It can be very clear upon analyzing a work of entertainment if the more substantial aspects, or at least ideas that hint at genuine depth, were probably included naturally out of a concern for truly understanding concepts or out of a shallow desire to appear more sophisticated and important than the work turned out to be. The way themes are used, which things are given priority, and how coherent the different parts of the project are can be indicators of how sincere and deep the themes truly are. It is certainly possible to approach a story with high artistic and philosophical intentions born from rationality, sincerity, and general depth and still simply fail to execute things well, but these three elements of a work are still sometimes evidence for or against the intellectual competence of its creators.
Something like The Matrix, Prometheus or Saw was made to intentionally explore philosophical issues. Whether or not the artistic quality or lack of quality in specific aspects of those films had turned out differently, their philosophical cores would have been the same; one explores the fact that sensory experiences alone are not proof one is perceiving the world of matter as it is, one is self-admittedly, at least according to the director, made in part because of his fascination with the issue of humanity's origins, and the other is so creative and riddled with moral and existential ideas that someone would almost have to care about them to include so many, as well as to make them so consistently prominent in a way that enhances the storytelling. This is not true of a work of entertainment where philosophical ideas are addressed poorly or inaccurately because they were only there to give an illusory or shallow sense of weight to the plot.
Ironically, the director of Saw later helmed the very intellectually lackluster Aquaman, and whether the finished movie would have been artistically and thematically superior if the original plans for Justice League had not been butchered, it just very lightly dipped its toes into issues like ocean pollution, using them as undeveloped ways to reach desired story beats. While Saw is genuinely philosophical and thoughtful, Aquaman is a superficial disaster of a movie when it comes to almost anything beyond visuals and action spectacle. This is how the differences between a project of true intellectual and personal (for the characters or creative team) depth and one where important or major ideas are just used as a means to the end of enticing viewers to spend money might look. The latter kind of work is not executed well enough to be ultimately competent in exploring certain topics it might still touch upon.
When the plot and themes of entertainment are harmonized, there is potential for great depth that goes far beyond what even exploring deep topics with different intentions could allow for. The extent to which philosophically significant ideas are developed is one indicator of how sincere and capable the creators of a work are. Although there might be reasons why the final cut is less intellectually or artistically authentic than it could have been, or even needed to be, that have little to do with some of those directly involved (like objections from executives or a greater desire for broad audience appeal than the desire for depth and sincerity), consistently false or shallow philosophical ideas being featured in stories from a given director are possible evidence that he or she is shallow.
Of course, is it not true that accessibility, artistic quality, and philosophical depth exclude each other so that only one or two of them can be successfully be an aspect of a work of entertainment at a time. It is entirely possible for them to all come together and even necessary for entertainment to reach its greatest and most impactful heights. Everyone has direct access to the laws of logic even if they never choose to take advantage of this, so no one is truly incapable of understanding anything about the themes of a story. It also never benefits a story to omit or develop important themes relevant to the story. No, it only potentially benefits people involved in the creation of entertainment who care about mass appeal and money for the sake of money.
No comments:
Post a Comment