Empathy (part 1)

I wouldn't want to risk the wrath of John Rodgers of King Fu Monkey by suggesting that there is such a thing as "liberal Hollywood."

If by "Hollywood" we mean the film industry, then we're talking about a profit-chasing, profit-maximizing machine which has only one agenda -- and that agenda has nothing to do with politics or social causes. In that regard, talking about "liberal Hollywood" makes about as much sense as talking about "liberal Wal-mart."

But within and despite that profit-making machine, "Hollywood" also has something to do with telling stories. More often than not, Hollywood seems more interested in selling stories than in telling them, and the business of it is always threatening to swallow up the art of it. But despite all of that Hollywood is, among other things, a community of storytellers. And telling stories requires, among other things, empathy. And empathy, nowadays, is regarded as a "liberal" characteristic.

This is, I think, what so many of those conservative pundits were complaining about when they lamented the supposedly "liberal" and "political" stance of this year's nominees for the Academy Award for best picture. These pictures dared to imagine and express empathy.

This was what made these movies worthy of consideration for best-picture honors. And what made them so frightening to their critics.

If you listened to the conservative commentators commentating on Brokeback Mountain you'd have thought the movie was a political tract conceived and executed by radicalgaypolitical activists promoting their radicalgaypolitical agenda. But that wasn't where this movie came from. It came from Annie Proulx, Larry McMurtry, Ang Lee, Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal -- each of them a storyteller of one kind or another, and each relying, as all storytellers must, on empathy.

The conservative commentators seemed relieved when Crash beat out Brokeback to win the Academy Award.* That film also -- explicitly (maybe even a little too explicitly) -- was an exercise in and meditation on empathy, but it extended that empathy in so many different directions that perhaps it seemed less threatening than the more focused phobia-line-crossing Brokeback.

But even Brokeback Mountain didn't stir up the kind of anger and controversy that two other nominated films did for trespassively extending empathy not just to outsiders, but to enemies. Both Munich and Paradise Now dared to imagine that terrorists are human and that we not only can, but perhaps ought to, try to understand what they are thinking. And for some viewers, that was asking too much.

Empathy is all well and good, within limits.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* The Academy -- a guild of people who are all, again, also storytellers -- is always impressed by, and a bit self-congratulatory about, skillful displays of empathy. Thus Matt Dillon's impressive portrayal of a racist police officer in Crash garnered an Oscar nomination, while Terrence Howard's equally impressive portrayal of a black victim of racist cops in Crash did not. Thus also three nominations this year for straight male actors playing gay men. Both Dillon and Gyllenhaal lost out to George Clooney, who won for playing a character who was neither liberal nor good-looking.

Comments

[Angelika]

I just saw 'Paradise now' last night. - The movie left me without much words for the rest of the evening.
Broadcasting it more widely would probably do a better job in winning the war against terrorism than the present strategy, which basically denies that terrorists might have a reason to act the way they do.

[Jeff]

I know this is off point, but thank you Slacktivist for your thoughtful and wise postings. You provide an island of intelligence and humanity amidst a universe of dreck.
Jeff
And hey, how 'bout that 3-6 Mafia!

[Puck]

I thought Crash was conservative myself - attributing human actions more to nature than to morality or rational choice. In any case I was pleasantly surprised to see it win.

[Erick Oppeen]

In general, the entertainment industry does tilt to the left. There are reasons for this---one of them being the fact that when the modern industry was a'borning, many of the people who made it up came from backgrounds where left-to-hard-left politics were common. Another is that for a long time, the Communist Party was "the only (political) game in town" in Hollywood, according to people who were there. While this didn't lead to explicitly pro-Communist movies, it did ensure that a lot of properties optioned by the studios were never translated to the screen, due to anti-Communist content---and that such explicitly anti-Communist films that were made were quick, cheap and soon forgotten.

Another reason for this, IMNSHO, is guilt. Many big names in entertainment are uneasily aware that luck and/or connections had as much to do with their success as talent, and that many as talented as they are work as waiters to make ends meet. Becoming ostentatiously, showily, leftist is a way to assuage this guilt...they feel like they're doing something for the less fortunate.

And one last reason is, to put it bluntly, ignorance. Check the backgrounds of big names in entertainment, and you will seldom find serious education. Many of them never went to college, and those who did mostly studied lightweight subjects; the Governator is very much an exception to this rule, with his economics degree. They've been cocooned in their little subculture, in many cases, since childhood or youth, and between that and lack of education, they've often not even been exposed to other ideas, or to the idea that the notions they were surrounded with were wrong.

[Emma]

Erick, you do live in an alternative universe, don't you? Communism was the "only political game in town?" I wish I knew that before I watched all those Fred Astaire musicals, not to mention Mickey and Judy and John Wayne. Casablanca, Silk Stockings,Invation of the Body Snatchers, Farenheit 451. They even made The Fountainhead for crying out loud!

[bulbul]

[entering_teacher_mode]
In general, the entertainment industry does tilt to the left.
Evidence, please.

the Communist Party was "the only (political) game in town" in Hollywood
Evidence, please.

Check the backgrounds of big names in entertainment, and you will seldom find serious education.
Examples, please.

So far, it's empty statements without any evidence and doubtful conjectures.
F.
[exiting_teacher_mode]

[John E Thelin]

Poppycock, Erick.

To put it bluntly: being conservative is just not conducive to creating great art. The right-wing fetishizing of strong authority (whether it be governmental or spiritual) and conformism does not tend to foster the kind of creative and ground-breaking thinking that infuses all the best art. And, as Fred notes, storytelling requires empathy, and that's really not the strong suit of those who would blame the poor for their lack of wealth, the sick for their lack of health insurance and the downtrodden for their lack of wherewithal.

As always, there are exceptions, but still, you will find that the artists of almost any nation - even those who are not infused by the spuriously-argued Commie connection of old Hollywood or some imagined guilt of success - lean left-ward. It is the nature of art to reach out and embrace the listener/viewer/reader, and that's a sentiment that's just way too bleeding-heart for young righties who instead channel their talents and skills into business and wealth acquisition. It's pretty self-selecting, and not even through peer pressure.

Ayn Ran, Thomas Kinkade, Dennis Miller, Larry The Cable Guy and others only prove this too well. Art is a liberal sensibility. Live with it.

[John E Thelin]

Yes, I know. Ran_d_.

[cminus]

Check the backgrounds of big names in entertainment, and you will seldom find serious education. Many of them never went to college, and those who did mostly studied lightweight subjects

Okay:

JODIE FOSTER: Began reading at age 3. High school valedictorian. Graduated magna cum laude in literature from Yale.

JAMES WOODS: Reported IQ of 180. 1580 SATs. Attended MIT on a full academic scholarship. Mensa member.

SHARON STONE: Graduated high school at 14, college at 17, B.A. in creative writing and literature. Mensa member.

GEENA DAVIS: B.A. in Fine Arts, Boston University. Mensa member. Semifinalist for U.S. Olympic team in archery.

NATALIE PORTMAN: Currently studying for B.A. at Harvard, pulling down an A average. Plans to become a doctor. Speaks six languages, five fluently.

Yeah, you gotta wonder how they can dress themselves.

(If I wanted to, I could have gone to less important actors and actresses and pulled off some real fireworks: David Duchovny: (BA Princeton, MA Yale),
Mayim Bialik (doctoral candidate in neuroscience, UCLA), or Danica McKellar (summa cum laude graduate from UCLA, up-and-coming math prodigy, co-author of a highly-respected paper on "Percolation and Gibbs State Multiplicity for Ferromagnetic Ashkin-Teller Models in Two Dimensions.")

And, yes, I admit that this is just anecdotal evidence. But until either of us comes up with rigorous evidence, it's what we've got.

[cminus]

Actually, if I were asked to explain the liberal tendency for entertainers to lean left, I'd mention the cost/benefit equation. Although the exceptions are astonishing, the great majority of actors and musicians make very little money for a great deal of work. Most of them give up and get a day job before they get a break; the ones who don't are usually the ones who don't care how little money they're making. And "not caring about how little money I'm making" is not, to put it mildly, a conservative value.

[Rowandoll]

Let's not forget that we wouldn't have cell phones today if not for Heddy Lamar.

[little cicero]

From what I know about Brokeback Mountain, it accomplished to some degree the goal of showing that homosexuals are normal people like anyone else, who are simply attracted to people of the same sex. Regardless of whether this is a good message, it is acknowledged by most who have seen the movie. So while this can be percieved as empathy, it also has the effect of promoting an agenda, which includes the legalization of gay marriage.

Crash had a message speaking out against racism, which is what made it the movie I wanted to win the Oscar, not opposition to Brokeback Mountain. Whereas Brokeback Mountain pushed the gay rights agenda, Crash had an agenda that is much more relevant to Americans as a whole- which is that we should not judge people by superficial features.

So it is not necessarily Left or Right here- just agendas that can be associated with either Left or Right.

This should not by any means be surprising, since all Americans have opinions, and these are not erased upon media membership. Since the media is such an effective tool in distributing opinions, and abolishing injustices, it makes sense for there to be political messages and agendas in movies, but these messages are overwhelmingly "empathetic" to a dangerous degree. There are few movies that will show Palestinian terrorists to be the evil slime that they are. There are many that will encourage empathy for them, and stress their humanity.

[wintermute]

> [W]e should not judge people by superficial features.

I agree entirely. I also happen to think that who you're attracted to is as superficial as the colour of your skin, which is where we seem to differ.

[Axiomatic]

Erick is sort of like a fresh wave of surrealism.

Hollywood deciding to not make a movie because it had Anti-Communist content? Are you sure your name's not Salvador Dali?

[bulbul]

but these messages are overwhelmingly "empathetic" to a dangerous degree.
So you're saying that showing that Palestinian terrorists are human beings who have doubts and can't operate a camera is dangerous. In what way?

[lbb]

Whereas Brokeback Mountain pushed the gay rights agenda

This is an old chestnut, but you walked right into it.

8:00am Breakfast (oatmeal, egg whites and minimosas)
9:00am Hair appointment
10:00am Shopping
12:00pm Brunch
2:00pm
(1) assume complete control of the U.S. federal, state and local governments, as well as all other forms of world government
(2) destroy all healthy marriages
(3) replace all school counselors in grades K-12 with agents from Columbian and Jamaican drug cartels
(4) bulldoze all houses of worship
(5) secure all control of the INTERNET and all mass media
(6) be fabulous
2:30pm mud mask and 40 winks of beauty rest to prevent facial wrinkles from stress of world conquest
4:00pm Cocktails
6:00pm light dinner (soup, salad with romaine, radicchio, argula and balsamic vinaigrette dressing and Pouilly Fuisse)
8:00pm Theatre
10:30pm Do a little dance, make a little love, get down tonight!

And now, rhetorical question du jour: do you straight people know just how utterly dumbass you sound when you talk about "the gay agenda"? If you didn't before you read this comment, you should now; if you still don't know, you're an idjit.

[Beth]

Having seen Brokeback Mountain, I know that it accomplished to some degree the goal of showing that red staters are normal people like anyone else, who simply live in the midwest. Regardless of whether this is a good message, it is acknowledged by most who have seen the movie. So while this can be percieved as empathy, it also has the effect of promoting an agenda, which includes federal handouts to red states. Whereas Brokeback Mountain pushed the red state agenda, Crash had an agenda that is much more relevant to Americans as a whole.

[jhlipton]

Both Munich and Paradise Now dared to imagine that terrorists are human and that we not only can, but perhaps ought to, try to understand what they are thinking.

I'm going to have to be abstract, as the whole philosophy of Paradise Now and Munich offends me, and I have read extensively, on both liberal and conservative blogs, about them, but wouldn't see either .

Only to the extent that any other murderer is human. Is Paradise Now equivalent to Monster? Maybe, but Monster was about a specific real person, the things that happened to her and the horrid things she did as a result. Certainly there was no "she's just misunderstood".

As the bombers are meant to stand in for Palestinians in general, anything that happens to them is a general "code" for the way Palestinians are treated (and only by Israel -- Jordan is always conspicuous by its absence in these films). Thus, we are suppossed to believe that all Palestinians are equally roughly treated and Israel "deserves" what it gets.

Pheh. I think not.

[little cicero]

I should have known better than to speak of the "gay agenda" on this site, but I am speaking of the political agenda: namely same sex marriage and equal adoption priority. By provoking empathy for homosexuals, you are better able to rally support for these planks, both of which I am incidentally against for reasons that will be reserved for another post.

To bulbul, yes, showing terrorists who think of themselves as freedom fighters is dangerous, because they are still terrorists no matter what they or ourselves think of them. People who blow up Israeli civilian buses for the purpose of killing civilians do NOT DESERVE EMPATHY, and neither did those involved in kidnapping Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics.

To wintermute, I agree entirely with you as far as the political and legal side of it (putting aside the moral aspect), but it is my conviction, while still believing that homosexuals are equal and should be treated equally as individuals, that the agenda I mentioned (marriage and adoption) is not good for society for reasons that I will avoid divulging right now to avoid being a troller.

I have no problem with a depiction of homosexuals as normal, but it is the idea that homosexuality is normal that bothers me as a Christian and as an American. It is an alternative sexuality, not a normality. If children see it as a normal route of relationships in our society, it is likely to cause many of them confusion and embarrassment, and this is a very real threat. The only people who should have suspicions that they are homosexual are homosexuals. Compulsory homosexuality can be as hazardous psychologically as compulsory heterosexuality, so it is best that alternative sexualities are in the public eye as little as possible. Of course, it is best that all sexuality is kept out of the public eye, but one problem at a time!

[little cicero]

By the way, I'd like to thank you guys for your kindness and tolerance. As I have found on Last Debate (though Andy has always been kind to me) not all homosexuals deal with my unabridged opposition to their arguments without taking offense. Now that I know I'm welcome here, I will continue to drop by and will try to avoid trolling as much as humanly possible!

[Fred]

lbb --

A chestnut, yes, but worth repeating. See also Mark Fiore:

http://www.markfiore.com/animation/agenda.html

Someday, someone is going to have to explain to me what the straight agenda is.

[wintermute]

> To wintermute, I agree entirely with you as far as the political and legal side of it (putting aside the moral aspect), but it is my conviction, while still believing that homosexuals are equal and should be treated equally as individuals, that the agenda I mentioned (marriage and adoption) is not good for society for reasons that I will avoid divulging right now to avoid being a troller.

I have to admit, I'm a little confused. You "agree entirely" that homosexuals "are equal and should be treated equally", but don't believe that they should be allowed to marry or adopt. Clearly "treated equally" doesn't mean "given the same rights and responsibilities", so what, exactly does it mean?

> I have no problem with a depiction of homosexuals as normal, but it is the idea that homosexuality is normal that bothers me as a Christian and as an American. It is an alternative sexuality, not a normality. If children see it as a normal route of relationships in our society, it is likely to cause many of them confusion and embarrassment, and this is a very real threat. The only people who should have suspicions that they are homosexual are homosexuals. Compulsory homosexuality can be as hazardous psychologically as compulsory heterosexuality, so it is best that alternative sexualities are in the public eye as little as possible. Of course, it is best that all sexuality is kept out of the public eye, but one problem at a time!

You accept that there are people who are homosexual (as opposed to them being mentally ill people who would be heterosexual, if they were cured) and that they are normal people, so it would surely be resonable to say that homosexuality is normal for them. When you say that "[c]ompulsory homosexuality can be ... hazardous psychologically", I think there's no-one here who would dream of disagreeing. I've never heard anyone claim that homosexuality should be compulsory, and it seems to be nothing more than a straw man.

Of course, if compulsory heterosexuality is equally dangerous, then shouldn't children see that being homosexual isn't the only possible route to a healthy relationship? Or do only heterosexuals deserve to have role models? Why shouldn't all sexualities be presented, to reduce confusion and embarrasment amongst those people that you yourself describe as "normal"? Is this part of your philosophy of "equal but not really"?

And thanks for stopping by. Most people here are fairly tolerant and polite, but tempers can run hot, sometimes. But we try not to bite.

[Victoria]

Re: "compulsory homosexuality"

cicero, could you explain what you mean by this term? Are you saying that if homosexuals are allowed to raise children, they will teach/force their children to be gay? Do you have evidence of this currently happening?

(this is anecdotal so I'll keep it parenthetical, but the few people I know raised by same sex parents grew up to be healthy, upstanding members of the *heterosexual* community, I think the only difference is that they have a lot more empathy for gay folks that many straight people do.)

[Duane]

What is compulsory homosexuality? Are we sure we don't mean "compulsive" homosexuality? How does one make homosexuality compulsory? I mean, I can understand how a sexual act can be compulsory but I'm not understanding how one's innate attraction for the opposite sex can be compulsory.

To personalize this, what compulsory steps would be required to make me no longer whirl my head in the mall at a sexy young female in a tight short skirt? I'm sure my wife will want to know as well.

[Doctor Science]

llb --

You didn't tell them about the toasters. Good job concealing the fiendish scope of the G*y Ag*nd*!

cminus:

I think you're right. Don't overlook the fact that what financial security most Hollywood types *do* have is due to unionization. I think this is also why so many college professors are left-leaning: only a crazy person would go into it for the money, but because they're unionized they have good wages, medical insurance, & job security.

[bulbul]

yes, showing terrorists who think of themselves as freedom fighters is dangerous, because they are still terrorists no matter what they or ourselves think of them.
Believe me, I got that first go. I'm just curious about the "dangerous" bit. What is the danger? What is the threat?

[bulbul]

I have no problem with a depiction of homosexuals as normal, but it is the idea that homosexuality is normal that bothers me as a Christian and as an American. It is an alternative sexuality, not a normality.
So would you prefer homosexuality being portrayed as a depravity that it is, but homosexuals being portrayed as normal?

Compulsory homosexuality can be as hazardous psychologically as compulsory heterosexuality, so it is best that alternative sexualities are in the public eye as little as possible.
What the flying frack is "compulsory homosexuality"?
Some time ago, I ranted here about right-wingers and "Christians" who believe that if we allow/decriminalize things like abortion, pot or homosexual sex, we actually prescribe it. Are you one of those people?

If children see it as a normal route of relationships in our society, it is likely to cause many of them confusion and embarrassment, and this is a very real threat.
and
The only people who should have suspicions that they are homosexual are homosexuals.
What you are suggesting is that when kids see gay couples, they might believe themselves to be gay. First of all, this looks very much like the old "violence in the movies makes kids violent" argument. Which, in case you didn't know, is a load of bull. If you are worried your kids might become [insert-abomination-of-your-choice-here], take a look at yourself first. Secondly, kids aren't that impressionable. And thirdly, bedazzled as I am by the phrase "normal route of relationships", I can't help but wonder whether you actually know how this thing called "sexuality" works. Trust me, your kids will find out pretty quickly whether they are gay or not.
The first issue of Playboy I ever got my hands on settled the question once and for all for me (Jenny McCarthy :o). Since then, I have met a lot of homosexuals, even a gay couple married in the Netherlands, and I haven't had any suspicions about being gay at all.
And I'd love to be a pain in the ass, but - what threat? Threat to whom?

[little cicero]

I should have known this question would arise without explanation.

Surely you've heard of cases of "compulsory heterosexuality"- people assume that they are heterosexual because external forces persuade them as such, when in fact they are indeed homosexual.

Confusion occurs to some degree, no matter how minute, in just about everyone's life, but it usually has no bearing. However, if external forces encourage this confusion, it seems that it could, under such circumstances, force homosexuality on that individual. Currently, there is minimal chance of this occurence because homosexuality is not thought of as the "norm" but rather an alternative. However, if the sexual norms of society are dismantled, confusion can lead to any compulsory sexuality. A sensitive, creative kid who is rejected by other classmates might be called gay, hear the steriotypes for gay people, note his discomfort with girls, and assume that he is gay, when in fact he is not. Years of confusion may ruin his life as a result.

For the sake of clarity, we must at least agree that the supermajority of human beings are heterosexual, and a small minority are homosexual.

If that is the case, then it is better that the minority is alienated than the majority, if we're looking at sheer numbers. Compulsory heterosexuality at the very least does not alienate those affected as does compulsory homosexuality.

In short, I do believe that at least a large portion of homosexuals are in fact homosexual as a result of psychological factors, particularly in their childhood. Victims of pedophilia by a same sex offender profoundly often experience sexual confusion, and to a proportionate extent, homosexuality later in life. Considering these tendencies, there are strong arguments for limiting the effects of confusion by way of maintaining the established sexual norms, because there can be nothing more challenging than the alienation of homosexuality. Of course, these norms must hurt homosexuals more than I can imagine, but perhaps part of the solution is to stop discussing sexuality altogether by making compromises on these issues, which I am all for.

[bulbul]

jhlipton: whatever your personal philosophy, I still believe you should see a movie before talking about it. Or were you worried that the movie could actually break through your carefully constructed psychological defenses and you might actually feel something for those f***ing Arabs?

As for comparing Paradise Now and Monster, you're soooooo far off the Hubble telescop can't detect you. Now you either fail to see the difference between the chief protagonists of those movies, or you refuse to see it. Which one is it?

[pharoute]

"compulsory heterosexuality"- people assume that they are heterosexual because external forces persuade them as such, when in fact they are indeed homosexual."

Would that be homosexual youths who having grown up in homophobic households/enviroments suppress themselves so as to not lose the love (such as it is) of parents/family/friends?

[pharoute]

Of course, these norms must hurt homosexuals more than I can imagine, but perhaps part of the solution is to stop discussing sexuality altogether by making compromises on these issues, which I am all for.
Shorter little cicero "If they'd just go back in the closet I'd be much happier..."

[bulbul]

However, if the sexual norms of society are dismantled, confusion can lead to any compulsory sexuality.
And how would this dismantling of society's sexual norms happen? Or do you believe it is already happening? In case you are, I would like to point out what is going on right now (gay marriage etc.), is a process involving legal issues and the relationship between an individual and the state. Society != state. It takes a whole lot more to change society's sexual norms that couple of laws.

A sensitive, creative kid who is rejected by other classmates might be called gay, hear the steriotypes for gay people, note his discomfort with girls, and assume that he is gay, when in fact he is not.
See my Playboy comment above.
Also, should that happen, I would blame this kid's parents. Where were they when they were supposed to provide emotional support and guidance?

In short, I do believe that at least a large portion of homosexuals are in fact homosexual as a result of psychological factors, particularly in their childhood. Victims of pedophilia by a same sex offender profoundly often experience sexual confusion, and to a proportionate extent, homosexuality later in life.
So you are saying that at least a large portion of homosexuals are victims of sexual abuse?
If you are, I would like to ask you to back your claims up. I take any respected (i.e. non-partisan, non-political) journal of psychology, pediatry and/or related fields.
Same goes for this belief of yours. I for one believe I will have another cigar. Why? Because I feel so and my humidor is nearly full. What is your belief based on?

there are strong arguments for limiting the effects of confusion by way of maintaining the established sexual norms
And I ask you, what arguments are these, yeah?
Why are you trying to protect the kids/us/yourself from confusion? Don't you believe we are stronger and smarter than that? Don't you believe we can make this one choice for ourselves?
And finally, just a quick thought: who should protect the sexual norms? How do you want to make us stop discussing sexuality? And is it Die Fahne Hoch I hear in the background?

[bulbul]

One more thing re Paradise Now:
showing terrorists who think of themselves as freedom fighters
How do you differentiate between the two?

[pharoute]

"Freedom Fighters" are terrorists; see Central America/Sri Lanka/Gaza etc...

[Beth]

Fortunately, little cicero, God foresaw the dangers you described and gave to humanity a wonderful gift to protect us from them. He gave us sexual desire, which provides each of us with a compass which points unerringly to our sexual true north. Of course during adolescence and other periods of crisis the needle can swing wildly, but those episodes are mercifully brief. The real danger is that people will supress their sexual desires, rendering the compass useless. These people can easily fall prey to exactly the sexual coersion you described.

So here's a modest suggestion: Don't waste your time on gay marriage. People are going to have homosexual relationships even without it, and other people will continue to see them as normal, even if they can't file joint tax returns. If you really want to fight sexual coersion, you have to strike at the root. Begin a campaign to encourage everyone to experience their sexual feelings to the fullest. Help them to get in touch with their desires, and to explore what turns them on and what turns them off. If they do that, they will be safe. No amount of coersion will be able to shake them from their true sexual orientation.

[Noah Brand]

I'm finding this discussion fascinating, not for the gay issues, which I think are mostly a flashy distraction, but for the core issue of empathy. I'm a screenwriter currently working on a script about people trying to come to terms with an act of terrifying violence, and one of the things I have to do is approach it from every character's perspective, understanding how it would affect each one of the different people in the story. This is a basic, minimal requirement of the job I'm doing, not anything special. Anyone trying to tell a story at a professional level has to do this.

Lee Marvin, legend has it, was once asked how he felt about having played so many bad guys in his career. He responded that he'd never once played a bad guy. He played guys trying to get through their day, hard guys, guys who maybe had to get a little tough when things didn't go their way, but never a bad guy. He was right. Nobody is the villain of their own movie, and Lee Marvin's bad guys are so awesome and memorable because he knew that.

There's one comment I want to respond to in particular: "To bulbul, yes, showing terrorists who think of themselves as freedom fighters is dangerous, because they are still terrorists no matter what they or ourselves think of them. People who blow up Israeli civilian buses for the purpose of killing civilians do NOT DESERVE EMPATHY, and neither did those involved in kidnapping Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics."

little cicero, empathy is not a prize. It's not something you give to people you approve of because you think they deserve it. It's a human characteristic, one we reject at our own peril. It's how we understand things we would otherwise not understand, and understanding problems is how we begin to solve them. Empathy is what makes us human, and is the core of all Western morality. Ditching that because we're scared does not make us stronger, it makes us weaker.

Moreover, I am concerned by the assumptions behind your acknowledgment that terrorists do think of themselves as freedom fighters, but should not be portrayed as thinking of themselves that way. If your viewpoint can only be sustained by suppressing the truth, that does not speak well of your viewpoint.

[Mnemosyne]

Only to the extent that any other murderer is human. Is "Paradise Now" equivalent to "Monster"? Maybe, but "Monster" was about a specific real person, the things that happened to her and the horrid things she did as a result. Certainly there was no "she's just misunderstood".

That's a pretty restrictive comparison: are we only allowed to compare the fictional "Paradise Now" to movies that feature stories of real-life murderers? Why are we not allowed to compare it to "The Silence of the Lambs" or "Se7en" or "Manhunter"?

If you're just comparing Academy-Award winning movies, "Silence" is a far better point of comparison than "Monster" since it's only the third movie in Academy history to win all four of the top awards (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor and Best Actress).

And if you think that real-life murderers are never portrayed sympathetically, I guess you missed "The Boston Strangler" with Tony Curtis, to name just one example.

[Beth]

showing terrorists who think of themselves as freedom fighters
How do you differentiate between the two?

Terrorists are defined by their tactics (targeting civilians to create terror), while freedom fighters are defined by their goal (liberation from an oppressive government). Someone can be a terrorist, a freedom fighter, both or neither.

It's possible to show characters sympathetically without encouraging people to to emulate them. The Boston Strangler did that. I haven't seen Paradise Now, so I can't say whether it did or not.

[John E Thelin]

That little cicero guy has some serious issues to work through. I wonder what caused his confusion. I mean, we have to get rid of that, right?

[Sophist]

Erick Oppeen: And one last reason is, to put it bluntly, ignorance. Check the backgrounds of big names in entertainment, and you will seldom find serious education.

So, despite the fact that pretty much all current information shows a strong correlation between level of education and degree of "liberalness", your contention is that people in Hollywood are liberal because they are undereducated? Interesting.

jhlipton: As the bombers are meant to stand in for Palestinians in general, anything that happens to them is a general "code" for the way Palestinians are treated (and only by Israel -- Jordan is always conspicuous by its absence in these films). Thus, we are suppossed to believe that all Palestinians are equally roughly treated and Israel "deserves" what it gets.

Let me guess--anything that happens to a gay person in a movie is also code for what happens to all gays, right? All characters are cypher-stand ins for their race/sex/nationality/orientation/religion/perferred underwear type? No one is ever just portraying an individual member of that particular whatever, are they?

Oy, gevalt!

little cicero: Surely you've heard of cases of "compulsory heterosexuality"- people assume that they are heterosexual because external forces persuade them as such, when in fact they are indeed homosexual.

Yes. Usually those external forces consist of blatant homophobia/the threat of violence/the assurance that being gay will cause you to burn in hell. Unless you are contending that gays will bring similar pressure to bear if homosexuality becomes "normal", the assertion that tons of impressionable kids will be forced into homosexualty is laughable. Bring me some proof that straight kids will be shunned/dissowned/denied housing/denied jobs/beaten to death simply for coming out to/coming on to/being outed to the wrong person, and you might have the beginnings of a case that a not-trivial number of people might feel pressure to be gay.

A sensitive, creative kid who is rejected by other classmates might be called gay, hear the steriotypes for gay people, note his discomfort with girls, and assume that he is gay, when in fact he is not. Years of confusion may ruin his life as a result.

If only this sort of thing happened now, we could see how kids deal with it. Oh, wait, it happens all the time. And guess what -- even when the kid actually is gay, he or she generally hides that fact. Funny, that's exactly the opposite of what you said might happen. Odd, that.

Considering these tendencies, there are strong arguments for limiting the effects of confusion by way of maintaining the established sexual norms...

"[M]aintaining the established sexual norms" is a weasly euphamism. Please explain what exactly that entails? Punnishment? Phycological treatment? How exactly would you go about convincing someone who is attracted to poeple of the same sex to be straight, while at the same time assuring them that they are normal? I'd love to hear you ideas for squaring that circle.

[Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little]

I have no problem with a depiction of homosexuals as normal, but it is the idea that homosexuality is normal that bothers me as a Christian and as an American.

"And as an American"? Did I miss something? When did being squicked out by TEH GAY become a defining characteristic of Americans?

Speaking also an American, and therefore a lover of liberty, defender of equal rights, and supporter of the First Amendment and its Establishment clause, I am not bothered one bit by the idea that homosexuality is normal and that homosexuals are normal people.

People who blow up Israeli civilian buses for the purpose of killing civilians do NOT DESERVE EMPATHY

You're confusing empathy with sympathy.

Sympathy is something we do for others. We sympathize with their plight. We offer our sympathies. People who blow up Israeli civilian buses might have at one time, before the deed, deserved our sympathy for the injustices they've suffered, but when they respond to injustice by perpetrating more injustice, they lose the right to expect our sympathy. So. Agreed.

Empathy is something we do for ourselves. We empathize with others so as to better understand them. We "walk a mile in their shoes" and come away with a better comprehension of what their motives and goals are. Empathy is not something one deserves or merits. We empathize, or ought to, with the people blowing up the buses so that we can understand why they did it and thus have a better idea how to address the situation they cause.

Among many there is a knee-jerk tendency to go apeshit upon reading the above. "Understand why they did it? Why should we care why they did it? You want us to give the terrorists what they want? You awful terrorist-sympathizing poopy-head, you!" These people have probably heard the phrase, "Know thine enemy," but have forgotten how to apply it. Thus they lose the ability to react wisely to the actions of their enemies--and they don't even know why.

[bad Jim]

Anymore it seems that most of our top actors have been to film school, which is why, when they're not acting, they're writing, directing or producing, and why they and their friends keep making independent films for fun. If anything it seems that we have the most highly-educated bunch of film makers in history.

[wintermute]

little cicero: People have beaten me to it, but I'll say it anyway.

Sometimes homosexuals grow up in an environment that teaches that homosexuality doesn't exist, and that it would be a sin, if it did exist. Some of these homosexuals (but by no means all) buy into that, and the term "compulsory heterosexuality" is a fair one for what they go through. After all, they have no choice in the matter. Or at least they believe that they don't.

You're suggesting that telling people that homosexuality exists will lead heterosexuals to believe that they have no choice but to be homosexual. I have to admit, I find that leap to be a little far. Surely, the far more likely outcome is that an environment of tolerance, understanding and openness would lead to everyone being better able to come to terms with their own sexuality.

The problem is one of fear and ignorance, and you cannot fight ignorance by giving people less information.

[bellatrys]

Moreover, I am concerned by the assumptions behind your acknowledgment that terrorists do think of themselves as freedom fighters, but should not be portrayed as thinking of themselves that way. If your viewpoint can only be sustained by suppressing the truth, that does not speak well of your viewpoint.

Bulbul, that's an *extremely* common conservative attitude, not limited to the arts. In fact, encountering that, and being forced to admit that - contrary to what I had been told we conservative Catholics believed - helped push me out of the fold, or folds; there was the Index of Forbidden Books, so much for us being the champions of rationality and philosophical argument boldly facing all comers; there was the ongoing argument for censorship of "blasphemous" movies like Life of Brian and Last Temptation and Mission, as well as violent/obscene films; there was the ongoing preference of summaries of disapproved authors' beliefs, instead of actual quotes, and when their actual words were used, it was in such small snippets that they were out of context, to "protect" impressionable young readers from dangerous ideas, I guess - and of course that backfired, when I actually did chance across some Mill, and was hooked, and couldn't figure out why he was on the Avoid list, since even if you disagreed with him on, say, religion, he made good arguments that needed to be addressed.

Then, politically, you have the spirit most lately embodied in the conservative political intelligensia's list of the "Most Dangerous Books" - books which corrupt the youth of Athens - including not just the Communist Manifesto but also as a runner-up, Mill's On Liberty. Critical thinking and questioning the unspoken premises of society? Bedod, can't be having that!

But the whole "truth should be kept out of sight if politically inconvenient" thing is there in the ever-popular Plato's Republic, and I actually encountered it in an online argument years ago with a guy who said first that the depiction of US soldiers in WWII as ever afraid or individuals behaving dishonorably or incompetently was necessarily a lie; then when challenged with documentary evidence, said that even if the plot was taken directly from historical records and autobiographies, even if it showed only individual officers being clueless and concerned only for their fame, not the lives of their men, *as* individuals, even if it showed *other* soldiers being humane and heroic - still such a film should not be made, because on some essential level it was a lie and it would mislead the youth of America into thinking that the Greatest Generation was flawed and fearful and human just like us, the leaders petty and venal and uninformed, instead of mythic godlike figures to be emulated without questioning.

Which is exactly the argument that comes up in Plato for banning the reading of Homer, since the Iliad portrays Achilles and Agamenon as selfish and petty fools, and the gods as selfish, petty, foolish meddlers, and Odyssey is even worse...and this won't inspire young people to sign up for the Republic's army, nor to accept orders from the elite unquestioningly.

Conservative=holding on to past power structures, after all.

[bulbul]

Bellatrys: I do not believe you are responding to my comments. However, I do believe you are right.

[Gravity]

Posted by: little cicero:
I should have known better than to speak of the "gay agenda" on this site, but I am speaking of the political agenda: namely same sex marriage and equal adoption priority. By provoking empathy for homosexuals, you are better able to rally support for these planks, both of which I am incidentally against for reasons that will be reserved for another post.
----------------------------------------------------

But… okay. Let me explain a little bit about me.

My wife and I get up at 5 and shower.
Take my vitamins.
Cereal for breakfast.
I see my wife off at 6:15 and she leaves to walk in to work to manage the local dry cleaning shop.
I browse around on the internet.
I leave to walk in to work at 7:30.
I do my administrative job.
Lunch at 11 at my desk. Snack at 3:30.
I get out at 4:30. My wife, who got out of work at 1, walks over from our apartment to pick me up from work.
I lock the place up and we walk home together.
I make dinner.
We talk about our days and watch a movie or TV show with supper.
I feed the cats and check the ferret’s food and water.
Bed for us by 9 pm.

This is my life. Every weekday the same. What does it matter that we are a two-woman couple instead of a woman and a man couple? It’s just the same sort of stuff. We’ve been together for 14 years, since high school, and I love her more every single day.

What breaks my heart is the thought that there are couples out there that want children, and there are unwanted children making their way through foster care and in orphanages and in other forms of state care, and the two can’t be united because the couple who wants to adopt is a same-sex couple. Seems to me that if the kid is old enough to object and it’s okay with the kid, it’s a non-issue. Family is family and love is love, and if there is a chance to take a couple who are missing a piece and a child who is missing a piece and fit them together, we are compelled by a simple sense of right to do so.

When you weigh the damage of a series of foster homes or growing up without a family against the possibility of teasing… I don’t see a comparison, really. If the adoptive home turns out to be abusive or otherwise damaging, the child should be removed no matter the composition of the couple. Sexual orientation really should not come into it at all.

I’m privileged to live in Vermont. My wife and I got our Civil Union papers on July 1st, 2000 – the first day that we could do so – and if we wished, we would be considered by the state just as a straight couple would be for adoption – or to be a foster family, for that matter. I assure you that there has not been a huge explosion of abuse cases since that became the case.

I honestly don’t see what your objection could logically be to giving people the right to marry the person that they love or the right to save a child who would otherwise not have a family, loving or caring. It should be celebrated when a couple wishes to love a child that someone else created instead of creating one of their own - which yes, even gays are capable of - when there are so many unloved children in the world.

[cjmr]

"freedom fighters" vs. terrorists

Best defintion of this difference I've ever seen came from a Capitol Steps (or maybe Mark Russell) sketch back in the 80s.

If the goal of the group is one that the American government is against, we call them terrorists. If the goal of the group is one that the American government supports, we call them freedom fighters.

Mind you, they probably all think that they are freedom fighters. And their victims would most certainly agree that they are all terrorists.

-----

Oh, and, well said, Gravity. I happen to agree with you--despite the fact that I'm 1) het and 2) Catholic.

[Andy]

Honestly I am delighted that Little Cicero took my recommendation to start reading this amazing blog, and that he opened this can of worms. He has a tendency to make broad, sweeping assertions of universal absolutes based on a post he read on Free Republic or Little Green Footballs. I have been arguing with him on this topic (and more) on my own blog for months now; I hope he continues to read and contribute here and learn that Christianity is diverse and intellectual (or can be). His statement that terrorists do not deserve empathy is emblematic of his core confusion about what our faith means. His statement that homosexuals as individuals should be treated with fairness yet as a group discriminated against by law and society is representative of his inability to reconcile his ideology with reality. Having gone back and forth with him for a while now, though, I can say he's bright and curious and shows tremendous potential as a thinker if he can just expand his personal resources beyond Fox News and the RNC talking points.

[Gravity]

That's all I ask for - someone to listen. I'm happy to share about my life and my experiences when someone is willing to listen with an open heart.

I think that it's very important to not be scared.
Familiarity can show us when there isn't anything to be scared of.
Research on a topic can show us when our fears are baseless or our assumptions are not true.

This is growing, this is life.

[Gravity]

I do also belive that this applies to everything - even terrorists.
Someone didn't come to the idea "hey - today, I'm going to be a terrorist!"
They have their motivations, reasons and life. Each and every person who has done violence to us is an individual. They have a family and friends. They have felt love. They have had a first kiss. They have been terrified. They feel fear. And because of what they have been told and believe to be true, they think that what they are doing is the only way or the best way.
They are not made out of cardboard. This person who is harming us could be you or could be me, were our lives different.