Defining what isn't art

(Yeah, I’m sorry about last night’s post. It was pretty bad. That’s what happens when I try to write and watch a football game at the same time.)

A bad joke to start things off…

“So, did you go see King Kong over the weekend?”
“Hell no. You think that I’m going to sit through a three hour movie about gay cowboys?”

Amazingly, that’s my own joke. You’ll hear it in all of the monologues this week though trust me. But it does give me a segue into a topic that has been in the press where I could add my ten dollars Canadian and that is whether the themes in movies are reflecting the morals of modern society.

This is starting from something I heard on CNN this morning. Obviously, there is some controversy regarding Brokeback Mountain, which, let’s face it, actually is about gay cowboys. This means that there are the typical protests on how horrible it is that there is this embracing of homosexual culture by Hollywood and that while liberal cities (defined as New York, LA and Chicago) may embrace it, the rest of the country will not. Tied to this is the argument that Hollywood should make films that are more in tune with the morals and viewpoints of mainstream society.

It is that last point that is really sticking in my head because of what it implies. If you follow that to its logical conclusion then all art should be what the average person would agree with and enjoy. Defining art is incredibly difficult but I’m pretty sure that the opposite of art is “something that the average person would agree with and enjoy.” The entire point of being creative is to address stories on the fringes and to use uncommon situations to expose universal truths. It is not to present some bland, lifeless, uncontroversial material. Sure, that might make money but it is not art. Plus, as long as we still live in a capitalistic society (and hopefully a democratic one) you get to vote with your pocketbook. If you find a movie about cowboys who spend a little too much time together offensive then simply don’t go. Everyone gets to make their own choice even if you might not agree with it. I wish that more people could understand that principle.

The same segment brought up the rise in Christian imagery in film. Or at least the realization of such imagery. This was all started by The Passion (which really shouldn’t fall under imagery given that it is The Passion) and is brought up now by The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe. It’s interesting hearing a critic state “I didn’t know there was religious symbolism in the story.” Wow, so the lion sacrificing itself and then being reborn had no resonance with you whatsoever? I caught that and I was nine at the time. I actually support this trend not so much in that there should be religious symbolism in films but that people really need to recognize it. In really good works of art, in most creative efforts, at the core there is often symbolism. If this causes people to look beyond the surface I am all for it. Let’s face it, within the Bible is the basis for basically every plot ever written. Except for the one about the magical pair of jeans that is passed amongst a group of friends. That may be the first original idea in a thousand years.