|
Post by walker on Aug 11, 2006 2:16:17 GMT -5
I think this is a topic worthy of its own thread.
How are we, as writers who are Catholics, equipped to face the question of naughty bits in our own works and those of our contemporaries?
In my Catholic upbringing (Puritan rite), as far as movies went, PG was considered "Pure Garbage", with PG-13 of course being 13 times worse. To this day I cannot be in the same room with my parents or siblings if there is an on-screen act of affection exceeding the legal kiss limit of three seconds. In my private ventures, of course, I enjoy a wide array of sinful delights such as fight scenes with blood and hyphenated language.
I would like to write family-proof things, but I also enjoy "God's plenty"-- Iago's endless grab bag of sexual synonyms in "Othello," Tuco's salty and highly personalized language in "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly," the enlightening use of nudity in movies like "The Passion of Andrei Rublev."
Do Catholic families need to maturely begin to embrace tasteful allusions to God's gift of sex in smart-minded works, or do writers who are Catholic need to keep finding ever-diverser ways-- as in the Decency League days -- to imply sex, or the dark violent and language-ridden ways of evil people? Should there be a division, some works for adults, some for everyone, or should the aim be for a single family-inclusive art?
|
|
|
Post by pierregambotsky on Aug 11, 2006 12:10:45 GMT -5
I think that's a very worthy question to ponder. Off the top of my head, what I can say is that, as a writer, one ought not to try to ignore certain unfortunate facts about our world, but at the same time, one ought to remember that these facts are unfortunate. If "naughty bits" are to be introduced into one's work, there should be a good reason for doing so and their inclusion should serve a moral end. I don't think one should include sex and violence just to sound "hip" or "get the reader's attention" (as this appeals only to base and morbid instincts).
Also, I think one should bear in mind that sometimes it might be a good idea to leave a "naughty bit" implied rather than describe it explicitly, as I think our characters should be allowed at least a wee bit of privacy now and then. With regards to sex, for example, since people tend to have it in private, even if two of your character's have sex during your story, that does not necessarily mean that the best approach is to get the narrator in the room with them. It might be more realistic to let them go into the room by themselves, instead of bringing in the reader as a third party. Again, sometimes it might be necessary to do so.
My point is, we ought not be squeamish, but rather, we need to be moral and prudent in our decisions as writers.
And no, I don't think there should be a single family-inclusive art.
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Aug 11, 2006 22:36:59 GMT -5
I agree with everything Pierre said. In addition, I believe that it's possible to depict lust and sex in art without having to actually show a couple copulating on screen or on the page.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Aug 12, 2006 13:23:41 GMT -5
Two good examples of writers who deal well with sex in particular: (1) Graham Greene's heartbreaking priests who've broken their vows of chastity in The Power and the Glory and (2) Michael O'Brien's beautiful, even erotic, but not lascivious descriptions of married love in Strangers and Sojourners and Eclipse of the Sun.
I go back and forth on whether the violence in Flannery O'Connor is always well dealt with. There may be moments where she goes overboard (Thomas shooting a gun in "The Comforts of Home"), but usually there is a specific reason why the violent act happens, an outward development of a secret vice the character has been harboring in his heart. They're often tragic, her stories. She said that she wrote about acts of grace, points at which the character was free to accept them and change or reject them and continue down his own path. It's sad how often the latter happens -- and she reflected that accurately in her stories without ever being gratuitously violent.
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Aug 13, 2006 7:16:36 GMT -5
"The Power and the Glory" rocks!
I remember that in "Ilustrissimi", a book by Albino Luciani (Pope John Paul I) consisting of imaginary letters to certain figures, there's a discussion on the topic of how sex and violence should be depicted in art in the imaginary letter to Goethe.
|
|
|
Post by deirdre on Aug 15, 2006 16:19:58 GMT -5
Naughty bits which are there for the pure sake of spectacle are nasty. When it has some purpose within the work it should be taken and treated for what it is - a character, a setting, a point of moral redemption, a moment of human frailty (as in Tom Jones), etc. What does it say? What does it mean? Is it true?
Mankind is a mixed lot - and to depict only the good, or to meticulously avoid certain parts of the bad, seems to be rather odd. For though that does remove certain things that make us squeamish or disgusted, it *also* removes an aspect of the mercy and love of God - where wrong 'love' is made right.
But even in works where naughty bits are treated lightly, where they are not introduced for some moral end, I think them still acceptable. The writer may not be saying that this is how people should be, but this is how my character *is*.
So, I'm not exactly sure if naughty bits should -only- be introduced for a moral end, but then, I'm not sure as to what is (precisely) meant by that.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Aug 15, 2006 21:47:55 GMT -5
What does a "moral end" mean in fiction?
That's a really good question. You get into the realm of things that are written purely to edify vs. things that are written "for art's sake" vs. things where the artist's motives are mixed. The (possibly sad, definitely proven) truth about contemporary culture is that, if you tip your hand even to the slightest extent in such a way that your reader knows you're trying to edify him, he won't listen to you.
The solution Flannery O'Connor and countless other authors have put forth is this: You create a universe where morality is real and has real consequences, then let your characters act freely in it. What they do may not always be edifying, but hopefully, if you are any kind of a writer, you will be able to show how those actions fit into the moral universe.
That's nowhere near as cut-and-dried as it sounds, of course. You have to make sure that each action of each character is authentic and that your moral solutions are not just contrived and imposed, but are the real outcome of the interaction of the characters' actions toward each other. Anyone who thinks that's easy (a) is a moral and literary genius of unheard-of proportions or (b) has never tried to write anything seriously.
Dorothy Sayers is great on this: her book "The Mind of the Maker" is a too-often-neglected resource on all these questions. The unfortunate, and fortunate, thing is that precise solutions can't be given. They will differ as widely and deeply as characters and plots differ, which, hopefully, is by a wide margin.
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Aug 20, 2006 22:04:48 GMT -5
Random thoughts:
I think the problem is not so much whether themes such as sex and lust can be touched on, but how these themes should be developed.
From the purely artistic point of view, they can be included in works if they actually contribute to the characterization or the development of the plot. There has to be a purpose for including them in one's work. If not, most readers will start counting pages. If the only purpose for including naughty bits is to satisfy a morbid fascination for them -- regardless of whether they develop the plot or whether they're consistent with the character in the story -- then even from the purely artistic view, the naughty bits should be kept out.
From the moral point of view, I think the question really is how to depict sex and lust. Should a film maker actually show them copulating on screen? Or should he just show a couple kissing, then black out the scene, and show the couple eating breakfast in the next scene, leaving it to the viewer to figure out what the couple did during the black out?
Personally, I think that even from the artistic point of view, explicit depictions of sex and violence should be avoided, or if not, at least limited. For one, they're disgusting. They also insult the audience in that they don't give room for the audience to figure out things. They also reveal a lack of creativity. I think it's more creative to show lust and sex in a way that's stylized and yet the audience still gets it, than to show an explicit sex scene. Some will argue that to show a sex scene will make a movie more realistic, but I don't think a movie is better just because it's extremely realistic. As my professor in philosophy once pointed out, if the purpose of art is to copy reality, then the most beautiful music is that which sounds like the mooing of a cow.
It is interesting to note that in ancient Greek drama, before Christ, gruesome violence was not shown on stage. In Oedipus Rex, for example, they didn't show the gouging of Oedipus' eyes on stage. In the script, he just goes off stage, then goes back on stage with his eyes plucked out. The reason for not depicting violence onstage, according to Aristotle's "Poetics", was that the tragedies were for the moral education of the audience and therefore, rationality had to be maintained and this could not be done if the audience were disgusted.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Aug 24, 2006 0:34:11 GMT -5
You raise an interesting question, Cristina. Is there ever a reason to try to elicit a response of disgust from your audience? I can think of quite a few, for myself. There are certain things in life that are just disgusting, but aren't commonly recognized to be so. There are certain things that should reasonably be shocking to rational people but, for whatever reason, aren't anymore.
I'm not saying (as some do) that this is the only job of the artist, but it seems that at least one of the artist's roles is to restore the audience's proper responses to things as they are. Isn't this, after all, what Aristotle means by "moral education"? Who is a morally educated person, if not one who responds to reality as he or she ought?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not supporting the use of lots of shocking or disgusting imagery, nor the use of it for its own sake. Definitely not -- because to use shock value, except with the most extreme and delicate attention to the overall effect of a piece of art, can and does often have the opposite effect from moral education. It can be, and is, wretchedly desensitizing.
The real question, I think, is how do you restore this sense of proper response to people who are already desensitized? How do you, so to speak, shock people out of the state of shock they're already in?
This is open to debate. I don't yet know exactly what I think about it, but it's something that afflicts me. I want to hear everyone's thoughts, if everyone is willing to share them.
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Aug 24, 2006 9:28:26 GMT -5
The real question, I think, is how do you restore this sense of proper response to people who are already desensitized? How do you, so to speak, shock people out of the state of shock they're already in? One example of how it was sucessfully done is how Mel Gibson handled the "The Passion of the Christ." He juxtaposed the brutal sufferings of Christs with flashbacks from the life of Christ where he washed the feet of his apostles, instituted the Eucharist, and preached forgiveness of one's enemies. I can never forget the part where the Roman soldiers were dragging Our Lord's scourged body, then the camera seemed to take His point of view. The camera tried to capture His view of the Roman soldier's sandaled foot splattered with His blood. Then, the next scene was a flashback of Him washing the apostles' feet. In addition, there was the background music as well as the reactions of Our LAdy, Mary Magdalene, Pilate's wife, and the other pious women. So it was clear that the depiction of violence was not to satisfy what I always refer to as "a morbid fascination of splurting blood and gut"; the audience was reminded of the point of showing all the blood. Another technique that worked was that used by a Shakespeare company that toured our country. They performed Henry VI part 3. AFter every stabbing scene, an appropriate Gregorian chant was sung (such as the Kyrie or the Miserere or Requiem Aeternam) while the funeral procession (typical of Shakespearean theater) took place to take away the dead bodies from the stage. The effect was to remind the audience that a human being was killed. In poetry, an example I could think of is Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est Pro Patria Mori." All of my examples have to do with violence. With regard to sex, I don't know. I think there's less justification for showing explicit sex, and I don't know how an artist can, after showing explicit sex, restore the viewer's sense of proper response. PErhaps it's because the sexual act, by it's very nature, should be private, and to show it in public violates the innate sense of modesty. With regard to the film and theatre genres, there's another reason why the depiction of explicit sex is problematic. With violent scenes, realistic simulations of stabbings are possible with fake blood and other techniques. Whereas with sex scenes...do directors actually ask their actors and actresses to strip and do other things in front of the camera? I'm not sure I want to know the answer. As to katycarl's question on whether there's a reason to disgust audiences, I don't know the answer. I do know, however, that I don't like Spielberg's movies like Schindler's List and Amistad, no matter how important Spielberg's message was in the graphic scenes of human suffering. (If I did like Amistad, it was only because of the legal arguments.) After watching these movies, I felt I needed therapy.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Aug 24, 2006 11:11:29 GMT -5
It's true there are differences in the gravity of these things between film/theatre, where the actual persons of the actors and actresses (or their doubles) are involved to some degree in whatever goes on with respect to sexual depictions, and the canvas or page, where at most the persons depicted are drawn from a single model but could also simply be imaginary composites.
And, like you say, it's almost easier to do these things properly with violence than with sex. First, we have a longer list of quality artistic examples to draw from in the case of violence. Second, it's just easier to control depictions of violence -- easier to discern "That's too much" from "That's just about right." Usually, there are clearer social ideas about "right violence" and "wrong violence," and neither social nor personal ideas about violence tend to run so deep as social and personal ideas about sex.
This is just because of the ordering and nature of human passions and emotions. Sex is deeply personal, naturally good, and therefore worse when it goes wrong -- and depictions of it gone wrong, even when they are made with a basic view toward putting things right, can be far, far more powerfully disturbing than depictions of simple violence.
Then again, what is too much for one person to consider with a mature response may not be too much for another, precisely because our responses are so personal and have so much to do with individual disposition, history, and maturity. That, I think, is why it's easier (at least in the current individualistic climate) to go overboard where depictions of sex are concerned and easier for people to excuse those excesses. I say "easier," not "right." I still tend to agree that suggestion and stylization are better tools to use around sex in art: more artistically sophisticated and more appropriately human. Still, there may be cases -- and it may be that they only exist in the more private medium of print, as opposed to theatre or film -- where it's right to be moderately explicit. Those cases would have to serve the overall effect of the work, though, and I don't know what they would be. It seems to me they would have to be pretty rare, if only in order not to lose their effectiveness. And there -- maybe -- ought to be some sort of system -- such as the rating system with movies, but better managed -- to let people know the sort of 'level' of things, so that mature adults can have access to truly thoughtful and moral works that deal with these themes explicitly, while children's innocence is respected and teenagers aren't exposed to more than they're morally and mentally ready to deal with.
I don't know. It's tough stuff artistically and humanly, and I don't envy the visual artist or filmmaker who has to face the dilemma in that way -- I only have to handle it in print. That's trouble enough for one person, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by walker on Aug 27, 2006 1:49:20 GMT -5
You've all heard the axiom "never perform onstage with animals or kids." I think this phrase could shed light on this discussion.
Animals and babies can't act, they can only be, and this cracks the whole illusion of drama. Given the option, the human being apparently chooses reality over illusion, for who can think about even Hamlet's grandest outpourings if a blue jay happens to fly into the theater?
The reason for this intro is because I have a revelatory point to make about the inclusion of sensuality in movies and books. As a man (and I trust none of my other male compeers - hardies they are - suffer from this) constained as I am by God's mechanics for the universe, I would include suggestive clothing and language, let alone explicit situations, as another such chimera breaker. It institutes a more proximate reality than the illusion of drama. Either, avid reader of The Imitation of Christ I am, I must avert my eye's cones and rods; or, even in the role of high-minded aesthetic assessor, I'll experience a warming of the blood to which the rest of the play will pale in comparison.
It really does break the dramatic train of thought. You might be losing your intention with half the audience if you lay it on a mite too thick.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Aug 28, 2006 10:51:38 GMT -5
Sadly enough, Walker, the promise of eliciting that reaction seems to be what lots of filmmakers are hoping to use to draw men into the theatre. "Well, we've made a great romantic story, but no guy will want to bring his date to it -- unless..." People can say all they want about how society talks down to women, and some of them will be right. But I think fewer people recognize the ways in which our society belittles and underestimates men -- this example is just one of them.
|
|
|
Post by syme on Aug 30, 2006 15:07:16 GMT -5
I'm right there with you katycarl. It REALLY bugs me when you go to a bookstore and the "Men's Interest" section is nothing but pornography! That's pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Aug 30, 2006 17:30:33 GMT -5
I've never had that experience, syme -- but it is exactly what I'm referring to. It is directly opposed to everything God created men to be, isn't it? -- strong, clear-headed, fair-minded, bravely faithful to their vows, focused not on chasing what they superficially want but what others truly need. But that is a rant for a different thread.
(Speaking of other off-topic topics, is your choice of "syme" by any chance related to Gabriel of Chestertonian fame?)
Anyway, Walker, you illustrate exactly what I'm talking about. An artist is always also a person, never just an artist; likewise, that nebulous "audience" artists talk about is never just a crowd, but a multitude, a whole group composed of whole and separate persons. I think many artists forget this, especially in the face of pressure to make their work more "exciting" or "accessible" or whatever the buzzword is this week.
Anyway, forgetfulness of that fact leads to a sense that it's okay to add in a sex scene "just for spice," without considering (a) whether it actually advances your plot and develops the themes therein or (b) what the reaction of each reader, each viewer, each single person in the audience is likely to be.
Even writers who do consider whether a scene meets these critera are likely to have only the most nebulous concept of how it does so. But it's so important to know exactly, not only (like you say, Walker) to ensure that you keep audience members going along with you in the way you want them to go, but also to be certain that your work endures the critical test. It is on authenticity about the things that are most human, not on an ability to be "gripping" at all times and by whatever means necessary, that a work of art really stands or falls. Any abuse of these things, any deliberate misrepresentation, will (or should) lose you all the admiring readers who are worth having.
|
|