research, right? In fact when it comes to particularly serious issues a fair amount of research is almost mandatory. In bigger-budget films dealing with real world events, it's common practice to bring in people who actually experienced them as consultants and advisors precisely to compensate for 'outsider' status.

It always feels a lot like exploitation to me. It comercialises the suffering of actual people.
Again, since all human emotional events occur in the real world, by your logic any film with an emotional focuss is 'exploitation'.

In a usual crime show, things are usually portrayed from the polices point of view, it does not claim to know what the victims of the crimes are feeling. It's when the audience is supposed to experience things from the perspective of the victims, that I start having a problem with the movie.
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. The excellent Danish crime drama The Killing spends a lot of time on the family of the murder vicitim trying to cope with the loss of their daughter. The Wire, one of the best US crime dramas, spends just as much time on the criminals, victims and addicts as it does the police. Hell the only reason 'usual' crime shows, like CSI or Law and Order foccuss on the police is that they're highly episodic 'case of the week' shows and as such any victim characters can't really be kept-on as long running characters.

If you present things in a matter of fact way, it does not address the emotions of the victims, which of course is a one-sided view on the issue.
It's not even one-sided: it has no sides at all. Without providing any characters it becomes impossible for a reader to actually empathise with it. It's why someone will be deeply upset at the death of a friend, but view the news of hundreds dying on another continent with much less direct concern; it's why someone who has never donated to charity can put themselves in harm's way to aid someone suffering in front of them. More pertinently, it's why someone who looked at the holocaust back in their school's history class with little feeling can be brought to tears while watching Schindler's List.
A dry factual account provides information, but without any emotional context there's a real risk that a reader will assign it to being 'just a statistic'.

But since it's impossible for an outsider to do so, I think it's better to simply remain silent on that aspect than to come up with something you guess the victims might feel, which I think is highly disrespectful.
I'm going to have to echo Domadoma's sentiment's here. You are grossly overstating the difficulty it takes to understand a lot of things. In the case of experiences like genocide or torture, it's not actually that hard since typically most of the people involved in them were for the most part normal people. Indeed, if you present a detailed story following a character in that situation most of the audience will already be imagining what they'd feel in that situation subconsciously. No, it wouldn't be the exact same experience as those who actually went through, but none of them had the exact same experience either, so if you want to use that criteria then you might as well give up on the notion of anyone understanding anyone else at all.
In cases dealing with physicall disabilities, addiction and mental illness, it's trickier but even if you can't give someone a idea of what it feels like, it is possible to give an idea of the effects it can have. Limb loss, blindness and physical paralysis are comparitively easier to get an idea of, as all of those can be consciously imitated at home, but even some of the others aren't necessarily beyond the scope of understanding either (say through use of spoon theory). Mental illness can be something of a grey area, but how that's portrayed in fiction (and non-fiction) is a rather messy problem in and of itself (and indeed, it doesn't tend to show-up in fiction in the same sort of ways your other 'real world issues' do).

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
No, Starwulf, people are not in control of their likes and dislikes. They can generally choose whether they act on their urges, but you can't just 'turn off' those things on a whim. It is sometimes possible to deliberatle condition yourself towards or away from liking certain things but this is usually an arduous, long-term process and the even when it works, the ability to do this can't really be called 'being in control'.

KillianHawkeye

2011-08-02, 04:40 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

LOL, no.

I never said that people can't control what they DO, just that they can't control what they like.

And just to play devil's advocate: what exactly is wrong with animal sex videos? I sure don't like them, but that doesn't make them WRONG. So explain it to me. What is wrong about it exactly? I suppose you think that people who are into domination and bondage also "have something wrong with them?" Probably people who cheat on their taxes, too. Maybe running red lights is caused my some sort of mental defect? Like I said before, I can make the same argument with anything.

News Flash: Nobody's perfect. The truth is that there is "something wrong with" everyone. That doesn't mean that some people are better than other people, or that we elected YOU to be the judge of humanity. Why should I (or anyone) be judged by YOUR belief system, anyway? What makes your beliefs better than anyone else's?

{Scrubbed}

VanBuren

2011-08-02, 05:00 PM

LOL, no.

I never said that people can't control what they DO, just that they can't control what they like.

And just to play devil's advocate: what exactly is wrong with animal sex videos? I sure don't like them, but that doesn't make them WRONG. So explain it to me. What is wrong about it exactly? I suppose you think that people who are into domination and bondage also "have something wrong with them?" Probably people who cheat on their taxes, too. Maybe running red lights is caused my some sort of mental defect? Like I said before, I can make the same argument with anything.

Animals can't give informed consent. So, it's basically rape by any sort of definition. Unless "animal sex" refers to videos of two animals mating which I'm guessing is not what you're talking about.

KillianHawkeye

2011-08-02, 05:11 PM

Animals can't give informed consent. So, it's basically rape by any sort of definition. Unless "animal sex" refers to videos of two animals mating which I'm guessing is not what you're talking about.

Animals aren't sentient creatures, so the term "informed consent" is meaningless. One would assume that their consent is implicit with their actions. That still doesn't tell me why it is "WRONG." And for the record, I believe we are talking about morality, not legality.

Mx.Silver

2011-08-02, 05:48 PM

Animals aren't sentient creatures, so the term "informed consent" is meaningless.
That depends on your definition of 'sentient', as most animals do fit the broader definition of that to some degree. If you're defining it strictly to exclude animals (i.e. you're using 'sentient' when you mean 'sapient') then you're probably going to exclude human infants too, for example. Or adults with the mental age of a young child.

KillianHawkeye

2011-08-02, 05:56 PM

That depends on your definition of 'sentient', as most animals do fit the broader definition of that to some degree. If you're defining it strictly to exclude animals (i.e. you're using 'sentient' when you mean 'sapient') then you're probably going to exclude human infants too, for example. Or adults with the mental age of a young child.

I agree that you can no more get informed consent from a dog then you can from a baby, yes.

However, for the pupose of this discussion, let us assume that the animal in question is "going along with it" rather than being forced into the action. Still "wrong?" If so, how?

Mx.Silver

2011-08-02, 06:05 PM

I agree that you can no more get informed consent from a dog then you can from a baby, yes.

Ok. I will also take it as read that you consider sex with one (or the mentally handicapped adult) as being wrong. With that in mind, use one/both of the those in place of the word 'animal' in the following:

However, for the pupose of this discussion, let us assume that the animal in question is "going along with it" rather than being forced into the action. Still "wrong?" If so, how?

It'll probably give you the same answer.

averagejoe

2011-08-02, 07:00 PM

The Mod They Call Me: The ethics of bestiality is both off topic to the thread and probably not appropriate discussion.

KillianHawkeye

2011-08-02, 07:40 PM

We discussing it in terms of a real world issue explored in a fictional (albeit pornographic) medium. That being said, you're right that it's not really an appropriate topic, and the whole thing got a bit carried away. It was just supposed to be an example. Sorry 'bout that.

H Birchgrove

2011-08-05, 06:00 AM

I don't mind it. Dirty Harry is one of my favourite films, and it's loosely based on the Zodiac murders.

Mauve Shirt

2011-08-05, 08:43 PM

My mother prefers reading history and historical fiction because she wants to know generally how it's going to end. I personally think everything is better with magic.

Dr.Epic

2011-08-06, 12:46 AM

VanBuren

2011-08-07, 04:59 PM

What!? There are people who actually enjoy stories that are not only entertaining, but also educational? What weirdos!

Seriously though, why? What can't something be entertaining and educational? So long as the film makes you feel good, why can't that be enough? Why does the fact it has to do with actual events make it bad? Really, the only difference between what you described liking and not is that one actually happened. When you think about it, a fictional work is also educating you about something (though it never happened in real life).

Oh hell, it doesn't even have to make me feel good. But it does have to make me feel.

Avilan the Grey

2011-08-08, 02:04 AM

Oh hell, it doesn't even have to make me feel good. But it does have to make me feel.

I think that is a given; I think the argument is that a lot of people (including me) do not enjoy things that makes them feel bad. Hence preferring popcorn movies with happy endings, feel-good movies and comedies.

Knaight

2011-08-08, 05:20 AM

Oh hell, it doesn't even have to make me feel good. But it does have to make me feel.

I'd go one further. Any fictional media which fails to instill a change or development of belief or emotion regarding something has failed. I'll use Schindler's List as an example, just for its fame and for the sheer magnitude of what it portrays. It should develop several beliefs, and several emotional connections. Abject horror at what genocide is, major beliefs regarding eugenics programs as wrong, the removal of negative emotional connections or beliefs regarding people who are Jewish (this is much less pertinent now than it was much closer to WWII), all of these should come up, and there are a bunch of more minor ones as well.

Now, lets look at something that is fully fictional, part of full fledged fantasy. I'll use A Song of Ice and Fire here, its widely known enough that the examples should work. Part of what you see in it is a grounds eye look at the devastation of war, and the atrocities committed by armies. This aspect should encourage the connection of certain emotional states to the concept of war. One should be appalled at how it ruins the lives of people caught up in it for one, and one should certainly be appalled and indignant at how this is so blithely ignored as much as it is. It should also instill beliefs in what war does to people, coming at it from a position of complete ignorance one should, by the end come to believe that war can leave psychological trauma on soldiers, that it everyone involved in it will come out of it worse than before, so on and so forth. And it, a fantasy story, does this much better than mere statistics about some WWI battle or some such.

Fiction is fundamentally about emotion, about forcing understandings, about getting past detachment and seeing something from as close to within it as possible. Its not just fiction that does this by any means, but it is what fiction does. Why should it only be allowed to do this for positive things, for uplifting things, for that which is fundamentally not an issue or a problem?

Avilan the Grey

2011-08-08, 06:30 AM

I'd go one further. Any fictional media which fails to instill a change or development of belief or emotion regarding something has failed.

I was going to simply call "Bull" on this statement but I have trouble wrapping my head around the syntax of the sentence.

Trying to break it down I get this:

Any fictional media that does not (A, B or C)

A) Change a belief
B) Create a belief
C) Create emotion

has failed.

IF this is the case, then I call foul on A and B and "Duh" on C.
ALL successful movies create a lot of emotions, be it Transformers, or LOTR, There's Something Abut Mary or Schindler's List.

Knaight

2011-08-08, 06:48 AM

Trying to break it down I get this:

[B]Any fictional media that does not (A, B or C)

A) Change a belief
B) Create a belief
C) Create emotion

A) Change a belief in some manner. That doesn't mean reverse an opinion, that could mean cause a belief to be better thought out.
B) As A, except for the starting position was "not thought about at all".
C) Create an emotional connection with something. Not just "create emotion" in some extremely transient way completely inapplicable to life.

Dr.Epic

2011-08-08, 09:58 AM

Oh hell, it doesn't even have to make me feel good. But it does have to make me feel.

Like how Transformers 2 and Last Airbender made me feel like banging my head against a brick wall?

VanBuren

2011-08-08, 11:41 AM

Like how Transformers 2 and Last Airbender made me feel like banging my head against a brick wall?

No. I usually require that the movie make me feel what I was intended to feel. What you've just described is more like a survival instinct.

VanBuren

2011-08-08, 11:42 AM

grolim

2011-08-08, 11:47 AM

I think that is a given; I think the argument is that a lot of people (including me) do not enjoy things that makes them feel bad. Hence preferring popcorn movies with happy endings, feel-good movies and comedies.

I can understand that preference but more serious and deeper media also have their place. I think a lot of it is that you can easily look back through history and see where people so quickly forget things they should not. More serious media is a way to keep the intensity or even the horror of something alive so that it does NOT just become a dry fact in a textbook somewhere.
The old, those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it bit.
Look at movies like Schindler's List about the holocaust, or Roots about slavery, etc. Some things are so important and so horribly they SHOULD be remembered or portrayed as intensely as possible. Even today, less then 3/4 of a century after the fact, there are a lot of people that deny it even happened. Some things simply must be remembered.
It also doesn't all have to be just about the bad stuff. In each of these movies you also have portrayals of the people who stood against it.
For me I like To Kill A Mockingbird, it is about something the we should be ashamed of ever happening. But it is also about a person who stands up against it and fights as hard as he can. It is one thing to read in a textbook or a paper about how unfair or evil slavery, genocide, bigotry etc is, but actually SEEING it conveys the magnitude of how these things are and if we are very very lucky just might also make it be just that much longer before the human race gets that stupid again.
Edit:

It also applies, to me at least, to things like Saving Private Ryan or any of a number of war movies. The world we live in today, the evil that was defeated in it, is all due to those people who fought for it many of whom never came home. D-day in a movie is about as intense as you can get, should also be remembered that way. Sad as it is, I just do not see the people of today being as ready or as able to stand up and do what as needed as the people then. Last year the last surviving WWI vet died, that generation is gone. The number of WWII vets dwindles every day. And with every one of them we lose, we are less than what we were. Their strength, their sacrifice, their will do get it done is something seriously lacking in today's world and we are worse off for it. One day soon they will all be gone and all we will have left of them is these movies made from their stories, their tales from the survivors and for all some may thing they are too intense or something they are just the palest representation.

History SHOULD be visceral. Where we came from and what they went through to get here SHOULD move us. We SHOULD know the price others paid for what we have. And we SHOULD be worthy of that price and leave a better world for those that come after. Unfortunately too often we don't.

Dr.Epic

2011-08-08, 05:37 PM

No. I usually require that the movie make me feel what I was intended to feel. What you've just described is more like a survival instinct.

Maybe the directors were going for a Spartan thing: what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. You know, toughin' you out.