Many of the ethical dilemmas brought up in filmmaking are consequence-based: will people smoke because my characters do? will my film inspire criminal activity? will someone harm themselves or others because of what my film says? and so on. Consequentialism is undoubtedly a valid means of evaluating ethical dilemmas, but I’m coming to realize that because the consequences of on-screen actions are so often so far removed from the films themselves, it’s hard to judge the ethics of any particular film based on a consequentialist mindset.
I’m considering virtue theory, which emphasizes being over doing. It emphasizes the morality of character, the creation of exceptional human beings who do good and avoid bad not because of consequences but because they know intrinsically it’s right. The virtues are things like honesty, benevolence, fairness, nonmalevolence, etc. So maybe filmmakers should consider the ethical implications of their films in terms of whether or not they promote the virtues that will inspire viewers to be…well, virtuous. I think that F. Miguel Valenti may have had something similar in his mind when he wrote, “There is now really no question that we are helping to shape the world in which we live, not simply entertaining it. It sounds both anticreative freedom and a bit wet-blanket-ish, but we should consider what sort of world we want it to be.”
So, let’s talk about violence.
I think the ethics of violence is all about how it’s portrayed. The issue I find with a lot of films is the glorification of it, the use of it as a symbol of status, power, and for lack of a better word, badassness. Violence is often stylized—and when we find aesthetic value in things like literally slicing people’s faces off (to reference Equilibrium, just the first thing that came to mind), I think we’re running into sketchy territory. I don’t think a scene like that necessarily runs the risk of inspiring copycat violence, but it makes viewers think violence is really cool. The Mediascope report about media violence released after the Columbine shooting states that “when violence is rewarded or goes unpunished, imitation is more likely to occur.” I think “made to look really, really cool” can be squished into that sentence, too. If we are inspiring people to believe violence is cool, I think that’s promoting something like malevolence, which is not an ethical virtue. And so our dilemma has an answer.
Violence, then, that doesn’t promote itself as a good thing to do falls into safe territory. In Set It Off, the shooting of the bank customer at the beginning of the film is not glorifying; it is horrifying. The moment is uncomfortably graphic and harsh, the results detrimental to the character of Frankie. It isn’t saying though, “Shooting people in the head is a good thing to do;” in fact, I think it makes the point that shooting people in the head is very, very wrong. So I think according to virtue theory, because of the way the violence is dealt with there, that case of portraying violence is not unethical.
Virtue theory is obviously only one option for the way to approach evaluating the ethics of violence in films (or any other ethical dilemmas in films), and it is no doubt still subjective; however, if we want one theory by which to evaluate our choices, virtue theory seems a better one than some others. I’m going to keep it in mind for the time being when I watch movies. Considering not the direct consequences but the implications on the character of the viewers as a guideline for morality is something I as a writer am happy to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment