Art and Moral Responsibility
Ok. I would like to start off by mentioning I have not thought this post through in the least. This is an immediate reaction to an article I just read. (You can read for yourself at http://www.addicted.com/articles/?ID=239)
Basically, Disney is no longer going to allow smoking to appear in their films, and they are discouraging their subsidiaries like Touchstone and Miramax to do the same. I honestly can't believe a company in the world of art (or "art" I suppose) could honestly enforce a blanket policy like this. The MPAA is already under great amounts of pressure to figure smoking into their rating system, and this will probably intensify the pressure. (Casablanca and Breakfast at Tiffany's and Citizen Kane now all rated X!)
I agree that artists have a moral responsibility to the public they serve, but they also have a responsibility to their vision. Take violence, for instance. Some films obviously will have great amounts of violence to get their point across. (Can you imagine a G-rated Saving Private Ryan?) Other films may just senselessly encourage violence. Take your pic of whichever movie you want.
The reality is that smoking exists and certain types of people (and therefore certain types of characters) are going to smoke. Not to mention, this isn't even the biggest threat in the United States these days. If you're going to ban cigarettes, should you be banning McDonald's? Burger King? After all, obesity and heart disease are the real leading killers in this country.
I suppose I shouldn't be shocked at Disney's decision. They cater to a safe, family crowd who doesn't always try to understand art and the medium of film.
To sum it up, Disney is censoring any film maker who works with them to score some politically correct points with families. It's rather sad, but that's life.
posted by jMoney at 8:15 PM
2 comments:
I suppose I shouldn't be shocked at Disney's decision. They cater to a safe, family crowd who doesn't always try to understand art and the medium of film.
To sum it up, Disney is censoring any film maker who works with them to score some politically correct points with families. It's rather sad, but that's life.
i'd have to say that your statement isn't completely true. have you forgotten about gay pride day? families have been protesting that as long as i've been alive, and it still exists, and they refuse to change that (and i say kudos to disney on the decision).
i can understand about the smoking thing when it is a child's movie. other than getting lung cancer from smoking yourself, you can cause cancer in others by secondhand smoke. so, by discontinuing the promotion of smoking in younger films or family films, they're just trying to keep fewer kids from lighting up so early.
anyways, not necessarily a blatant objection, but just a thought that disney isn't just catering to families. and if walt disney were still alive, it would probably be much more open-minded.
Disney produces much more than children's films. I'm not terribly upset that there will be no smoking in the next needless sequel to Lilo and Stitch or Aladin, but I have major problems with their pressuring Miramax and Touchstone.
Smoking is a perfectly legal activity and shouldn't be so targeted needlessly by a corporation. It's not like Disney cartoons are full of people puffing away anyway.
Good point about gay pride though. Disney hasn't bowed to the religious right there.
Post a Comment
<< Home