The Pseudo-Intellectualism Of Film Gratuity

Quite often in the arts, we are introduced to subject material that “makes social commentary” through the actions and events of its story. This seems to be almost an essential for a film or television show to satisfy a certain self-styled avant-garde art critique class, who quite enjoy using unnecessarily pretentious language in their descriptions of how a certain film “made commentary on power, privilege, and the disintegration of society” (there are other, more necessary and relevant topics the commentaries or allegories make). 

But if such commentaries can be described in a sentence or two, is it actually necessary to make an entire film for this purpose? If the commentary’s idea is so important for the public or audience to know, why not simply educate the public about it directly, rather than as a passing part of a film? And if these commentaries are usually uncovered through the extraction process that is the critique, can we really say that the supposed message or commentary is getting through? Or is this simply an excuse to justify the latent anomalous desires of the critics, the directors and the public under cover of a “deeper message,” which makes the people who “get it” feel cultured? 

I get it, if you are rich and have status, you can get away with more. If you break down structures of civilization and rules to abide by, a person becomes more primal. To be fair, there are many messages that are more complex, less self-evident, and more important for the public to learn. But in the over a century on screen art, most of these commentaries and their variations have been “told” to use many times over. 

The class of people who decide if a film or tv series is good seem to be satisfied as long as these oft told commentaries are done so in new and creative ways. Otherwise there is no smokescreen, no cover, no “this is why we needed to film this.” It simply becomes a collection of hedonistic, degenerate events, ever more complicated, bizarre and grotesque by the film, an exercise of the film maker’s fantasies and limit testing. 

I speak of course of the obscenely and unnecessarily violent, sadistic, exploitative films Although my critique of the “social commentary” messages of films that can simply be stated without making the film stands in a category of far lesser condemnation. I suspect that those that make, critique, and consume these types of films have a type of craving for sensory pleasure and sensory overload that is natural to occur in an open society. 

Because these concepts, ideas and cravings are there to be created, consumed and analyzed, one cannot wish that, or make it so, these cravings don’t exist. And the type of outside of the box creativity and boundary pushing is both necessary for, and a byproduct of, the truly ingenious minds that create masterpieces onscreen. 

Clearly, it is through the crucible of going to the taboo and continuously having one’s mind reach for things that are not ascertainable for those who do not stretch the boundaries of thought that is allowed, that truly beautiful and long lasting art is created. But in this volatile and organic intellectual progression, the collateral damage is the respect and dignity of the human body and spirit. At some point, the blatant disregard for decency in the aforementioned films must take the character of a voyeuristic thrill for those involved in making and consuming it, over and above any claimed “societal statements” they make. 

We can agree that anything close to some of the depravity we see on the screen is vile to its very core and an affront to humanity at its essence. Yes these depictions are all not real life, a critically important detail that I do not want to be accused of overlooking. But if such violence, exploitation and perversion can be agreed upon as being evil, why must we get such gratuitous and vivid expressions of it, which people can enjoy (“from an artistic perspective”), much less even stomach, be shown in such excess? 

In films, we see the vivid display of such evil acts, such as over the top violence, torture, and sexual exploitation, taken far beyond the point in which their portryal on screen is useful in showing how evil the act is, and simply goes beyond the limits for its own self-gratifying sake. Now, I must comment on my personal bias possibly influencing my judgement. I am particularly queasy and uncomfortable with certain displays of over the top violence, torture and the like, to the point where I become physically ill at the sight of things that do not remotely approach the most extreme scenes in the types of films I talk about. 

For that reason, I have never watched such a film, nor do I ever plan to. It is clear that the acts of evil and depravity in the films I describe are terrible and worthy of condemnation. But I do wonder if, and leave open the possibility that, my primal, overwhelming bodily disgust for such things leads my subconscious to surreptitiously insert, and therefore confuse, my physical disgust, with my moral disgust, which consequently influences the intensity with which I dislike the films I have been describing. 

In light of what I have described, what do I call for in response? Obviously I do not call for any type of ban on these types of films, although I do wish that none, or at least much less, are made. All I can ask is both the makers of films, and the potential audience to take what I have said to thought, and if you find resonance in what I say, be cognizant of the dignity of the human body and spirit. Have that inform what you watch, what you promote, what you approve of.

For those who make these types of films who find anything that I said of value, perhaps think about what makes you feel the need to show such excessive and vivid portrayals of said violence and exploitation. Think about what such films truly offer to a public who has been inundated in such excess and in the purported social commentary they make. Perhaps you can tone down the display of hedonism, never going beyond where it makes a tangible connection to a message, and develop a sense of restraint, with the goal of championing the dignity of the person front in center in your mind.