I don’t know if you have a feeling that when we watch a movie or TV show, especially one that is considered a classic, we often get caught up in a conflict of values. This contradiction manifests itself in a direct conflict between the values of normal life and those of the film or television. And this conflict is inevitable, but also difficult to eliminate.
As the creator of a film or television production, it is natural to create a value guide for the work, and the next step is to design the characters and plot according to these values. Ultimately, when a work is presented to us, we unconsciously follow the creator’s lead to understand the environment in which the protagonist is living, and then we become a part of it.
The end result is that we will most likely think that the protagonist’s behavior is fine. However, when we pull ourselves out of the film, we realize that the values in the film are not the same as the values in reality. Therefore, a contradiction arises. This contradiction is especially prominent in many crime movies, including one type of movie, the thief movie, which itself has a hesitation of values.
Early on in the film and television genre, we are likely to see that the thief doesn’t end up well, and that evil cannot triumph over justice. Over time, however, this value has become more and more suspect. And the basis of that doubt is that people are tired of seeing it.
So, when a movie ends with justice, we often see boredom, but instead, when the criminal forces finally triumph, the audience is willing to applaud, even if the act itself is against the rules of normal life. Because it is a maverick, it is a different experience than before.
But is this experience always right? Let’s talk about it through the movie we are recommending to you today. The film is called “The Big Deal” and it is about a thief who commits a theft.
The film stars some very good actors, Robert Droney, Edward Norton, and Marlon Brando (although not recognized by many people), and together these three actors are able to destroy the world. As a result, the quality of this film is good. This one is about a thief who works well with a petty thief and ends up stealing a priceless treasure.
The whole movie is about the intense process of the theft, and this process determines the focus of the movie itself, which is to take you through a thrilling experience. After watching it, you will feel that the director has achieved his goal.
At the same time, it raises the question of what kind of values we uphold when we sympathize with the thieves in this film. Obviously, it’s awkward to discuss this issue, because the causes of these problems are simple, but the results are contradictory. For a movie about theft, the director naturally wants to put everyone in the protagonist’s shoes, which naturally leads to a shift in values.
When we see two thieves going to steal something, we can clearly see the wrongness of such a thing. However, when we see more comparisons between the thieves, our attention tends to shift from the theft itself to the contrast in character or behavior between the thieves.
A couple of thieves stealing something is immediately perceived by the viewer as wrong and criminal. However, the contrast in values between these thieves is such that one thief is able to do justice, while the other thief violates justice and wants to kill one of them.
In this way, attention is immediately diverted, and the focus is no longer on the theft, but on the discussion of values between the two thieves.
It is easy to come to the conclusion which thief is wrong, which thief is right, and so on. If we follow this line of thinking, we can easily enter the director’s frame of reference, and entering the director’s frame of reference means that our values in reality no longer work.
Ultimately, we end up watching a movie and then we are confused. Why is the character in the film stealing, while I expect the thief to succeed. At this point, our values are confused. This is the root of the problem that has been emphasized in film and television. Should we diversify our films or should we be strict in our ideas and themes?
When people talk about SARFT, they always emphasize the disadvantages of banning certain films, but they overlook the important point that any form of film or television work that has mass distribution is a form of guidance. It’s not objective to talk about the diversity of these films and TV shows in spite of this guiding meaning.
The reason why the crime genre has rarely been touched in recent years is that the means of committing a crime as revealed in the film gives guidance to the potential offender. This ultimately makes it more difficult for the police to solve crimes.
Another example is variety shows or films with controversial content. The reason why they are controversial is because the values in them conflict with our real values. Part of the reason for this is to imitate the lifestyle and values of the movies and TV shows, and there are consequences.
To go back to the original question, the essential reason why crime movies, theft movies, are so contradictory is because of the ambiguity of the values in the film, it is not only the treasure that God stole, but also our justice along with it.
Recent Comments