I think by "one dimensional" they meant "had no depth of character". Whilst that was a pretty cool film, that was some of the most wooden acting I've ever seen. Even Rambo 4 had more depth of character than Act of Valor.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
A question about morality and media
- Thread starter burk48237
- Start date
I think by "one dimensional" they meant "had no depth of character". Whilst that was a pretty cool film, that was some of the most wooden acting I've ever seen. Even Rambo 4 had more depth of character than Act of Valor.
While there are certainly cultural issues, I'm not sure I accept the premise. England has a higher violent crime rate just not as many murders. Russia, Brazil, and Mexico all have higher murder rates. It isn't just guns (at least not legally owned firearms), because the correlation between the concentrations of legally owned guns in the US and gun crime is almost inverse.
60% of all rural households own firearms, 42% of all suburban households, and just 30% of all urban households own legal guns. And yet the violent crime figures are more than reversed. Also if you took drug gangs and war on drugs shootings out of the equitation I suspect the US would be mid pack in murder rates.
Mexico and Brazil both have very strict gun laws and far higher gun murder rates. I suspect that the real gun violence problem in the US (far more than the occasional mass shooting subject of this thread) is gang-drug violence problem. And for the record on multiple occasions drug gangs in the US have been caught doing there own firearms importing, so their guns were never even in the system.
But to regress, I suspect our mass shooting problem (a different problem than our gun violence problem) has different roots. And the issues are far more rooted in culture and mass media. It's interesting that China has had several incidents of school "knifings" some very deadly. So the phenomenon is similar, the tool different.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-riddle-of-the-gun
There's nothing black and white about war, why should it be depicted that way in movies
I'm not suggesting that any side is perfect in a war. But when it comes to WW II Nazis evil is an absolute, I have no problem with. Although to be fair, our "ally" Stalin may have been worse. But he wasn't exporting his evil at the time. And WW II was a necessity, while it maybe could have been prevented in 38 by Chamberlin, it certainly couldn't have been prevented by the time Hitler invaded Poland. Hitler wasn't going to negotiate at the League of Nations (if it was still around), and sanctions weren't going to solve anything.
War isn't always the answer, but their have certainly been plenty of times when goals like ending slavery, destroying a truly evil empire or stoping a madman it was the only answer to the question at hand.
Despite our rosy unrealistic assumptions to the contrary there are times in human history when violence is the only way to stop a greater violence. When Adam Lanza showed up at Newton, they didn't call conflict resolution managers, or violence deescalation specialists. They called violent men with guns (we call them policeman). Because many times the only way to stop a bad man with a gun is a good man with a gun. The same is true, when the bad man had Stukas, Panthers, Migs or RPG's.
Now some of those cops at Newton may have eaten too many Donuts and had (gasp) high cholesterol, some may have cheated on their taxes, or kicked their dogs. But why does Holllywood feel it has to tell that side of the story every time?
If I remember right, wasn't one of the big pitches for that flick that the "actors" were actual Special Operators?
While that's true to a point, I'm not sure it was essential to the plot. The story wasn't about them as much as what they do. Although that movie needed far more Rosalyn Sanchez.
And as far as Rambo, are you dissin Stalone? The Greatest actor of our time?
Why is it nearly impossible to find any drama in prime time TV and most popular movies where there is any "moral" to the story except that there is no moral to the story?
Because there is no market for it.
If there is money to be made making a show like that - someone will make it.
But to me at some point our media moguls need to answer for some of this stuff. Why is it nearly impossible to find any drama in prime time TV and most popular movies where there is any "moral" to the story except that there is no moral to the story?
Yep, straight-up capitalism in action there.
One has a better chance of finding higher-quality programs on PBS, but the folks who complain about morality on TV are typically opposed to that network.
Because film is a creative medium and it's a creative medium that makes money when it reaches audience expectations. Audiences today want nuance and subtlety (as far as those things can exist in any big Hollywood film), and the studios are going to produce less didactic films with fewer two-dimensional characters to accommodate those audiences and get more money.
If you simultaneously dislike the moral message of this media, and believe in a free market, you have to put all of the blame for it on consumers rather than on the producers of the film, videogames, music, etc. because the producers are only giving the customers what they want. A film maker in the US can either try to be an artist or try to make money. If you want to find moral lessons that please you, track down the artists at film festivals and art-house theaters and sort through them until you find a camp that is "black and white" enough. If you want to watch big productions, understand that the only responsibility of those filmmakers, moral or otherwise, is to make as much money as possible. The same is true for video games, music, and every other medium.
If you want to change that fact, you should address the consumers of media rather than the producers. In this ccase, supply will follow demand and not vice-versa.
I heard an interesting report on the radio a few months back about how the lyrical content and the sad or happy (usually major or minor) key of chart-topping pop songs have become increasingly at odds with one another over the last 50 years. Listeners now prefer the nuance that comes with happy lyrics over a melancholy melodies, while, in the '60s, they preferred songs that were unambiguously happy or sad.
Oh, Matticus, would you mind stopping by my Facebook and checking out my "Celebrity Crushes of 2012" Note? I was hoping that someone would comment on it, but I don't think people pay attention to Notes on FB anymore (not that they ever really did).
I'll try and remember to check it out when I have some time.
Yeah, other than the lead actor, I think all the other actors in the film were actual Seals (but not DevGru). I quite liked the film, but I am not surprised that it didn't receive any awards for the acting!
And as far as Rambo, are you dissin Stalone? The Greatest actor of our time?
Not at all, Rambo 4 may well be one of the best action films of the last 10 years. Absolutely cracking film.
Not all of the individuals involved in Nazism were monsters. So why not a story about those who were good people while in the bad people's camp? Nothing is black and white.
I'm not sure I agree, I can think of one show on Prime time that does pretty well and manages to have a moral to the story on many episodes. (Blue Bloods- highest rated show on Fri Nights). I still think this has more to do with the morals (or lack of them) of the decision makers at the studios. Remember pilots don't air and movies don't get funded if those decision makers don't like them.
And for many Hollywood actors and actresses along with directors and producers it would be a real "acting stretch" to play a real good guy. A lot of them have private lives that aren't so "good".
I remember years ago in the 80's there was a movie introduced that was almost universally panned by the critics for not having a nuanced moral tone. Chariots of Fire went on to win best pictures and had huge box office success. The exceptions kind of make you wonder why their aren't more of them.
Sure there is still good and bad, and right and wrong. Good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things. It doesn't matter if the person is "good" or "bad", their actions are independent of this.
Who were the non-monsters who were "involved" in Nazism?
Seriously, an entire nation, and a culturally refined progressive one at that, listened to a madman create an enemy to blame for all of their problems (the Jews) and the nation bought into it. And those that didn't acquiesced to it in the early years when it could have been derailed. When Good men keep silent........
While I'm not saying every German wanted death camps, the reality is they saw Kristelnacht and as a nation stayed silent. While I'm sure many figured, they weren't Jewish (Gypsy, Gay, etc) so Hitler wasn't coming for them. For the most part among the adults there were two classes of citizens in Nazi Germany, the true believers and those in denial. I can't excuse either one.
...but there are LOTS of decision makers.
Do you think the folks making decisions at networks like ABCFamily use the same criteria?
How about the folks at the Christian Broadcasting Network?
Your complaint seems to be not that theses shows don't exist - but that they don't exist in popular, mainstream media.
That is because the people running popular mainstream media don't see a big market for it - and if there IS a big market for it, folks like CBN will rake in that money.
Rambo 4 was insane. Kinda surprised that they got away with so much violence. The others were pretty tame compared to Rambo 4.
