How to tackle heavy-handed messages?

[General_Norris]

No matter how evil the Nazis were, spending 20 minutes saying how evil they are does not a good movie make. But saying that such preachiness is often the main cause of a work being bad is often fodder for flaming by those who hold that opinion even if you agree with that opinion. How to handle these kind of situations?

For example, there's a Spanish movie about domestic violence that was not only this way but had serious characterization problems. Those problems include the husband personality not making any sense and the woman being definied by being too dumb to live. This topic requires more than that or at least not having the woman say "Sure, why not" when the husband says "Hey, do you want to come back to my hous to have sex and leave your stupid sister?". The movie didn't have enough common sense to handle the topic at hand and it failed because of that.

Those kind of flaws are often hand-waved by saying that it is realistic. Setting aside that dubious claim even if it were realistic it wouldn't make a good movie. You can't expect sympathy out of a Darwin Award winner no matter how realistic it is. Problems also arise when the work in question falls into bathos (Or Narm, for you dirty vocabulary-ruining Tropers!)

So, what do you think you can do to be ...Hold on, I think I swallowed a gerbil. Okay. What was I saying? while saying the truth?

[Zamfir]

It is apparently very common that men ask their abused spouses to come back, with the women saying yes. Nothing "darwin award" about, it is the way it works.

They got married after all, they were at some point attracted to each other, and might well still be. Then there is a guilty feeling that a broken marriage is a shared problem, and that both should work to make it good again. There is habit: going back means you can go back to your normal life, instead of living like a refugee. And trust: someone promises to make things better, and he might be honest at the moment he says so.

Perhaps your movie didn't portray such complicated situations well. You can say that it was a bad movie. Others can then disagree with you.

[General_Norris]

It is apparently very common that men ask their abused spouses to come back, with the women saying yes. Nothing "darwin award" about, it is the way it works.

What I mean is that realism doesn't result in good art and it's not an excuse for lack of character development or common sense, Darwin Awards are both tragic and realistic but they produce laughter not sadness because you don't have any sympathy for those people and they violate common sense. Comedy and Drama are sides of the same coin. I didn't compare domestic abuse with a Darwin Award. In fact, those words are in different paragraphs. Sorry if my wording make it unclear, the main problem I have with the movie is that they fail to make the woman a deep , troubled, character and instead make her look dumb.

As I said the problem was not that the woman came back when the man asked. The problem is that it was poorly-handed, made the woman look stupid (Instead of making her look realistic or a deep character) and there was nothing that could explain why she would come back. You mention several reasons but the movie lacks them. In my opinion the portrayal of domestic abuse was simply bad making it a pretty bad movie.

Perhaps your movie didn't portray such complicated situations well. You can say that it was a bad movie. Others can then disagree with you.

Of course. I have no problem if someone thinks it is a good movie. The problem I have is that movies with an important topic can't be bad because they handle such topics and how to fight that assertion while not being flame-bait.

EDIT: I was talking about that movie because it is more debatable, I haven't seen too many people defending Captain Planet. It is also a less sensitive topic.

[Azrael]

The problem I have [is with the attitude that] movies with an important topic can't be bad, because [at least] they [are attempting to] handle [difficult subject matter]. [H]ow [do you] fight that assertion while not being flame-bait?

Is this a close enough approximation of your topic statement? 'Cause I'm having a hard time finding enough substance here to avoid locking this as a rant.

[General_Norris]

Is this a close enough approximation of your topic statement? 'Cause I'm having a hard time finding enough substance here to avoid locking this as a rant.

Yes, thanks. That's what I meant to say.

[CorruptUser]

I've heard that the reason the abused women (or men) go back to their abusers is because they don't know anything else. Supposedly the abuser often controls the finances, so the abused fears that living with the abuser is better than being on the street. Also, I'm told that the abusers make sure that the abused have few if any connections with friends or relatives that could help them find a way out of the situation.

[Patch]

No matter how evil the Nazis were, spending 20 minutes saying how evil they are does not a good movie make. But saying that such preachiness is often the main cause of a work being bad is often fodder for flaming by those who hold that opinion even if you agree with that opinion. How to handle these kind of situations?

Have you considered changing your rhetorical approach? Take the passage below:

Those problems include the husband personality not making any sense and the woman being and the woman being definied by being too dumb to live.

Regardless of intent, phrases like "definied (sic) by being too dump to live" feel like flame bait, and are often met in kind.

You might instead, say something like: "I felt that the movie treated a complex and important topic in a facile manner, to the extent that it was unlikely to persuade people who disagreed with its thesis, and unlikely to hold the attention of those who did agree."

The above might come across as being a bit too stuffy (I'm guilty of writing my own pieces of flamebait), but I think that it's closer to what you might aim for, if you want to provoke intelligent debate about the merits of a film. (Knowing facts about the topic at hand help, as well.)

~ Patch

[Le1bn1z]

I sometimes have the opposite problem.

I tend to have an easy time seeing the other side of an argument (my two best friends are a militant Liberal and a militant Conservative Party activist, respectively. I'm a Green Party member.)

I often get into trouble for defending as reasonable ideas with which I or others disagree. So my problem is in defending movies like Avatar, which I found to have certain redeeming features despite its many failings, if you want to see it as a polemic.

When I tried advancing this to my sister, she would not speak to me for a week.

There are some people with whom you'll never win. But be persistent. A lot of the self-same people to whine about the collapse of bipartisanship or the civil discourse or the Great Debate are the ones kicking its twitching prone body, refusing to even discuss opposing views without collapsing into blind fury. So, to quote the third most irritating T-Shirt slogan outh there, be the change.

You'll only win the battle by sticking to your guns. If a movie did a poor job making a point, say so. If it is a discredit to an important cause for which you feel passionately, say so. Don't hold back, don't equivocate and don't give in.

Sometimes I find it helps if you make it into a joke.

Unless its my sister.

[Zamfir]

So you have a problem with people who stick to their opinion, and you advice sticking to your own opinion to deal with them?

[Czhorat]

One would use the same tools one uses to critique any work of art. Patch said it well.

Have you considered changing your rhetorical approach?...Regardless of intent, phrases like "definied (sic) by being too dump to live" feel like flame bait, and are often met in kind.

(quote snipped for brevity)

I couldn't agree more; It's possible to critique anything if you do so in a mature, thoughtful, and constructive manner.

If the underlying message is one you agree with, something like "I agree that domestic violence is a serious issue, but this movie didn't work for me because I had a hard time believing the wife's character was realistic." This way you're opening a conversation, not just ranting. Using 'I' statements sends the message that you're giving your opinion and know that it's just your opinion; it comes across as more open and less forceful than saying "this movie is bad".

It's also possible that others will disagree with you about the characterization. Many people in abusive relationships do behave in ways most of us wouldn't consider objectively logical. A better film (or book, or TV show) would do a better job of putting you in the character's head and letting you understand WHY.

[General_Norris]

So you have a problem with people who stick to their opinion, and you advice sticking to your own opinion to deal with them?

I think he has a problem with people that stick to their opinion by being angry and otherwise uncivil. The problem is they way not the opinions.

After examining the topic at hand in detail I think the "problem" is that I treat all movies the same. I would make the same comments about any other bad film because this was a bad film (IMHO). I do not think that using a sensitive topic should grant them artistic respect and prevent harshness and that leads to confusion between the topic and the work in question. The problem is the confusion between artistic respect and political respect.

Changing my rethoric when films handle a sensitive topic seems kind of hypocrital to me and adding subjectiveness is something that clashes with my writing style. I do not think that reviews are personal rants but they strive to be objective.

I looked for what other people do and I found that they either change their style radically or explain themselves first and then keep their style. For example, Ebert did the following:

"The Green Berets" simply will not do as a film about the war in Vietnam. It is offensive not only to those who oppose American policy but even to those who support it. At this moment in our history, locked in the longest and one of the most controversial wars we have ever fought, what we certainly do not need is a movie depicting Vietnam in terms of cowboys and Indians. That is cruel and dishonest and unworthy of the thousands who have died there.

I think this solves the problem gracefully while allowing you to keep your rethoric, no matter what kind it is, and avoiding misunderstanding. This also keeps you into objectiveness. What do you think?

Anyways it's true that I'm too caustic sometimes. It gets toned down after 10 rewrites or so.

BTW, "Too dumb to live" is a TVtrope I quoted the name of:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... DumbToLive

[SunAvatar]

This is not just a problem with art criticism. There is a general problem wherein people make inferences of the form "If you say X, you must also think Y" where X doesn't necessarily imply Y, even if belief in X does make belief in Y slightly more likely: a randomly chosen person who didn't like The Green Berets probably is more likely to support the Vietnam war, even if only slightly. I think it's a problem with distinguishing between "Belief-X is correlated with Belief-Y" and "Belief-X is strongly correlated with Belief-Y". In other words, people suck at math. But we already knew that!

Other cases of the same phenomenon:

• If you talk about genetic correlates of race, you must hate a race.
• If you think trait B is more common in group A, you think all or most members of group A have trait B.
• If you talk about genetic correlates of success, you are a social Darwinist.
• If you are intrigued by an idea, you agree with it.
• If you agree with something that someone famous said, you agree with everything they ever said or did.
• If you talk about the difficulties of implementing an idea, you are opposed to the idea.
• If you oppose one solution to a problem, you don't care about the problem.
• If you oppose a course of action, you think it has no upsides.
• If you support a course of action, you think it has no downsides.

The usual way people deal with these assumptions is by adding a disclaimer: "I think malnutrition is a serious problem, BUT fixing the cost of fresh vegetables won't help because..." The danger is that these disclaimers can be used even by people who really don't care about malnutrition, and will be if those people have the sense to keep their opinions to themselves. So even disclaimers are ignored eventually. Tell the truth, do you really feel better when someone starts a sentence with "I'm not a racist"? Or disclaimers become more expensive and harder to fake, and eventually take up a lot of valuable time that could be spent on actual communication (e.g. once you're a professor of race relations, you can maybe start talking about correlates of race without being misunderstood).

As far as a general solution to this problem, I really couldn't say. Mind reading devices? Training in statistical inference?

[Le1bn1z]

So you have a problem with people who stick to their opinion, and you advice sticking to your own opinion to deal with them?

No. My problem is with people who will refuse to speak to you, or consider you with contempt if you disagree with them.

The temptation there is to cave. I say, don't. Treat them with respect and continue to engage. But caving to bullying reinforces the worst trends in our society.

[Zamfir]

So you have a problem with people who stick to their opinion, and you advice sticking to your own opinion to deal with them?

No. My problem is with people who will refuse to speak to you, or consider you with contempt if you disagree with them.

The temptation there is to cave. I say, don't. Treat them with respect and continue to engage. But caving to bullying reinforces the worst trends in our society.

My mistake. I read your post wrong.

I have to say, I never get convinced by people who engage me when I don't want to listen. I suspect the same is true for nearly everyone else. There would be a lot more Jehovah's Witnesses if you could convince people by being persistent.

[General_Norris]

@SunAvatar

You are right. If you handle this kind of topics no matter what you say someone is going to be offended or misunderstand your ideas. For example, I'm starting to think that no matter what kind of rethoric some things will always draw heat.

The main problem with disclaimers is, as you say, that they take too much space. A good third of Ebert's review of Green Berets is a disclaimer, lowering the quality of the review quite a lot.

About them looking fake they will always do so because it's poor writting. If there's no logical connection between correlation and causation no matter what you do your disclaimer will stick like a sore thumb. It's artifical and unrelated to the main point.

@Zamfir

This is very politiaclly incorrect but I don't think that the Witnesses are using compelling arguments so no matter how much they try they will ultimatedly fail.

[Levelheaded]

I have to say, I never get convinced by people who engage me when I don't want to listen. I suspect the same is true for nearly everyone else. There would be a lot more Jehovah's Witnesses if you could convince people by being persistent.

Persistence can work though - very effectively. If it didn't, you wouldn't see billboards or the same truck commercial over and over during a football game.

With Jehovah's Witnesses, people like you and me aren't really the point of the door-to-door recruitment. They know that most people are going to slam the door in their face and are ready for it ahead of time. The act of door-to-door recruitment helps build a set of shared experiences (and social interaction) within their community. It helps them fulfill their mission and gives a 'purpose' to their religion. It also does win them some recruits. Some people are curious and listen (and occasionally opt-in), some people are just in a place where they are looking for something / looking to belong.

@Zamfir

This is very politiaclly incorrect but I don't think that the Witnesses are using compelling arguments so no matter how much they try they will ultimatedly fail.

Most salesmanship has nothing to do with providing a 'compelling argument'. Rather, it's about creating an emotional response - a desire to have something. It's also the salesperson creating a bond with the buyer, and giving the buyer a feeling of obligation or commitment. If you've ever felt bad about wasting a salesperson's time you are falling victim to some of those techniques and pressures.

Sales techniques work differently on different people, but they do work. If you go to a car dealership ready and excited about buying a new car and knowing pretty much what you want, you are an easy sale. On the other had, if you are just shopping around and not really planning on buying, you are a harder sale. If you are pissed at the dealer and trying to return a lemon, you are probably going to be a nearly impossible sale.

When it comes to say...the Jehovah Witness example, most of us are closer to the third group than the first group. That doesn't mean the first or second groups don't exist.



To get back to the topic of the thread though, just because a movie is about a sensitive topic doesn't mean it was a good movie. It may seem unrealistic or manufactured.

At the same time, to someone who isn't in that position or hasn't been around it before, dealing with a real life abuse case will often seem surreal or unbelievable. It's no different from trying to understand suicide without any experience being in that place. People in those positions make irrational decisions because they have an irrational view of the world.

Of course, the utterly screwed up situation and often unfathomable (from the outside) decisions and behavior in those situations doesn't excuse crappy writing. Bad is bad.

[wumpus]

To try to answer the topic, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. From what I could understand of the OT rant, I suspect the work was created to convince battered women of the danger that they were in, and this required extraordinary proof for the audience in question. This is likely to make the entire work pointless for unintentional audiences, but thems the breaks.

The best example I can think of it Candide. This was probably the one that proved to me "famously banned books are boring". At the time Leibniz had shown that if the present view of God was remotely true, then this is the best of all possible worlds. Voltaire then went and wrote Candide, a book which existed solely to show that sh!t did indeed happen and used that to refute Leibniz. While it may seem absolutely heavily handed to make an entire work revolve around the obvious, at the time Voltaire needed everything he could bring to bear.

[Yakk]

I sympathize with "Darwin award winners".

They are human beings. In the OP's particular case, human beings whose self worth has been beaten down, whose connections outside of the relationship have been torn apart, whose resources and options have been systematically attacked, and whose identity has been warped to selfish ends by someone else.

If you don't sympathize with "Darwin award winners", then you probably consider that people "get what they deserve", and consider spousal abuse to be not-that-serious a problem (because the abused spouses tend not, without lots and lots of help, to a degree you might consider "Darwin award", to manage to break free).

In which case, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

Look: it is relatively easy to indoctrinate someone else into an abusive relationship. This doesn't mean they deserve it.

Domestic abuse from the perspective of someone who hasn't had it beaten into them doesn't look all that reasonable. It is actually possible that the purpose of the movie wasn't to entertain?

"The character wasn't realistic" is a good point to make.
"It lacked a traditional narrative structure that I enjoy" is a good point to make (is it entertaining?)
"It could have made its point better by doing X" is a good point to make.
"It actually undermines its own point by doing X" can be a good point: it might also reveal ignorance.
"The victim, who behaves like real-life victims do, seemed too dumb to live, and I cannot feel any sympathy for her, she got what she deserved" is ... not the same as the above.

Is the purpose of the film light entertainment? That is what most films are for. Is the film you are watching intended as entertainment, or is it something else?

I'd evaluate a novel differently than a mathematics text. Both are in the same medium (words on bound paper). This movie you are watching is on the same medium -- maybe you are judging it by the rules of an entertainment film? (note that even most documentaries are primary entertainment, secondary information)

I don't know.

[Jimmigee]

I sympathize with "Darwin award winners".

They are human beings. In the OP's particular case, human beings whose self worth has been beaten down, whose connections outside of the relationship have been torn apart, whose resources and options have been systematically attacked, and whose identity has been warped to selfish ends by someone else.

If you don't sympathize with "Darwin award winners", then you probably consider that people "get what they deserve", and consider spousal abuse to be not-that-serious a problem (because the abused spouses tend not, without lots and lots of help, to a degree you might consider "Darwin award", to manage to break free).

In which case, you are part of the problem, not the solution.

I think you've just demonstrated exactly the purpose of this thread. You evidentally have a greater grasp of how people end up in this situation, but unless the film can convey that to the other people watching then it has failed to reach them. It has therefore- with respect to these people- failed to deliver it's message. General_Norris is left with that "Darwin Award Winner" impression not due to insensitivity, but due to a poor film. Then in place of a critical discussion come accusations of being "part of the problem"! And this is a discussion about how to have such discussions!

[HungryHobo]

Domestic abuse from the perspective of someone who hasn't had it beaten into them doesn't look all that reasonable. It is actually possible that the purpose of the movie wasn't to entertain?

To someone who hasn't had it beaten into them it looks like someone repeatedly stabbing themselves in the eye with a fork and then other people attack them for viewing that as a monumentally stupid thing to do.
They're not being blindly uncaring, merely having too much respect for human beings without enough experience of people in such a situation.
Namely trusting too much in their ability to think for themselves and assuming people act remotely rationally when in reality human beings often don't.

And the reality is that it is a monumentally stupid thing to do.(mean as that sounds)
It just happens to be a monumentally stupid thing to do which people do anyway because of various factors which stop them from acting with any common sense.
And the frustration that their family and loved ones feel at how they act shouldn't be trivialized either.
such frustration on the part of friends and family members isn't the problem either, it's a perfectly rational reaction on their part if they don't understand why the person is acting in an obviously stupid manner.

If the film fails to get the point across and merely leaves the impression that the main character is a massive idiot without letting the viewer know why they're acting like that then the film has failed not as entertainment but also as an information source.

[MarkSmash]

I can empathize with your predicament in dealing with potential flames. What I find works is to 'prune back' the issue to the point that both sides agree. For your example about a move about domestic violence that sucks, I would proceed as follows:

1. Domestic violence is bad. (Both sides agree)
2. A bad movie is defined as a movie with poor characterization, plot and effects. (Both sides agree)

Step One

1. Does a bad movie about an important issue serve to educate the viewer, or does it damage people's understanding by being facile, trite or unrealistic?

- Because you are dealing with something that is peripheral to the main bone of contention, the argument is pretty respectful. However, it does serve to pen in the arguer by nailing him or her down in the role of a bad movie with respect to the important issue.

Step Two:

By referring to their responses, you can have them concede points based upon deductive logic.

P - You have agreed that a bad movie is one with a movie with poor characterization, plot and effects.
P - This movie has poor characterization, plot and effects.

C - This is a bad movie.

P - You have agreed that a bad movie about an important issue harms (or has the potential to harm) a person's understanding of an important issue.

P - Domestic violence is an important issue.

C - Given that you have agreed that this is a bad movie and that bad movies about important issues harms (or has the potential to harm) a person's understanding of an important issue,

Step 3:

You must therefore agree that this bad movie about domestic violence is a bad movie that harms (or has the potential to harm) a person's understanding of domestic violence, or you must demonstrate why hold an inconsistent view.

Step 4 (The most important step):

Given that we agree that this was not the best movie ever made on this issue, and given that we both agree that this is a very important issue, how can we work together to come up with ideas on what would make this movie better? What choices would we make as the director, actor, writer, camera crew, editor?

========

Personally, I love bad movies for the conversations I have with my friends on what we would do to make it better. My favorite example is Stargate: the Movie. The movie is awesome right up to the point that they enter the Stargate, then it turns sucky really quickly. So the question would be: if you could rewrite the script to cover the point where they go through the Stargate, what kind of story would you tell?