Objections To Dark Entertainment

Modern Western entertainment is dominated on one hand by a desire to make things realistic, morally complex, and somber, all while it is also dominated on the other hand by the desire to make things generally comedic and appealing to the broadest audiences for the sake of money.  These two trends pulling in opposing directions is what hinders the quality of many films in particular when a project is supposed to unite them both, with gaming, literature, and television being less affected by some of the incoherent tones (not that a combination is always incoherent to start with).  Each general tone is better for some stories than others, but it is darker entertainment that predictably gets accused of unnecessarily grim ideas and being more financially risky.

Given that a more lighthearted work is more likely to appeal to a wider audience and bring in more money, darker, more explicitly artistic or philosophical films truly can be riskier, especially since there is more probability of thematic misrepresentation as well.  Rather than superficially lighthearted stories getting criticized as lacking substance, darker stories are also more likely, in today's culture, to be misunderstood as shallow even if they never betrayed important artistic and intellectual foundations.  At least part of this is due to false or fallacious moral ideas about what should and should not be explored or portrayed onscreen.

Far from every work of entertainment needing to be lighthearted or dark, some stories are great fits for either general tone, and both do genuinely illustrate possible sides of life and various important concepts that the other might not highlight.  There is a need for both.  However, the objections of emotionalistic parents, conservative and liberal ideas that form broad cultural attitudes, and the deification of personal preference make it more difficult for dark entertainment to be made and understood enough to achieve financial success.  In all three cases, it is a lack of philosophical competence behind the attitudes towards dark films that motivates the pushback.

Realistic entertainment will certainly sometimes be humorous or light, because humor and peace and lightheartedness are or at least can be parts of life.  Some people are not content to acknowledge that their preference for lighter entertainment does not give them moral authority and does not make light entertainment better than its dark counterpart.  Inside and outside of the church, the only core reason someone would object to dark entertainment because it is dark, as opposed to objecting to specific darker films because of artistic or thematic shortcomings, is because of personal preferences and assumptions about morality and art made on the basis of those preferences.

Aside from the stupidity of philosophical objections to dark entertainment in itself, without this kind of film (or game, book, or show), art tends to shy away from almost any issue pertaining to something that poses a serious threat to human flourishing or deep philosophical examination of the very foundations of epistemology and metaphysics.  After all, most people will not think rationalistically or sincerely about almost anything beyond trivial matters, if anything at all, until unwanted, uncomfortable life circumstances force them to.  It can be personally jarring for some viewers when a dark film is unapologetically committed to its points, but it can also be very culturally helpful.